TEAM CODE – NSL02

2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

IN THE MATTER VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. ___/2023

TRANS COUPLE (PETITIONER)
VERSUS
UNION OF ARYAVART (RESPONDENT)

WRIT PETITION NO. ___/2023

NGO (PETITIONER)
VERSUS
UNION OF ARYAVART (RESPONDENT)

WRIT PETITION NO. ___/2023

IMPLEADING PETITION UNDER ORDER 1, RULE 10 (2) OF THE CPC 1908, R/W ARTICLE 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART FOR IMPLEADMENT OF THE APPLICANT AS RESPONDENT
ALL-INDUS MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD (PETITIONER)
VERSUS
NGO (RESPONDENT 01)
TRANS COUPLE (RESPONDENT 02)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENT

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................. 4

List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................ 8

Statement of jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 9

Statement of facts ..................................................................................................................... 9

Issues raised ............................................................................................................................ 10

Summary of arguments ......................................................................................................... 11

Arguments Advanced............................................................................................................. 12

Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Aryavrat or not, and is it
feasible to implement the Uniform Civil Code in a country like Aryavrat? ................. 12

1.1 The PIL filed by the Trans Couple and the NGO before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 is maintainable. ...................................................................................... 12

1.2 Alternative Remedy not a bar ..................................................................................... 15

1.3 It is feasible to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in a country like Aryavart.
.......................................................................................................................................... 16

Whether the UCC is violative of one’s’ fundamental rights and other personal rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart and is it the states’s interference in the
realm of the personal laws of the subjects? ...................................................................... 17

2.1 The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is not a violation of one’s
Fundamental Rights. ......................................................................................................... 17

2.2 The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is not a violation of one’s
Personal Rights. ................................................................................................................ 20

2.3 The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) does not constitute state’s
interference in the realm of personal laws of the subjects. ............................................... 23

Whether the non-issuance of the Birth Certificate for a child born from an LGBTQIA
couple is a violation of the Child’s rights by the state? ................................................... 24

3.1 The non-issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born to an LGBTQIA couple does
constitute a violation of child rights by the state. ............................................................. 24

Page 2 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

3.2 The state has a positive obligation to protect the rights and interests of its subjects. 26

Whether the Constitutional power of Court to frame laws has led to the scenario where
Legislature have become the Executive wing of the Judiciary? ..................................... 28

4.1 Courts have Constitutional Powers to frame laws through Judicial Legislation. ....... 28

4.2 Judicial Activism as a necessity. ................................................................................. 30

4.3 The Court’s role in shaping laws does not necessarily imply that the Legislature has
become subservient to the Judiciary. ................................................................................ 32

Prayer ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Page 3 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• The Constitution of India, 1950.

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013.
CASES
1. A.K Gopalan v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. ............................................... 14
2. Aadhaar (P) Ltd v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. ............................................... 25
3. ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 SCC OnLine SC 609. ................................... 24
4. Ahmedabad Women Action Group & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3614. ..... 24
5. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors., WP (C) 104/2015. ................................. 33
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802. ................................... 32
7. Bhan Ram v. Baijinath, AIR 1962 SC 1476................................................................. 22
8. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others, 1950 SCR 869. ............. 15
9. Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 365. ............... 30
10. Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes, In re, (2020) 15 SCC 280.
...................................................................................................................................... 30
11. D.B.M. Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 2092. ............................... 22
12. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610. ................................................ 32
13. Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, In re, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 355. ........................................................................................................... 29
14. E. P. Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 1974 SCR (2) 348. .............................. 14
15. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555. .................................................. 18
16. Fertilizer Kamgar Union v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 344. .................................................. 31
17. Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD and Ors., 1993 SCR (3) 704. ........................................ 34
18. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 292 1989 SCR. ................................................... 27
19. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 130...................................... 28
20. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369. .................. 29
21. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643. ............................................. 33

Page 4 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

22. Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and
Ors, (2004) Insc 287. ................................................................................................... 13
23. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446. ........ 32
24. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690.. 19
25. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299. ........................................... 34
26. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, SC 213, 1992. ............................................................ 13
27. Jerryl Banait v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 357. ...................................... 30
28. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349. ................................................. 32
29. John Vallamattom & Anr v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611. ................................. 14
30. John Vallamattom & Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.................................. 24
31. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611. ...................................... 17, 18
32. Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1190.
................................................................................................................................ 22, 23
33. Joseph Shine Case v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39. ............................................. 23
34. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (UOI), 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676. .......................... 18
35. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. ................................................ 33
36. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039. ............................... 30
37. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225. ........... 33
38. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625. ............................................. 32
39. Krishna Singh v. Mathur Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707. ...................................................... 22
40. M Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1771. .............................. 31
41. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. .................................................... 32
42. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. ............................................... 33
43. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248. ................................................ 29
44. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621. ............................................... 13
45. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597. ................................................................ 14
46. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625. ........................................... 33
47. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789. ....................................................... 33
48. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others, 1985 AIR 945. ................. 22, 23
49. Ms. Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, 1985 AIR 935. ........................................... 22, 24
50. Narsu Appa Mali v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 Bom 84. .......................................... 21
51. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742.
...................................................................................................................................... 27

Page 5 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

52. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.............. 23, 30
53. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863. ................ 25
54. Navtej Singh Jauhar v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2018 SC 4321. ............................ 19
55. Navtej Singh Jauhar v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4321. ....................................................... 16
56. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321. ......................................... 24
57. Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1982 SC 1099. ............................................ 32
58. Odisha Vikash Parishad v. Union of India, (2020) 7 SCC 264. .................................. 30
59. P. Kannadasan v. State of T.N., (1996) 5 SCC 670. ..................................................... 34
60. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1203................... 32
61. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568..................... 32
62. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473. .......... 32
63. Postsangbam Nigol v. General Officer Commanding, AIR 1997 SC 3435. ................ 32
64. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477. ............................. 23
65. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 SC 2039................................. 27
66. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264. ............................................ 32
67. Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67. .......................... 29
68. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141. .......................................................... 30
69. S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149...................................... 12
70. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (3) 635. ................................................... 22
71. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531................................................... 16
72. Shashank Deo Sudhi v. Union of India, (2020) 5 SCC 132. ........................................ 29
73. Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Other, (2017) 9 SCC 1. ........................................ 17
74. Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 378 1983 SCR. .................................................. 27
75. Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India, (2020) WP (Civil) no.961 of 2018... 12
76. Smt.Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1995
AIR 1531. ..................................................................................................................... 23
77. Srinivasa Iyer v. Saraswathi Ammal, (1953) Mad, 78, (52) A.M.193. ........................ 21
78. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318. ................................................... 33
79. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mandikar, AIR 1991 SC 207................ 32
80. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420. .................................................. 32
81. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498. ............................................... 28
82. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355. ............................... 20

Page 6 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

83. The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmidhar Tirtha
Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282. .................................................................... 20
84. Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 217, 1993 SCR.
...................................................................................................................................... 27
85. UOI v. C Damani & Co., AIR 1980 SC 1149. ............................................................. 31
86. Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SCC 3011. ................................................... 18
87. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241........................................................ 30
88. Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, AIR 1412 1990 SCR..................................................... 26

ARTICLES, BOOKS, COMMENTARIES, DICTIONARIES & JOURNALS

• M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 8th edn., 2018).
• I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (2005).
• K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Lexis Nexis, 7thedn., 2020).
• K.I. Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 14th edn., 2019).
• V.D Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, EBC Webstore, 5th Edn.
• Lord Denning, “Freedom under the Law”, The Hamlym Lectures (1949).
• Justice Kurian Joseph, Judicial Legislation, (2016) 2 SCC J-18.
• Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/anoop-baranwal-v-union-
of-india-election-commission-appointments-background/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2023).
• Bar & Bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/filling-legislative-gaps-a-valid-
ground-for-judge-made-laws (last visited Sept. 29, 2023).
• Anirudh, Can the Supreme Court ask the government to frame a law?, PRS India, (Dec.
23, 2010), https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/can-the-supreme-court-ask-the-government-
to-frame-a-law.
• Mohit Sharma, Judicial Legislation: Whats’ The Lakshman Rekha, (last visited Sept.
29, 2023).

TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Page 7 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Bom. Bombay
Co. Company
Consti. Constitution
Edn. Edition
Etc. Et Cetera
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e., For Example
Ltd. Limited
Mad. Madras
Ors. Others
Pat. Patna
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
r/w read with
Retd. Retired
SC Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
Sec. Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
UCC Uniform Civil Code
UOI Union of India
UT Union Territory
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
WP Writ Petition

Page 8 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____/2023.

The Petitioner has approached this Honourable Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Aryavart, 1950, that reads: “Right to Constitutional Remedies for the enforcement of rights
conferred by the Part III of the Constitution of Aryavart.”

II. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____/2023.

The Petitioner has approached this Honourable Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Aryavart, 1950, that reads: “Right to Constitutional Remedies for the enforcement of rights
conferred by the Part III of the Constitution of Aryavart.”

III. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____/2023.

The Petitioner has approached this Honourable Court to implead as a Respondent under Article
32 of the Constitution of Aryavart, 1950, that reads:“Right to Constitutional Remedies for the
enforcement of rights conferred by the Part III of the Constitution of Aryavart.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aryavart is a Sovereign Country in Asiana consisting of 28 States and 8 Union

territories. Hinduism is a major religion apart from other religions. Only the State of
Kankan which was a Portuguese colony has successfully implemented Uniform Civil
Code (UCC) in Aryavart.
2. Mrinal who is a Hindu trans-man is in a relationship with Akram who is a Muslim
transwoman. They both are residents of Avanti State which doesn’t have the UCC. The
couples waited for a very long to disclose their relationship in Public. In the year 2018,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart decriminalized homosexuality, which had
infused a sense of confidence among the LGBTQ+ community in the Country.
3. Due to the absence of the UCC in Aryavart, they were unable to get their marriage
officially registered, and moreover, they belonged to two different religions. In the
meantime, Mrinal gets pregnant, but their problem gets complicated because, in their
case, though Mirnal gave birth to the child, Mirnal identified himself as a male and
therefore the father. Moreover, since their marriage itself could not be registered, they
were unable to get a birth certificate for their child.

Page 9 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

4. The Couple decided to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart vide filing a
writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of Aryavart with plea of issuance of
birth certificate to their child and recognition of their marriage and consequently sought
to implement the UCC. Meanwhile, an NGO - Samridhi working for the welfare of
Muslim women filed a PIL seeking to implement the UCC throughout the Country of
Aryavart before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to provide access to justice and
legal rights.
5. The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board is opposing Implementation of the UCC.
Hence, they filed an Impleading Petition in both the Litigations filed by the NGO and
the Trans-couple along with violation of secular structure of the Aryavart.
6. The Government of Aryavart is opposing the PIL filed by the Trans-couple on the
ground of maintainability as they have an alternative remedy. The Trans-Couple are
opposing the Impleading Petition filed by All Indus Muslim Personal Law Board as
they find them not to be a necessary party to the proceedings.
7. The Supreme Court recognizing the importance of the case had permitted the hearings
and posted all applications together along with the question of maintainability of PIL
and necessity of impleading Indus Muslim Personal Law Board for hearing.

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the PIL is maintainable in the supreme court of aryavart or not, and is it
feasible to implement the uniform civil code in a country like aryavart?

II. Whether the UCC is violative of one’s’ fundamental rights and other personal rights
guaranteed under the constitution of aryavart and is it the states’s interference in the
realm of the personal laws of the subjects?

III. Whether the non-issuance of the birth certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA
couple is violation of the child’s right by the state?

IV. Whether the constitutional power of court to frame laws has led to the scenario where
legislature have become the executive wing of the judiciary?

Page 10 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVRAT OR NOT, AND
IS IT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN A COUNTRY LIKE ARYAVRAT ?

The PIL filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Aryavart is maintainable as there have been gross violations of fundamental
rights. Regarding the feasibility of the UCC, the Supreme Court in its previous landmark
judgements emphasized the need for a Common Code, particularly in matters of marriage,
succession, and adoption. The court held that a UCC would help achieve gender justice and
protect the rights of women.

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

PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART AND IS IT THE

STATES’S INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS?

The implementation of the UCC in India is not violative of one's fundamental and other
personal rights guaranteed under the constitution of Aryavart. The essence of a UCC lies in
ensuring uniformity in civil matters such as marriage, divorce, succession, and property rights.
It does not seek to regulate religious customs, rituals, or traditions. Each community can
continue to practice its religious beliefs and customs while adhering to a common civil
framework for legal matters.

III. WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE CHILD BORN FROM
A LGBTQIA COUPLE IS VIOLATION OF THE CHILD’S RIGHT BY THE STATE?

The non-issuance of Birth Certificate for the child born to a LGBTQIA couple does constitute
a violation of child rights by the state including fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution
of Aryavart, human rights and other international conventions. Hence, state has positive
obligation to protect the rights and interest of its subjects.

IV. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS HAS LED TO THE

SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY ?

The legislature often fails to keep pace with the changing needs and values nor is it realistic to
expect that it will have provided for all contingencies and eventualities. It is, therefore, not only
necessary but obligatory on the courts to step in to fill the lacuna. Hence to meet the needs of
society, the Judges do make law and it is now recognised everywhere.

Page 11 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART OR NOT, AND
IS IT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN A COUNTRY LIKE ARYAVART?

1.1 THE PIL FILED BY THE TRANS COUPLE AND THE NGO BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE.

[A] THE PETITIONERS ARE HAVING LOCUS STANDI

i. According to the jurisprudence of Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavrat, “The right

to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.” A citizen has the right to approach the Supreme
Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of their fundamental rights mentioned under
Part III of the Constitution. Article 32 is remarked as the heart and soul of the
Constitution. The rights under part III would be meaningless if they cannot be enforced.
As declared in the case of Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India1, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “Article 32 is an important and integral part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Article 32 is meant to ensure observance of the rule of
law. Article 32 provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which is the most
potent weapon.”
ii. As with the reference to the case S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors.2 in this case,
it was held that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mridul challenging
the locus standi of the petitioners is to be rejected. Hence the current case the
petitioners are worried about the violation of the crucial fundamental rights of the
LGBTQ+ community, and the petitioners are seeking justice before this Hon’ble Court
for their fundamental rights as the LGBTQ+ community and homosexual couples still
face discrimination and stigma in the society. Hence, "having a sufficient public
interest" in the proceeding of public interest litigation the petitioners have locus in the
current matter under article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavart.

1
Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India, (2020) WP (Civil) no.961 of 2018.
2
S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149.

Page 12 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

iii. Locus Standi means the legal capacity to sue or approach courts. It is mandatory in
traditional litigation, but a genuine interest or legitimate concern about the issues of the
public will act as a substitute for local standi in a PIL. It was made clear in Janata Dal
v. H.S. Chaudhary3, that only a person ‘acting bona fide ’and ‘having sufficient public
interest’ in the proceeding of public interest litigation will have alone the locus standi.
iv. The respondent may claim that petitioners have a private interest in this petition, so
according to the respondent, only a person "acting bona fide" and "having sufficient
public interest" in the proceeding of public interest litigation will have the locus standi.
But this hon’ble Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and Ors. v. M/s Devkala
Consultancy Service and Ors.4 held that “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner
might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal
grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire
into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.” Thus, a
private interest case can also be treated as a public interest case.

[B] CLEAR VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The counsel on behalf of the petitioners has contended the violation of Articles 14,15, and 21
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart.

i. Article 145 of the Constitution of Aryavart reads as under: “The State shall not deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of Aryavart.” Here relating it to the current case, the petitioner’s equality of
gender and equality of caste before the law and the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of Aryavart has been violated as mentioned in the facts of the case that,
they were unable to get their marriage officially registered as neither of them fell under
the definition of ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ and moreover they belonged to two different
religions.6 By citing this current case, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India7 was also
referred to where it was observed that “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action
and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”

3
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, SC 213, 1992.
4
Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors, (2004) Insc 287.
5
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
6
Factsheet, Para 5.
7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.

Page 13 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

ii. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu8, The second test of Article 14 referred to as
the “new doctrine” or the “arbitrariness test”, was propounded by Bhagwati, J. in this
case. The test postulates that the equality envisaged by Article 14 includes a guarantee
against arbitrariness in State action. This test has subsequently found favor with the
Supreme Court and despite its somewhat vague formulation, has formed the basis on a
number of occasions for State action being declared ultra vires Article 14.
iii. Article 15 9 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. In another significant case John
Vallamattom v. Union of India,10 the Indian Succession Act of 1925 prevented the
petitioners from bequeathing property for religious and charitable purposes. The
petitioner contented it to be discriminatory against the testamentary dispositions by a
Christian. It was also held that the legislation is clearly discriminatory as the properties
of any Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, or Parsi were excluded from the
provisions of the Act. Further, no acceptable reasoning was provided to show why the
provision regulates religious and charitable bequests of Christians alone.
iv. Article 2111 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, held
in the case A.K Gopalan v. the State of Madras12, The Supreme Court has taken a
narrow interpretation of Article 21 in this case. It held that the protection under Article
21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative
action. This means that the state can deprive a person of the rights available in Article
21 based on law and in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI,13 In this case, the SC
overruled its judgment of the Gopalan Case by taking a wider interpretation of Article
21. It ruled that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by law
on the condition that the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable, fair, and just.
Further, it clarified that the right to life does not merely mean animal existence. It held
that all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and
worth living will be included in this.

8
E. P. Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 1974 SCR (2) 348.
9
INDIA CONST. art. 15.
10
John Vallamattom & Anr v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
11
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
12
A.K Gopalan v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
13
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597.

Page 14 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

1.2 Alternative Remedy not a bar

i. Where there is a well-founded allegation that a fundamental right has been infringed
alternative remedy is no bar for entertaining the PILs and granting relief. The mere
existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se a good and sufficient
ground for throwing out a petition under Art. 32 if the existence of a fundamental right
and a breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie established
on the petition.
ii. However, Article 32 is referred to as the "Constitutional Remedy" for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights
and hence cannot be denied to anyone. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the
most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to a nullity. It is
also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the
Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of
these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the
Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds where the infringement of a
Fundamental Right has been established.
iii. The Council on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court can be invoked in any case of violation of a fundamental right
guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of Aryavart as has been observed in the case
of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India,14 amongst the many others. The
constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the
speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right to approach the Supreme
Court for such enforcement itself a fundamental right.
iv. The Fundamental Rights provided in the Aryavart Constitution are guaranteed against
any executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, that infringes
upon the Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared
void by the Courts under Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, equals are not
treated equally, the central government is arbitrary in its action by not making
reasonable criteria for all intermediaries and there is no nexus between the classification
made and the object that sort to be achieved.

14
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others, 1950 SCR 869.

Page 15 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

1.3 IT IS FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) IN A COUNTRY LIKE
ARYAVART.

i. Aryavart has its heart and soul in religio-cultural diversity and the same has been a
feature of Aryavart’s identity in the past, and present and will continue to be in future.
Aryavart has been the land of every religion in the world and no religion in the world
is alien to Aryavart. The great figures of religion from Aryavart have been known to the
world and Aryavart has also accepted the two global religions Christianity and Islam,
which emerged one after another, in the recent past with open arms. The practice of
both for around 2000 years has made both religions integral parts of Aryavart’s
religious-cultural traditions.
ii. Religious tolerance and values have had and will continue to have immense influence
in the Aryavart culturally pluralistic and religiously diverse society. Uniform Civil Code
(UCC) Article 4415 of the Constitution of Aryavart affirms that the “State shall
endeavor to secure for every one of its citizens a uniform civil code all over the
Aryavart.” This Article of the Constitution directs the State of Aryavart to frame and
implement a common civil code for the entire country and no other provision of the
Constitution speaks anything about the Uniform Civil Code. However, the
impracticality of this issue lies in the fact that there are 14.2% Muslims in Aryavrat and
any move towards implementing UCC has received heavy opposition and criticism
from their side. So, it is an injustice to them to impose majority Hindu views on them.
iii. As it was well justified with the landmark case of Navtej Singh Jauhar v. UOI,16 A
five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 377 of the
Aryavart Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalized same-sex relations between
consenting adults. LGBT individuals are now legally allowed to engage in consensual
intercourse. Hence, in the present case, the petitioners are held to be violative of the
right to equality which equally applies to same-sex couples.
iv. The case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India 17
, the Supreme Court emphasized the
need for a Uniform Civil Code, particularly in matters of marriage, succession, and
adoption. The court held that a UCC would help achieve gender justice and protect the
rights of women. It recognized the directive principle under Article 44 and urged the

15
INDIA CONST. art. 44.
16
Navtej Singh Jauhar v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4321.
17
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531.

Page 16 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

government to take steps towards its implementation. In John Vallamattom v. Union

of India 18
,the Court deals with the constitutional validity of the Christian Marriage
Act, of 1872. The Supreme Court upheld the unique legal status of Christian marriages,
emphasizing the complexities surrounding personal laws and the need for careful
consideration before implementing a UCC.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND OTHER PERSONAL
RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART AND IS IT THE STATES’S

INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS ?

2.1 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) IS NOT A VIOLATION OF
ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

[A] EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

i. The most fundamental argument in favour of a UCC is rooted in the principle of

equality before the law, a cornerstone of the Aryavart Constitution. Article 14 of the
Constitution explicitly states that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of Aryavart."19 The
existence of different personal laws based on religion or community inherently leads to
unequal treatment under the law. This inequality is especially apparent in matters of
marriage, divorce, inheritance, and succession.
ii. For instance, under certain personal laws, women may not have the same rights and
protections as men, leading to gender-based discrimination. The UCC aims to rectify
this situation by establishing a common set of laws that applies uniformly to all citizens,
regardless of their religious or community affiliations. In doing so, it ensures that
individuals are treated equally in matters of personal law, upholding the fundamental
principle of equality before the law.
iii. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Other20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the
practice of instant triple-talaq unconstitutional as it directly violated the fundamental

18
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
19
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
20
Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Other, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

Page 17 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

right to equality of Muslim women and directed the government to ban this practice by
bringing a legislation.
iv. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (UOI)21, stands as a momentous legal battle that has
indelibly reshaped the landscape of gender justice and gender equality in India. This
landmark judgment challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC)22, an archaic law that criminalized adultery. The Court resolutely
reaffirmed that the right to equality (Article 14) guarantees equal protection under the
law for men and women alike. It held that Section 497’s selective criminalization of
men for adultery, while exonerating women, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
v. In John Vallamattom v. Union of India23, Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act24
put an embargo only on Christians on bequeathing property to charitable or religious
uses. The provision was challenged in the Supreme Court on the rationale of right to
equality and the court held that it violated Article 14 therefore the said provision was
declared ultra vires.
vi. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Aryavart delivered a groundbreaking judgment in the
case of Visakha v. State of Rajasthan25, This landmark case is a crucial milestone in
Aryavart’s legal history and has had a profound impact on the country’s fight against
sexual harassment. The judgment recognized that sexual harassment is not just a
personal matter but a violation of a woman’s fundamental right to equality and a safe
workplace.
vii. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu26, stands as a landmark case in Aryavart’s legal
history, profoundly impacting the understanding of equality before the law and the
scope of administrative discretion. In its seminal judgment, the Supreme Court
embarked on a profound exposition of the principles of equality, administrative
discretion, and the rule of law.

[B] RIGHT TO NON-DISCRIMINATION

i. Closely related to the principle of equality is the right to non-discrimination. Article 15

of the Aryavart Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race,

21
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (UOI), 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676.
22
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 497, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
23
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
24
The Indian Succession Act, 1925, § 118, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1925 (India).
25
Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SCC 3011.
26
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555.

Page 18 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

caste, sex, or place of birth27. Personal laws, which often vary based on religious
affiliations, can lead to discriminatory practices. For instance, some personal laws may
permit practices or customs that discriminate against women or certain castes.
ii. By implementing a UCC, the government can eliminate such discrimination and ensure
that individuals are not subjected to unequal treatment solely because of their religious
beliefs. This not only aligns with the right to non-discrimination but also contributes to
the overall goal of achieving social justice and equality in Indian society.
iii. Navtej Singh Jauhar v. Union of India (UOI)28, is a momentous legal battle that has
indelibly altered the landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in Aryavart. This historic case
challenged the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Aryavart Penal Code29, a
colonial-era law that criminalized consensual homosexual acts. The judgment
underscored that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a grave violation of the
principle of equality enshrined in the Aryavart Constitution. It proclaimed that the
Constitution embraces all, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
iv. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala30, is a groundbreaking case that
has etched its place in the annals of Aryavart’s legal history. This historic judgment
revolves around the age-old tradition at the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women
of menstruating age were prohibited from entering the sacred shrine. The Indian Young
Lawyers’ Association, along with other activists, contested this discriminatory practice,
arguing that it violated the fundamental rights of women guaranteed by the Aryavart
Constitution. The Court unequivocally upheld that women possess the same
constitutional rights as men and cannot be subjected to discrimination based on gender,
age, or biological factors.
v. In conclusion, the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in Aryavart is not a
violation of one's Fundamental Rights. On the contrary, it aligns with the constitutional
principles of equality, non-discrimination, and gender equality, while also promoting
legal certainty, simplification, and national integration. A well-crafted UCC can strike
a balance between respecting religious freedoms and upholding the core principles of
justice and equality, ensuring that Fundamental Rights are preserved and protected for

27
INDIA CONST. art. 15.
28
Navtej Singh Jauhar v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2018 SC 4321.
29
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 377, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
30
Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690.

Page 19 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

all citizens. Ultimately, a UCC can contribute to building a more just, equitable, and
unified society in Aryavart, in accordance with the ideals of its Constitution.

2.2 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) IS NOT A VIOLATION OF
ONE’S PERSONAL RIGHTS.

[A] PRESERVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

i. The Right to Freedom of Religion, protected under Article 25 of the Aryavart

Constitution, guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's
religion31. Importantly, the implementation of the UCC does not interfere with an
individual's right to hold and practice their religious beliefs. It merely regulates civil
matters, leaving religious practices and rituals untouched. This clear demarcation
between religious and civil affairs ensures that the UCC does not encroach upon the
sacrosanct realm of faith. In essence, one's right to practice religion remains fully intact
under a UCC, reaffirming the compatibility of the two.
ii. In the Shirur Mutt case32, the Supreme Court held that "a religion may not only lay
down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and
observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of
religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and
dress".
iii. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation33, it was held that the State is not prevented from making
any law in relation to religious practice and the same is permissible under Article
25(2)(a) of the Constitution of Aryavart. Article 25(2) gives specific power to the State
to make any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice as provided by sub-
clause (a) of Article 25(2).
iv. Aryavart is a land of diverse religious beliefs and practices, and a UCC recognizes and
respects this pluralism. It does not seek to homogenize or erode the rich tapestry of
religious traditions. Instead, it acknowledges that while people follow different faiths,
they share a common legal framework as citizens of a secular nation. This coexistence

31
INDIA CONST. art. 25.
32
The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmidhar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt,
1954 AIR 282.
33
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355.

Page 20 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

between religious freedom and a unified legal system underscores India's commitment
to respecting and preserving its religious diversity.

[B] PRESERVING CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

i. Articles 29 and 30 of the Aryavart Constitution safeguard the cultural and educational
rights of minorities. These provisions ensure that minorities can establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice and protect their unique cultural
heritage. A UCC, if appropriately designed, does not interfere with these rights. It
specifically focuses on civil matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, leaving
cultural and educational domains untouched. This demarcation ensures that the UCC
does not encroach upon the rights of minorities to preserve their cultural and
educational institutions.
ii. Article 29 guarantees the right of minorities to conserve their distinct language, script,
or culture.34 Similarly, Article 30 provides minorities the freedom to establish and
administer educational institutions while maintaining their religious and linguistic
character.35 A UCC, when implemented, respects these rights by concentrating solely
on secular aspects of life, such as civil laws. It does not infringe upon the freedom of
minorities to practice their religion or preserve their linguistic and cultural identities, as
these aspects remain outside the scope of the UCC.
iii. Narsu Appa Mali v. State of Bombay36, the question raised was regard to the validity
of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946 and the act was
challenged contenting that, this act is in violation of part III (fundamental rights)-
Article 14, 15 and 25 in specific. The court held that, if a religious practice is against
the public morality or public policy, the religious practice should subordinate the
welfare or good of the people. That is, it is the welfare of the people that should prevail.
iv. There was similar case like Narsu Appa Mali, Srinivasa Iyer v. Saraswathi Ammal37,
and the question was whether Madras Hindu Bigamous (Prevention and Divorce) Act,
1949 was in violation of Article 15 and Article 25. The same as Narsu Appa Mali was
held in this case also. The court held that such legislations are for the public good and
are not discriminatory.

34
INDIA CONST. art. 29.
35
INDIA CONST. art. 30.
36
Narsu Appa Mali v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 Bom 84.
37
Srinivasa Iyer v. Saraswathi Ammal, (1953) Mad, 78, (52) A.M.193.

Page 21 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

v. In Krishna Singh v. Mathur Ahir38, it was held that Part III does not touch upon the
personal laws of the parties and in Bhan Ram v. Baijinath39, the court pronounced that,
though the term “law” includes all ‘laws in force’ i.e., custom40, usage, etc. having the
force of law, personal laws of Hindus, Muslims and Christians are excluded from the
definition of “law” for the purpose of this Article. If personal laws are added to the
ambit of Article13 (3), the religious proceedings, which are discriminatory, will be in
conflict with the Part III.
vi. The apex court in Shah Bano Case 41said that it is a matter of regret that Article 4442
of the Constitution has remained a dead letter. The apex Court also said that a common
civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to
laws which have conflicting ideologies. It was also observed that the state is charged
with the obligation of securing UCC for the Citizens of the Country. Moreover, in the
case of Sarla Mudgal Case43, which dealt with issue of bigamy and conflict between
the personal laws existing on matters of marriage, the apex court said and expressed the
same meaning to Article 44 of the Aryavart Constitution. Furthermore, the apex court
in the case of Ms. Jordan Diengdeh Case44, opined and observed for the reformation
of law of marriages by having a uniform law applicable to all people irrespective of
religion and caste.
vii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina
Pereira45 observed that “Goa is a shining example of an Aryavart State which has a
uniform civil code applicable to all, regardless of religion except while protecting
certain limited rights.”
viii. In conclusion, the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in Aryrvart can align with
and respect the minority rights enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Aryavart
Constitution. A well-structured UCC does not encroach upon the cultural, educational,
or religious rights of minorities, as it focuses exclusively on civil matters. It upholds
the broader ideals of equality and non-discrimination while ensuring that minority
interests are safeguarded through constitutional amendments and a consultative

38
Krishna Singh v. Mathur Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707.
39
Bhan Ram v. Baijinath, AIR 1962 SC 1476.
40
D.B.M. Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 2092.
41
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others, 1985 AIR 945.
42
INDIA CONST. art. 44.
43
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (3) 635.
44
Ms. Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, 1985 AIR 935.
45
Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1190.

Page 22 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

approach. A UCC, when thoughtfully designed, can be a tool for fostering inclusivity,
accommodating the diverse needs of minority groups, and advancing the principles of
justice and equality within the Indian constitutional framework.

2.3 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
STATE’S INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS .

i. Personal matters such as marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, maintenance and

property rights are the most crucial and pivotal affair and directly affects right to life,
liberty and dignity, guaranteed under Article 21.46 Discriminatory grounds of divorce,
succession & inheritance, adoption, maintenance not only reinforce patriarchal
stereotypical notions but also contravene principles of gender justice, gender equality
and dignity of women guaranteed under Articles 1447, 1548 and 2149 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority50, Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan51
and Jeeja Ghosh Case52 has held that right to live with dignity implies right to not be
perceived as unequal or inferior individual in society. The Hon’ble Court in Joseph
Shine Case 53
observed that the law that treats women differently based on gender
stereotypes causes direct affront to women’s dignity and violates Articles 14, 15 & 21.
ii. Implementing uniform grounds of succession and inheritance will strengthen
constitutional ethos, as laid down in Part-III54 and IV55 of the Constitution of Aryavart
and regarded as the heart and soul of the Constitution. Therefore, being protector of
fundamental rights & custodian of the Constitution, this Hon’ble Court cannot be a
mute spectator now. This Hon’ble Court has reiterated the need of uniform civil code
in catena of judgments- Shah Bano56, Sarla Mudgal57, Jose Paulo Coutinho58, ABC

46
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
47
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
48
INDIA CONST. art. 15.
49
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
50
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
51
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477.
52
Ibid.
53
Joseph Shine Case v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.
54
INDIA CONST. Part III (Fundamental Rights).
55
INDIA CONST. Part IV (Fundamental Duties).
56
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others, 1985 AIR 945.
57
Smt.Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1995 AIR 1531.
58
Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1190.

Page 23 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

v. State NCT of Delhi, 59John Vallamattom60, Ahmedabad Women Action Group61 &
Jorden Diengdeh62etc.
iii. The essence of a UCC lies in ensuring uniformity in civil matters such as marriage,
divorce, succession, and property rights. It does not seek to regulate religious customs,
rituals, or traditions. Each community can continue to practice its religious beliefs and
customs while adhering to a common civil framework for legal matters.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR A CHILD BORN FROM AN
LGBTQIA COUPLE IS A VIOLATION OF THE CHILD’S RIGHTS BY THE STATE?

3.1 THE NON-ISSUANCE OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR A CHILD BORN TO AN LGBTQIA

COUPLE DOES CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF CHILD RIGHTS BY THE STATE .

[A] RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ARTICLE 14)

i. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner states that the denial of a birth certificate to a
child born to an LGBTQIA couple is a direct contravention of Article 14 of the Aryavrat
Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law. The principle of
equality prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation. By
refusing to issue a birth certificate, the State is perpetuating discrimination against
LGBTQIA individuals and their children, thereby violating their right to equality.
ii. Referring to the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India63, the Supreme Court of
India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, affirming the equality and dignity of
LGBTQIA individuals. This landmark judgment underscored the need for equal
treatment under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

[B] RIGHT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 15)

i. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner’s states that Article 15 of the Constitution
prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including sex and sexual orientation.
Denying a birth certificate to a child born to an LGBTQIA couple is a clear instance of

59
ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 SCC OnLine SC 609.
60
John Vallamattom & Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
61
Ahmedabad Women Action Group & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3614.
62
Ms. Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, 1985 AIR 935.
63
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.

Page 24 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the parents, which is expressly

prohibited by this provision.
ii. With reference to a case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India,64
commonly known as the NALSA judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the rights
of transgender individuals and held that discrimination on the grounds of gender
identity and sexual orientation is a violation of their fundamental rights.

[C] RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW (ARTICLE 21)

i. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners further adds that the right to personal liberty
and due process of law under Article 2165 encompasses the right to identity and
recognition. Denying a birth certificate to a child not only hampers their access to
essential services and entitlements but also infringes upon their right to individual
identity, which is integral to their personal liberty.
ii. As held in the case of Aadhaar (P) Ltd v. Union of India,66 the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of individual identity and recognized it as an integral aspect
of personal liberty.
iii. In light of the above, it is imperative that the State rectify this situation promptly and
ensure that children born to LGBTQIA couples are granted the same rights and
privileges as any other citizen of Aryavrat. Upholding these rights is not just a legal
obligation but a moral imperative for a society that values inclusivity, equality, and
dignity for all its citizens.
iv. The non-issuance of a birth certificate for a child can indeed be considered a violation
of the child's rights. This is because a birth certificate is a fundamental document that
establishes a child's legal identity, nationality, and other crucial information. Without a
birth certificate, a child may face numerous challenges, such as difficulties in accessing
education, healthcare, social services, and even protection from exploitation and
trafficking.
v. With relevance to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
Article 767: This article recognizes every child's right to be registered at birth and to

64
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863.
65
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
66
Aadhaar (P) Ltd v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
67
Article 7, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Page 25 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

have a name, the right to acquire a nationality, and the right to know and be cared for
by his or her parents.
vi. Universal Declaration of Human Rights point shall also be raised as Article 15(1)68:
"Everyone has the right to a nationality." Without any discrimination and inequality.
vii. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) talks about Article
24(2)69: "Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name."
however Many national constitutions also contain provisions recognizing the right to a
nationality and the importance of birth registration.
viii. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners trusts that this matter will be given the urgent
attention it warrants and that appropriate steps will be taken to rectify this violation of
child rights.

3.2 THE STATE HAS A POSITIVE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF ITS
SUBJECTS.

i. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that Children's rights need to be protected for several reasons. Firstly, children
are weak members of society who may not have the skills, knowledge, or resources to
safeguard their personal interests and welfare. To ensure their security, well-being, and
general development, their rights must be maintained.
ii. Second, safeguarding the rights of children is crucial since it enables them to reach their
full potential. Children have a right to receive healthcare, education, and other essentials
for their well-being. Children are more likely to succeed in life and develop into
engaged, productive members of society whenever these rights are upheld.
iii. Subsequently, safeguarding children's rights is essential because it fosters social and
economic growth. Children are more inclined to benefit their communities and the
overall economy when they are healthy, educated, and empowered. This may then result
in more wealth and well-being for everyone as held in the case of Vishal Jeet v. Union
of India70 highlighted the link between child welfare and overall societal progress. The
Supreme Court emphasized that investing in the health, education, and well-being of
children contributes to the development of a productive and prosperous society.

68
Article 15 (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
69
Article 24 (2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
70
Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, AIR 1412 1990 SCR.

Page 26 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

iv. As held in the cases pertaining to the Protection of Weak Members of Society, In Sheela
Barse v. Union of India,71 the Supreme Court recognized the importance of providing
legal aid to children in need of care and protection. This case emphasized that children,
as vulnerable members of society, require special protection and advocacy to safeguard
their rights. The case pertaining to Enabling Children to Reach Their Full Potential, so,
in Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.72 is a pivotal case
affirming the right to education. The Supreme Court held that education is a
fundamental right under Article 21, and the State has a duty to provide free and
compulsory education to children up to the age of fourteen. This decision underscored
the significance of education in realizing a child's full potential, moreover, referring to
the case of the Supreme Court in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India73 decided that it's not
in the children's best interests to keep them isolated from other children if they have a
parent who works in the prostitution industry.
v. Lastly, it is important to uphold children's rights because doing so is morally required.
Children have some basic rights just by virtue of being humans. These rights include
the right to life, the right to be protected, and the right to participate in decisions that
affect their lives.
vi. Ultimately, children's rights are vital because they assure their safety, allow them to
maximize their abilities, encourage social and economic growth, and are a moral
necessity. Governments, parents, and other adults are accountable for protecting the
rights of children preserved and safeguarded.
vii. In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India74, this Court was confronted with the
question as to whether a doctor has the professional obligation to instantaneously
extend his services to a person brought for medical treatment, without any delay on the
pretext of compliance with procedural criminal law. This court declared that the
obligation of a doctor to extend his services with due expertise, for protecting life was
paramount and absolute and any laws of procedure which would interfere with the
discharge of this obligation, would be antithetical to Article 21 of the Constitution.
viii. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh75, this Court
considered a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, pertaining to the

71
Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 378 1983 SCR.
72
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 217, 1993 SCR.
73
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 292 1989 SCR.
74
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 SC 2039.
75
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742.

Page 27 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

threats held out by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union, to force Chakmas out
of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is to be noted that in the said case, this Court cited
the Fundamental Rights of persons under Article 21 in directing the State to protect the
rights of Chakmas from threats by private actors.
ix. In Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India76, this Court, in directing the respondents
therein to provide ex gratia monetary compensation to the families of the deceased who
have succumbed to the pandemic of Covid-19, in view of Section 12 of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, relied on Article 21 of the Constitution.
x. Similarly, in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India77, this Court relied on Article 21 of the
Constitution, in issuing a writ of mandamus to the Union of India, to effectively
implement the National Food Security, 2013 in certain parts of the country which had
been affected due to drought.
xi. The aforesaid cases illustrate that this Court has observed that the State is bound to
protect the life and liberty of every human being.

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS HAS LED TO THE
SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY?

4.1 COURTS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO FRAME LAWS THROUGH JUDICIAL

LEGISLATION.

i. Judicial legislation is nothing but law pronounced, proclaimed and declared by the
judiciary–more particularly the Supreme Court, this is also known as “judicial law” or
“Judge-made law”. Even though enacting legislation is the constitutional prerogative
of the legislature. There may be circumstances where the existing laws made by the
legislature prove to be inadequate in the process of administration of justice. It is said
that even if Parliament and State Legislatures in Aryavart make laws for 24 hours a day
and 365 days a year, the quantum of law cannot be sufficient to the changing needs of
the modern society.78

76
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 130.
77
Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498.
78
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (2005).

Page 28 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

ii. “The legislature often fails to keep pace with the changing needs and values nor is it
realistic to expect that it will have provided for all contingencies and eventualities. It
is, therefore, not only necessary but obligatory on the courts to step in to fill the
lacuna.”79 In such situations, the directions issued by the higher judiciary, to fill the
vacuum until the legislature enacts substantive law is also a constitutional prerogative
to meet the ends of the justice. Hence to meet the needs of society, the Judges do make
law and it is now recognised everywhere.
iii. But this shall not be vented out as negative activism, as Judge-made law or judicial law
is also formally recognised under Article 1380, where legislature or “other competent
authority” is inclusive of judiciary and even considering wide power of the Court under
Articles 3281, 22682, 22783, 14184 and 14485 it is quite clear that the Constitution has
bestowed the power on the courts to legislate wisely.86
iv. In the post emergency era, Maneka Gandhi’s87 judgment brought human rights
jurisprudence by widening the scope of various constitutional provisions. For example,
Articles 1488 and 2189 has been expanded manifold by judicial creativity. Later on,
public interest litigation was a stepping stone devised by the constitutional courts
(Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar)90 for ameliorating the social
and economic conditions of the society resulted in the evolution of human rights,
environmental, compensatory jurisprudence and more so the poverty jurisprudence.91
v. In connection with the impact of Covid-19, the Supreme Court has passed very bold
orders, to minimise fatalities. These orders/guidelines of the Supreme Court to ensure
proper management of the Covid-19 pandemic were also a form of judicial legislation.
In such petitions various guidelines on aspects like fixing prices of testing and kits92,
guidelines for equitable distribution of essential supplies and services93, checking

79
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67.
80
INDIA CONST. art. 13.
81
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
82
INDIA CONST. art. 226.
83
INDIA CONST. art. 227.
84
INDIA CONST. art. 141.
85
INDIA CONST. art. 144.
86
Mohit Sharma, Judicial Legislation: Whats’ The Lakshman Rekha, 10-12-2021.
87
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248.
88
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
89
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
90
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369.
91
S.K. Verma and Kusum, Fifty years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (2001).
92
Shashank Deo Sudhi v. Union of India, (2020) 5 SCC 132.
93
Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 355.

Page 29 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

hoarding and illicit trade, safety and well-being of children protection homes94,
healthcare professionals95, directives to the States/UTs to release prisoners on parole
to decongest prisons96; guidelines to be followed for Puri Jagganath Rath Yatra97 and
many more.
vi. In the case of Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.98 which held the State is
immune and cannot be held liable for its tortious acts. Though there is no express
provision for awarding compensation in the Aryavart Constitution, this judgment was
based on the Court’s interpretation of the extent of its remedial powers. The Court held
that “The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of
instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their
protection the powers of the State as a shield”.99
vii. In the famous case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan100, the Supreme Court’s elaborate
guidelines to keep a check on sexual harassment at workplaces. The Court stated that
the guidelines are to be treated as a declaration of law in accordance with Article 141
of the Constitution until Parliament legislates on the subject. These guidelines served
their purpose for 15 long years until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.101
viii. The Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India 102declared that the
Union and State Governments must grant recognition to the third gender in the eye of
the law. Further, they should get to enjoy healthcare, education, etc. and all government
documents such as ration cards, passports, etc. should recognise the third gender. It also
directed the Election Commission of Aryavart to take special measures to enroll.

4.2 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS A NECESSITY.

i. The concept of judicial activism takes place when the judiciary is given the power to
review the act done by states. These powers are drawn from the constitution of Aryavart

94
Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes, In re, (2020) 15 SCC 280.
95
Jerryl Banait v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 357.
96
Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 365.
97
Odisha Vikash Parishad v. Union of India, (2020) 7 SCC 264.
98
Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039.
99
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141.
100
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
101
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, No. 14,
Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
102
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.

Page 30 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

which empower them to play an effective task by asserting themselves. Article 13103
r/w Article 32104 for Supreme Court and article 226105 for high court allow the higher
judiciary to declare any law or executive action void or unconstitutional if it is found to
be in contravention of the fundamental rights given under Part III of the Aryavart
constitution. In the case of Fertilizer Kamgar Union v. UOI106, it was held that power
given under article 32 to the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure doctrine as
Part III of the Aryavart constitution would be of no use if there is no antidote available
for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
ii. The Supreme Court can also grant Special Leave Petition (SLP) under article 136 107 of
the constitution to appeal any judgement from the lower court or tribunal court. In the
case of UOI v. C Damani & Co.108, the court held that judgement by the Supreme Court
under article 136 can be discretionary base on the principle of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
iii. The most significant provision regarding judicial activism in the Aryavart constitution
is Article 142109 which empowers the apex court to make an order for doing complete
justice in the matter at hand. The recent example of such an order is the judgement
delivered in the noted case of M Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. 110
(Also
known as Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid case) where the Supreme court overruled
the judgement given by Allahabad High court (2010) under article 142 of the Aryavart
constitution. In Aryavart, the power to make laws originally lies with the Parliament
but the Supreme court has the power to legislate through the power vested by article
142 of the Aryavart constitution.
iv. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various landmark judgements touches every aspect of
human life through judicial activism and tried to save the interest of people by actively
evolving the horizon of Fundamental Rights. It is the activist approach due to which
innumerable rights crucial for the welfare of the citizens have been inferred from article
21of the Constitution of Aryavart dealing with protection of life and personal liberty. It
is notable in the following area:

103
INDIA CONST. art. 13.
104
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
105
INDIA CONST. art. 226.
106
Fertilizer Kamgar Union v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 344.
107
INDIA CONST. art. 136.
108
UOI v. C Damani & Co., AIR 1980 SC 1149.
109
INDIA CONST. art. 142.
110
M Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1771.

Page 31 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Bonded Labour – Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India111, People’s Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India112, Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P. 113etc., are
the cases decided on the issue in welfare of the bonded labourer. Protection of
Environment – Right to live in pollution free environment was recognized in Subhash
Kumar v. State of Bihar114 and directions were issued for the protection of environment
in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India115, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union
of India116. Privacy – Right to privacy has been recognized as a part of the right to life
and personal liberty in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India117, R.
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu118, State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan
Mandikar.119 Protection of Prisoners – In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 120
right
against illegal arrest, in Postsangbam Nigol v. General Officer Commanding121 right
Against police torture, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India122, right
against fake encounter, in Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan123, right against
inhuman treatment, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal124 right of compensation for
death in police custody, etc., have been recognised for protection of prisoners.

4.3 THE COURT’S ROLE IN SHAPING LAWS DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS BECOME SUBSERVIENT TO THE JUDICIARY.

i. The Judge-made law can be validated when there is serious lacuna or vacuum which
has to be filled and left unattended by the legislature, as even “Judges cannot afford to
be timorous souls. They cannot remain impotent, incapable and sterile in the face of
injustice”125. Moreover, it is a constitutional obligation of the court to ensure justice is
delivered. It is only the tradition that Judges “find” and do not “make” law.126 But

111
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
112
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
113
Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1982 SC 1099.
114
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
115
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.
116
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
117
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
118
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.
119
State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mandikar, AIR 1991 SC 207.
120
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349.
121
Postsangbam Nigol v. General Officer Commanding, AIR 1997 SC 3435.
122
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1203.
123
Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625.
124
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
125
Lord Denning, “Freedom under the Law”, The Hamlym Lectures (1949).
126
Justice Kurian Joseph, Judicial Legislation, (2016) 2 SCC J-18.

Page 32 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

through interpretative technique, the Judges not only make and state what the law is but
they also assert what it ought to be.127 In the same way, judicial creativity can also be
justified if there is a peculiar issue at hand which has a dead end. For instance, in I.C.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab128, the Supreme Court has invented the doctrine of
“prospective overruling” as it would have upset everything done so far in the agrarian
field.129 Even the basic structure130, doctrine of harmonious construction131, pith and
substance132 etc., can also be categorised into this. Laws enacted need to fulfil the needs
of the people, with changing time, expanding the scope of existing provisions in the
Constitution is also legitimate. For instance, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India133
and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India134 scope of Article 21135 is expanded manifolds
and new dimensions were mandated by the Court.
ii. In its recent judgment (Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors.136) on appointment
of Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between supplanting
the legislature and supplementing it through such directions.137 It held that the
appointment by the executive was to be a stop-gap arrangement until a law was passed,
and the absence of such a law even after seven decades indicated a legislative vacuum.
The Court explained that while separation of powers “is meant to prevent tyranny of
power flowing from the assumption of excess power in one source”, it needs to be
understood that there is a difference between supplanting the legislature and
supplementing it through such directions.138
iii. In the case of Minerva Mill’s case139, the Apex Court by deleting section 4 and 5 of the
42nd Amendment Act to be ultra vires maintained its supremacy and its role as the
watchdog of the Constitution. About Section 4 of the said amendment, which sought to
oust the jurisdiction of the Court, Mr. N.A. Palikhivala has observed that provision was

127
Justice Kurian Joseph, Judicial Legislation, (2016) 2 SCC J-18.
128
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
129
V.D Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, EBC Webstore, 5th Edn., p.215.
130
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
131
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.
132
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
133
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
134
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
135
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
136
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors., WP (C) 104/2015.
137
Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/anoop-baranwal-v-union-of-india-election-
commission-appointments-background/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2023).
138
Bar & Bench, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/filling-legislative-gaps-a-valid-ground-for-judge-
made-laws (last visited Sept. 29, 2023).
139
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789.

Page 33 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

clearly ultra vires the amending power of the parliament. That destroyed the balance of
power between the legislatures and sought to deprive the citizens of the modes of
redress which are guaranteed by Article 32.
iv. In the case of P. Kannadasan v. State of T.N.140, the Supreme Court held that the
constitution has invested the constitutional courts with the power to invalidate laws
made by Parliament and State Legislature transgressing constitutional limitations. But
this does not mean that the legislature which is competent to enact that law cannot re-
enact that law.
v. In Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD and Ors.141 case, the Court stated that there is an urgent
need to enact a legislation to regulate hawking, and the rights of street vendors. It
referred to a Bill which had been framed by the government, and stated that since the
government has already taken the first step in the legislative process by drafting a Bill,
the legislative process should be completed. On the basis of this, and other reasons, it
directed the government to enact a law.142
vi. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain143, it was duly observed by the Hon’ble Court
that: “In the Aryavart Constitution there is separation of powers in a broad sense only.
A strict separation of powers provided under the American Constitution or as per the
Australian Constitution does not apply to Aryavart.”

140
P. Kannadasan v. State of T.N., (1996) 5 SCC 670.
141
Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD and Ors., 1993 SCR (3) 704.
142
Anirudh, Can the Supreme Court ask the government to frame a law?, PRS India, (Dec. 23, 2010),
https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/can-the-supreme-court-ask-the-government-to-frame-a-law.
143
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

Page 34 of 35
 2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

PRAYER

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

I. The PIL filed by the NGO and the Trans Couple before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court is maintainable and it is feasible to implement the Uniform Civil Code in a
country like Aryavart.
II. The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code is not violative of one’s’
fundamental rights and other personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution
of Aryavart, and it does not constitute the States’s interference in the realm of the
personal laws of the subjects.
III. The non-issuance of Birth Certificate for the child born to a LGBTQIA couple
does constitute a violation of child rights by the State and the State has a positive
obligation to protect the rights and interests of its subjects.
IV. Courts have Constitutional Powers to frame laws through Judicial Legislation and
the court’s role in shaping laws does not necessarily imply that the Legislature has
become subservient to the Judiciary.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

And for this act kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.

All of which is humbly Prayed,

NSL02,

Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners

Page 35 of 35