TC -15

4TH SJCL NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COMPETITION, 2024

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARANYARAJ,

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 IN W.P No.___ of 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARANYARAJ

Khawateen-o-Samanadhikar, ….PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF ARANYARAJ & AND 3 OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

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

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARANAYARAJ

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF PETITIONER– TC 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF
FACTS…………………………………………………………………………………………...

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUES
RAISED…………………………………………………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………

PLEADINGS…………………………………………………………………………………

I. The practice of Talaq-a-Hasan is void and unconstitutional………………………

A. Talaq-a-Hasan is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Art.13……………………
B. Talaq-a-Hasan is in contravention of fundamental rights……….
1. Talaq-a-Hasan is in contravention of right to equality under Art. 14……
2. Talaq-a-Hasan is in contravention of right to life under Art. 21….
3. Talaq-a-Hasan is not protected under Art. 25 and 26………

II. The Act doesn’t violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
India, particularly Articles 14, 15, 2, 25, and 26.
A. The UCC may impose certain restrictions on personal choices regarding
marriage, inheritance, and adoption, that doesn’t impact the Petitioners right to
live with dignity and make autonomous decisions about their life.
III. Customary law discriminates against women.
A. Violates Petitioner's fundamental rights under the Aranyaraj Constitution.
B. Equal distribution among mother and all children is sought (1/4th each).
C. Denial based on gender is unconstitutional discrimination under Art. 14 and Art.
21.
1. Nishi tribal customary laws discriminate women from inheriting the property
and it’s a clear violation of Art. 14.
2. Nishi tribal laws in contravention of right conferred by constitution of
Aranyaraj under Art. 14, 21.
3. Laws which violate the fundamental rights of individuals is unconstitutional
and void.

IV. Presumption of marriage in long term Live-in-relationship

A. Denying succession rights based on the absence of formal marriage discriminates
against couple choosing live-in-relationship under Art.21 right to life.
B. The State’s interference in their cohabitation infringes upon right to form a family
and live with dignity under Art. 21.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 C. Rachel’s equally financial contribution to the apartment purchase entitles her to a
share of the property.
1. Consider the long-term cohabitation, and a child the honourable court should
presume a marriage-like relationship existed between Rachel and Raj.
2. Consider Roxana as biological daughter and has an undeniable right to inherit his
estate, regardless of the marital status of her parents.

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

W.P Writ Petition

AIR All India report

Art Article

Edn. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

Pg. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

& And

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ICCP International Covenant Civil and Political Rights

CRC Convention on the rights of the child

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination

Against Women
V. Versus

i.e. That is

IPC. Indian penal code

Ors. Others

MANU Manupatra

UCC Uniform Civil Code

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

HSA Hindu Succession Act

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Sl. No. CASES CITATION

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2017 SCC 4609

2. Joseph Shine v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4898

3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1980 AIR 1789

4. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531

5. John Vallamatton v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902

6. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3196

7. S P S Balasubramaniyam v. Suruttayan 1994 SCC (1) 460

8. D. Velusamy v. D Patchhaiammal MANU/SE/0872/2010

9. Danial Latifi v. Union of India AIR 2001 SC 3958

10. Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

11. Vidyadhari & Ors., v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors,. 2008 (2) SCC 238

12. Tulsa & Ors,. v. Durghatiya & Ors AIR 2008 SC 1193

13. Payal Sharma v. Narl Niketan AIR 2001 All 254

14. Supriyo @ Supriya Charkraborty v. Union of India AIR 2023 INSC 920

15. Suresh Kumar Kaushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation AIR 2014 SC 563

16. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala AIR 2018 SC 243

17. Vasantha R. vs Union of India (2001) IILLJ843MAD

18. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985 AIR 945 SCR

19. Air India V. Nergesh Meerza 1981 (4) SCC 335

20. Vishaka and Ors., V. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011

21. Mohd. Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 945

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

22. Kamla neithi V. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2023) 3 SCC 528

23. Arunachala Gounder V. Ponnusamy (2022) 11 SCC 520

24. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil SCC Online SC 737

Valsan

24. Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1

25. Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT

721

STATUTES

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1975

2. SHARIAT APPLICATION ACT, 1937
3. INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
4. UDHR ACT, 1948
5. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
6. ICCPR, 1966
7. ICESCR, 1966
8. CEDAW, 1979
9. CRC, 1989

BOOKS

Sl. No. Books

1. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (26TH EDITION)
2. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE (36TH EDITION)
3. MULLA, PRINCIPLES OF MAHOMEDAN LAW, (2023 EDITION)
4. V.N. SHUKLA’S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14TH EDITION)
5. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 909 (7th edn, 2014)
6. “P.M. BAKSHI”, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA“. 17th Edition
2020.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

7. B.R.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Art. 14, Constitution on India

Art. 21, Constitution on India

Art. 25, Constitution on India

Art. 26, Constitution on India

Art. 32, Constitution on India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION

This memorandum is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aranayaraj, which has clubbed
PIL submitted by Khawateen-o-Samanadhikar (under Article 32) on behalf of all the petitioners.

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ARANAYARAJ, 1950

REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS PART

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part1.

1
Article 32 reads as under: 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2)
The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part. (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1)
and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of
the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be
suspended except as otherwise provided for by this constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 PROMINENT FEATURE OF THE ARANYARAJ

The Republic of Aranyaraj is the largest democracy in the world. The preamble of the

constitution of Aranyaraj declares the country to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular,

Democratic, Republic. The demography of Aranyaraj comprises people from various

religions, castes, ethnicity, and social strata. Bach of the communities, tribes based upon

religion and geography have different customary laws when it comes to the matters of

Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance, Adoption and other family laws. This has resulted in hardship

for the women in certain communities as there are still some communities which adhere to

age-old tradition and customs.

 RIGHTS CONFFERED TO INDIVIDUALS

The Republic of Aranyaraj grants its people right to religion as a matter of constitutional right

which allows the individual communities right to carry out the age-old practices without

being questioned or challenged in the court of law subject to reasonable restrictions.

However, recently the court has taken more of a constitutional stance when determining the

validity of the customary laws, it has tried to distinguish the general practices within the

religion from essential religious practices, at times preferring the latter over the former.

 DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS:

The major part of the territory of Aranyaraj was administered by the United Kingdom of

Targareyan. Whereas, the remaining portions were administered by the Dothraki Republic

and Republic of Lannister until the independence of Aranyaraj in mid20th century. When the

United Kingdom of Targareyan, decided to not interfere with the application of personal laws,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 the Dothraki Republic had decided to implement a uniform civil code for all individuals

residing in its territory known as Goaxim, Damao, Dui and Didra Nagra. The Republic of

Lannister had given an option to the residents of Pondiville to choose between the Lannister

Civil Code and Customary Law.

 Therefore, there is no consistent law in the Republic of Aranyaraj that governs familial

relationships cutting across the different ethnicities and religions.

 The enforcement of fundamental rights and directive principles mentioned in Part III and Part

IV of the Constitution of Aranyaraj has resulted in social transformation thereby leading to

the realization of rights across all groups. One of the vulnerable groups that are identified in

Aranyaraj are women. One of the important directives given by the Constitution was to draft

a uniform civil code for all citizens under article 44 of the Constitution.

 STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Aranyaraj as a nation state is known to have been committed to the cause of Human rights. It

had adopted the principles specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

into Part III and part IV of its Constitution. Similarly, they have also ratified the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and cultural Rights (1966). Pursuant to the objective of realizing the rights of women,

the State has signed and ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against

Women (hereafter referred to as CEDAW) of 1979 and the Convention on the Rights of the

Child (hereafter referred to as CRC) of 1989.

 SAFOOR
Safoora, is a Muslim woman who was born and brought up in Kudla. She was married in the
year 2017 to her husband who is also a Muslim. Her, husband pronounced Talak-a-Hasan her
in the year 2022.

 TRIPLE TALAQ

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 In 2022, Safoor’s husband pronounced Triple-Talaq (“talak-a-hasan”) against Safoor. Her
fundamental rights violate under art. 14, 15, 21 as it states Right to equality, right of person
against discrimination, right to life.

 SENORA
Senora belongs to the Nishi tribe in Arnichal Pradesh by birth, she was resided with her
parents and two elder brothers Utnagar. In 2023 her father died who was sole breadwinner of
her family. Later, she was denied the right to inheritance of the estate of her later father.
Estate was distributed among her brothers.

 VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The provisions of customary law is discriminatory in nature against women and violation of
the fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of Aranyaraj and the property of
her father must be distributed equally among her mother and all children.

 RACHEL
Rachel, a Christian and Raj, a Hindu were in live-in-relationship for a period of 7years. They
resided in the city of Tarus in the State of Gajarat. Due to fear of the society, stigma they face
from their families, they decided not to register their marriage and stay as a Live-in-couple.
After their family learned about their relationship, Raj’s family discovered disowned him
actively cut off all the ties with him. They purchased an apartment by contributing equally to
the expenses. In 2017 they welcomed a daughter Roxana after which Rachel decides to take
over the responsibility of homemaker she resigns from her job. In a cruel twist of fate, Raj
met with a fatal accident in the year 2022 while he was returning home from his office. The
family members of Raj after knowing the death of Raj, his family members come to city of
Tarus at that point of time the Raj’s family humilities Rachel and declares that they will not
consider her as spouse of Raj as their relationship was not a marriage and according to the
Roxana and her daughter cannot be considered as legal heir.
 SUCCESSION
The deny the rights of succession to Rachel and Roxana on the ground that their relationship
is not recognized in the eyes of law. Right to have a family should not be within the strict
confines of marriage and her cohabitation with Raj must lead to presumption of marriage and
therefore allow her to inherit the estate of Raj in the same capacity as legally wedded wife.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
After considering the problems that surfaced in the application of different customary laws,
Kedarkhand, one of the provinces of Aranyaraj enacted the Uniform Civil Code for
Kedarkhand in the year 2024. This led to apprehensions by certain religious communities in
Kedarkhand primarily contending that such a uniform civil is violation of the fundamental
rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. As, art. 25 of the constitution provides
Right to practice religion.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the forms of divorce as prescribed under the Customary law vis-a-vis the

provisions of the constitution of Aranyaraj?

ISSUE 2: Whether the law passed by Kedarkhand is Violation of Part-III of the constitution of

Aranyaraj?

ISSUE 3: Whether the Succession laws and inheritance laws based on personal laws are arbitrary and

violation of the dignity of women vis-a-vis the Constitution?

ISSUE 4: Whether partners in a live-in relationship are entitled to mutual rights of inheritance parity

with spouses in any form of marriage under the Constitution and their respective personal laws?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE :1 THE PRACTICE OF TALAQ-A-HASAN IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The petitioners have challenged the practice of Talaq-a-Hasan to be unconstitutional on the following
grounds:

I. Talaq-a-Hasan is ‘law’ as per Art. 13

II. The practice of Talaq-a-Hasan violates right to equality and right to life as enshrined in Art.
14, 15 and 21 and is therefore void.

ISSUE 2: THE LAWS PASSED BY KEDARKHAND IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS.

The petitioners have challenged the laws passed by kedarkhand is unconstitutional on the following
grounds:

I. The Uniform civil code is a ‘law’ enacted by Legislation.

II. The Uniform civil code will not violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion and
cultural and educational rights of minorities conferred under Art. 21, 25, 26 and 29, 30.

ISSUE 3: THE SUCCESSION LAWS AND INHERITANCE LAWS BASED ON PERSONAL

LAWS ARE ARBITRARY AND VIOLATION OF THE DIGNITY OF WOMEN VIS-A-VIS THE

CONSTITUTION.

The petitioner has challenged the succession laws and inheritance laws based on personal laws are

arbitrary and violation rights on the following grounds:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 I. The personal laws of comes under preview of ‘law’ Art. 13

II. This practice violates the dignity of women provided under Art. 21 [Right to life and liberty],

Wherefore the laws which violates the rights of women and discriminates them solely on

gender, basis and should be declared as void and unconstitutional.

III. Discrimination, if any provided under Art. 15(3) of the Constitution.

ISSUE 4: THE PARTNERS IN A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP ARE ENTITLED TO MUTUAL

RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE PARITY WITH SPOUSES IN ANY FORM OF MARRIAGE

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONAL LAWS?

The petitioner challenges in claiming inheritance rights and recognition of their relationship with one

deceased Raj and consider their child as legal heir for inheriting his property on the following

grounds:

I. The Right conferred under Art. 14 and Art. 21 right to equality and right to life with dignity

and equality before the law.

II. Denying petitioner their inheritance rights and social recognition based on absence of formal

marriage certificate discriminates against petitioner.

III. The fundamental right is being violated under Art. 21.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1: THE FORMS OF DIVORCE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE CUSTOMARY LAW

VIS-À-VIS THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARANYARAJ?

A. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aranyaraj, by the petitioner that

talaq-a-hasan is void and un-constitutional. [A]. Talaq-a-Hasan is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Art.

13, The Law includes any Ordinance, order by law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage

having in the territory of India the force of Law 2. Section 2 of the Shariat Act 3 codifies the customary

Muslim personal law practice which consists of “dissolution of marriage, including talaq”. In effect,

all forms of Talaq, (including Talaq-a-Hasan), recognized and enforced by Muslim personal law are

Talaq, divorce at the instance of the husband, is also of three kinds –talaq-a-ahsan, talaq-a-hasan ‘that

‘talaq-e-ahsan’, and ‘talaq-a-hasan’ are both approved by the ‘Quran’ and ‘hadith’. ‘Talaq-e-ahsan’,

is considered as the ‘most reasonable’ form of divorce, whereas, ‘talaq-a-hasan’ is also considered as

‘reasonable’. In the present petition the petitioner is challenging this form of divorce as

unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Art. 14,15,21. Firstly, Art. 14 is a fundamental right in

the Constitution of India that guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all

persons4 as she is not given an equal right. Secondly, under art. No citizen shall, on grounds only of

religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability,

2
Art. 13 of the constitution of India

3
Shariat Application Act, 1937

4
Art. 14 of the Constitution of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

restriction or condition5. Thirdly, art. 21 of the constitution states that person shall be deprived of his

life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law6.

B. Talaq-a-Hasan is in contravention of fundamental rights

It is submitted that by the petitioner, that the practice of Talaq-a-Hasan is in contravention of right to

equality under Art. 14 & Art. 21 and it is not protected under Art. 257 and 268.

1. TALAQ-A-HASAN IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO EQUALITY ART. 14

It is submitted that the Discrimination solely on the basis of sex 9 is in violation with the Constitution.

Gender issue is a dynamic concept evolving with the awareness of gender justice 10. Therefore, a law,

including personal law11 which was justified at the time of enactment may with the passage of time,

has become unreasonable and unconstitutional12 any provision which is arbitrary in nature should be

struck down13. Further, merely because in the same scheme of cases a norm has not been followed or

an illegality persists, that same cannot be a ground for departure from the said norm or to perpetuate

illegality. The Article 14 gives a guarantee against the arbitrary actions of the State and the Right to

Equality is against arbitrariness and both are enemies to each other. So, it is important to protect the

5
Art. 15 of Constitution of India

6
Art. 21 of the constitution of India

7
Art. 25 of the Constitution of India

8
Art. 25 of the Constitution of India

9
Art. 14 Constitution of India, 1950

10
CharuKhurana V. UOI, (2015) 1 SCC 192, Para 41

11
S.R. Bommai V. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 1, Para 237

12
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State of Punjab 1982 AIR 1325

13
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59 paragraphs 80 to 82

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive 14. In the present case, she is not given a chance to
defend herself in the allegations it is clear violation of her fundamental right under Art. 14 15

2. TALAQ-A-HASAN IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ART. 21.

It is submitted that under Art. 21 guarantees right to life which essentially means living with dignity.
Right to life is multi-dimensional and has an overlapping effect with other fundamental rights and is
thereby extended to conferring equality and dignity to women. Therefore, it is humbly submitted
that the practice of Talaq-a-Hasan tarnishes the dignity of Muslim women as they do not have a say
or recourse when the same is imposed on them by Muslim men. It is also to be noted that despite a
troublesome marriage between Safoora and her husband never exercised her right to dissolve the
marriage indicating her intention of maintaining the martial ties. The unilateral breakage of this by
her husband illustrates the unequal and undignified position a woman is reduced to whilst Talaq-a-
Hasan is imposed on them. under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Marriage) Act 201916, the act as follows:
 Talaq to be void and illegal : Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his
wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner
whatsoever, shall be void and illegal17.
 Punishment for pronouncing talaq: Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to
in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. It is humbly submitted that Aranyaraj, as a
modern democracy, should uphold principles of gender justice and strive for equality in all
aspects of life, including family law. The petitioner also emphasized the need for legal
reforms that reflect changing social realities and empower women to have equal control over
their marital status and future.

In the case of Shayaro Bano V. UOI18., This landmark judgment by the

Supreme Court of India abolished the practice of Triple Talaq, a form of
unilateral divorce under Islamic law. The court held that the practice violated

14
E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555

15
Art. 14 of the constitution of India, 1950

16
Muslim Women (protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019

17
Muslim Women (protection of Rights on marriage) Act, 2019

18
AIR 2017 SCC 4609

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14, as it discriminated against
Muslim women by denying them basic rights available to other women.

Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018)19: This case struck down Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized homosexuality. The court held that
the section violated the right to equality and dignity under Article 14, and that
sexual orientation is an essential part of one's identity.

ISSUE 2: THE LAW PASSED BY KEDARKHAND IS VIOLATIVE OF PART-III OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ARANYARAJ?

It is humbly submitted that the laws passed by kedarkhand is not violative under the constitution, the

Art. 44 of the constitution, the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code

throughout the territory of India. The present case is yet another which focuses attention on the

immediate and compulsive need for a uniform civil code20.

I. The Uniform civil code is a ‘law’ enacted by Legislation.

It is submitted that under Art. 44 The State shall endeavour to secure the citizen a Uniform Civil

Code throughout the territory of India”. However, Article 37 of the Constitution itself makes it clear

the DPSP “cannot be enforceable by court. In the present petitioner the need for UCC In the case

Constitution Bench Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors 21. There is no evidence of any

official activity for framing a common civil code for the country. A common Civil Code will help the

case of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting

ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It

is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the

country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so.

19
AIR 2018 SC 4898

20
Article 44 of the Constitution of India

21
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors AIR 1985 SC 935

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The report submitted, while freedom of religion and right to not just practice but also propagate

religion must be strongly protected in a secular democracy, it is important to bear in mind that a

number of social evils take refuge as religious customs ‘these may be evils such as sati, slavery,

devadasi, dowry, Triple talaq, child marriage or any other. To seek their protection under law as

religion ‘would be a grave folly. For these practices do not conform with basic tenets of human

rights are nor are they essential to religion. While even being essential to religion should not be a

reason for a practice to continue if it is discriminatory, our consultations with women’s groups

suggested that religious identity is important to women, and personal laws along with language,

culture etc., often constitute a part of this identity and as an expression of freedom of religion’ 22.

It is submitted that the HSA is unfair to a woman in the sense that her mother and even father are

excluded from heirship and, in the absence of husband and children, makes the parents-in-law as the

husband's heirs23. The Indian Succession Act, applicable to Christians and Parsis, does not make

provision for parents as heirs in the presence of lineal descendants. The novelty in the kedarkhand

UCC is that if either parent dies, the surviving spouse will inherit the undivided half and not the

others. The UCC recognises that marriage ceremonies may be officiated or entered into by a man

and a woman, in line with their religious beliefs, practices, and traditional rituals and ceremonies 24.

It is submitted that the customary laws of the community prevent them from inheriting the property

to women this discriminates them solely on the basis sex, Art. 14 25 states that no person shall be

discriminated on the basis of age, caste, gender and everybody will be treated equally before the law

22
21th Law Commission of Government of Puducherry.

23
Om Prakash v. Radhacharan (2009) 15 SCC 66.

24
. For detailed discussion on federal laws, minority laws, secularism, special provisions in Indian constitution see the
volumes: Thakur, H K (2000). Alienation and Integration in Jammu and Kashmir. Jaipur, Aalekh Publishers; Thakur H K
(2007). “India Federalised: How Do People Look at it?” In D. Sunder Ram (Ed.), Federal System and Coalition
Government in India. New Delhi: Anamika Publishers, 267-279; and Thakur HK (2021). “Dealing with the Pandemic
and the Issues in Indian Federalism”. In Saroj Kumar Verma (Ed.) Cooperative Federalism in India: Myth or Reality

25
Art. 14 of the Constitution of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

as conferred under the constitution. In the case Sarala Mudgal V. Union of India26, of under Article

44 of the Constitution of India which seeks to introduce a uniform personal law - a decisive step

towards national consolidation. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, while defending the introduction of the

Hindu Code Bill instead of a uniform civil code, in the Parliament in 1954, said "I do not think that

at the present moment the time is ripe in India for me to try to push it through". It appears that even

41 years thereafter, the Rulers of the day are not in a mood to retrieve Article 44 from the cold

storage where it is lying since 1949. The Governments - which have come and gone - have so far

failed to make any effort towards "unified personal law for all Indians". The reasons are too obvious

to be stated. The utmost that has been done is to codify the Hindu law in the form of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which have replaced the traditional Hindu

law based on different schools of thought and scriptural laws into one unified code. When more than

80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no

justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of "uniform civil code" for

all citizens in the territory of India. In the case where the uniform civil code, Ahmedabad Women

Action Group and Ors. v. Union of India, 27 and it was held that the question regarding the

desirability of enacting a Uniform Civil Code did not directly arise in Sarala Mudgal's case. The

Court has passed in Sarala Mudgal's case on 23.4.1990 in which it was clearly set out that the after

taking instructions, stated that the prayers were limited to a single relief, namely, a declaration that

where a non-Muslim male gets converted to the Muslim faith without any real change of belief and

merely with a view to avoid any earlier marriage or to enter into a second marriage, any marriage

entered into by him after conversion would be void.

26
1995 AIR 1531

27
MANU/SC/0896/1997

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 3: THE SUCCESSION LAWS AND INHERITANCE LAWS BASED ON PERSONAL
LAWS ARE ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE DIGNITY OF WOMEN VIS-À-VIS THE
CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner contends the under Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the ground of his
religion and guarantees equal protection28of law and right to liberty and dignity 29 same has been
violated in the present case that she didn’t given a chance inherit the property . Article 44 enjoins
upon the State to endeavour to secure to its citizens a uniform civil code 30. In the case of Labishwar
Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors 31., it is clearly held that if the members of the Scheduled Tribe
follow customary and practices of Hinduism, then and then only the Hindu Succession Act would be
applicable.
It is submitted that in the landmark case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma32, In Indian law
concerning the coparcenary rights of daughters in Hindu joint families. The case revolved around the
interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly whether daughters born
before the amendment in 2005 were entitled to equal coparcenary rights as sons. The Supreme Court
clarified that the amended provisions applied retrospectively from the date of the Act’s enactment,
giving daughters equal rights in coparcenary property. The court also addressed issues related to
notional partition, emphasising the need for genuine partitions after 2004 to prevent misuse. This
judgment has had significant implications for gender equality and property rights in Hindu families.
It was a landmark case in Indian law concerning the coparcenary rights of daughters in Hindu joint
families. The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, particularly whether daughters born before the amendment in 2005 were entitled to equal
coparcenary rights as sons. The Supreme Court clarified that the amended provisions applied
retrospectively from the date of the Act’s enactment, giving daughters equal rights in coparcenary
property. The court also addressed issues related to notional partition, emphasising the need for
genuine partitions after 2004 to prevent misuse. This judgment has had significant implications for
gender equality and property rights in Hindu families.

ISSUE 4: THE PARTNERS IN A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP ARE ENTITLED TO MUTUAL

RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE PARITY WITH SPOUSES IN ANY FORM OF MARRIAGE
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONAL LAWS?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Right to Life and Equality (Article
14 and 21). Firstly, Rachel and Roxana have the right to life with dignity and equality before the law
(Articles 14 & 21).

28
Art. 14 of the Constitution of India

29
Art. 21 of the constitution of India

30
Art. 44 of the Constitution of India

31
(2000) 8 SCC 587

32
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 A. Denying succession rights based on the absence of formal marriage discriminates
against couple choosing live-in-relationship under Art. 21 right to life

Denying them inheritance rights and social recognition based on the absence of a formal marriage
certificate discriminates against them. If the couple is not married, but living their life as husband
and wife, sharing same household33, relationship in the nature of marriage in court’s decision. In the
case D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal (2010) 34: The Supreme Court of India recognized that a long-
term live-in relationship could be considered a valid marriage under certain circumstances. The
distinguished between the Relationship of marriage & Relationship in the nature of marriage. In
the present case the petitioner had been sharing the same house hold and living as husband and wife
in the society. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan 35, The Supreme Court
ruled that even children born from a live-in relationship have the coparcenary right to inherit the
family’s property. A child who is born to live -in partners living together for an extended period has
rights over the ancestral property of his father.
If they fulfill the following conditions that constitutes presumption of marriage:

 RELATIONSHIP IN THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE:

(a) The Couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to
spouses for a significant period of time.

In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K. Sarma36, The court has examined the relevant provisions of the
DV Act and the impact of those provisions on such relationships. The Civil Law, it was noticed, did
not address this phenomenon in its entirety. Consequently, the Parliament, to provide more effective
protection of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution under Articles 14, 15 and 21 37. who
are victims of violence of any kind occurring in the family enacted the DV Act 38. It can be said that
the Live-in- or marriage like live-in-relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially
unacceptable in Aranyaraj. The decision to marry not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship
is intensely personal. The couples have right to privacy in the matter of entering into live-in-
relationships as the concept of family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and
education among other matter fall within the zones of man’s privacy conferred under constitution
under Art. 21. However, in order to provide a remedy in Civil Law for protection of women, from
being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in society,
first time in India, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was implemented. It is also submitted that the

33
Prevention of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005

34
AIR 2011 SC 479

35
Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC Online SC 737

36
AIR 2014 SC 309

37
Constitution of India, 1950

38
Prevention of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

petitioner highlights the societal pressure and stigma surrounding interfaith marriage and live-in-
relationships, impacting Rachel and Raj’s decision to formalize their relationship. Furthermore, that
the stringent anti-conversion laws in Gujarat might have discouraged Rachel from formally
converting to Hinduism, fearing persecution and that shouldn’t be a barrier to her right to inherit the
Raj’s property. Furthermore, the need for Uniform Civil Code in uniformity in divorce, inheritance
and succession to give relief to the aggrieved party.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly prayed and implored before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Aranyaraj that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
I. The practice of Talaq-a-Hasan is unconstitutional.

II. The laws passed by kedarkhand doesn’t violates the fundamental rights or religious practices and
it has to be implemented.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III. The customary laws which restricts women from inheritance rights should be struck down.

IV. The Live-in-relationship couple should be given status as married couple and children born out of
it should be considered as legal heir.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the PETITIONER in the light of
equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the PETITIONER shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: Aranyaraj sd/-

Dated: Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER