PROBLEM-3

R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.

[Civil Law --Law of Contract]

1.R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "R.D."), a reputed Indian
company dealing in women's apparel, earned substantial profits over the years.
Seeking business expansion, it decided to diversify into the segment of children's
wear.
2.For this purpose, R.D. approached Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.
, a prominent and well established manufacturer in the children’s garment industry. A formal contract was
executed between the parties for the supply of kids’ wear garments at a total contract
price of Rs. 6,00,000.
3.As per the agreed payment schedule, R.D. was to pay Rs. 4,00,000 at the time of delivery on
1st January 201, and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000 as the final payment on 1st March 2017.
4.The garments were delivered by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. on the stipulated date of 1st January 2017. However,
soon after the delivery, R.D. lost a lucrative distribution contract with one of its largest booking agents, causing
a steep decline in market demand for its newly launched kids' wear range.
5.Around the same time, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. was facing financial strain due to multiple ongoing legal
proceedings. Anticipating default in the final payment from R.D., Sapatrangi agreed to accept Rs. 50,000
as full and final settlement of the remaining Rs. 2,00,000. R.D. made the said payment on 1st March 2017 as per
this new understanding.
6.Subsequently, on 3rd March 2017, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. delivered the remaining garments under the contract.
However, upon inspection, the delivered garments were found to be of substandard and poor quality.
7.R.D. issued a formal notice on 4th March 2017, requesting the replacement of defective clothes. Sapatrangi
Pvt. Ltd. acknowledged the notice and agreed to process the exchange. However, no action was taken thereafter.
A second notice dated 20th March 2017was also issued, but it received no acknowledgment or response.
8.Feeling aggrieved, R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit claiming Rs. 1,50,000 as damages for breach
of contract. The defendant, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., contended that it had delivered garments of acceptable quality
and was therefore not liable for any compensation.
Problem -2
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
CASE TITLE:
Colours vs. Union of India
Nature of the Case: Constitutional Challenge
Background:
Mr. Ramesh and Mr. Dinesh are citizens of India. Both had moved to Ireland in 2015 for higher
education, where they met and developed a close personal relationship. Eventually, they
solemnised their marriage under the laws of Ireland in 2016. They continued to live in Ireland
for two years in a legally recognized marital union.
On 15th February 2018, the couple relocated to India and began residing in a joint apartment
in Bandra, Mumbai.However, on 10th September 2018, Mr. Ramesh abruptly left the shared residence without informing
Mr. Dinesh and severed all contact. Mr. Dinesh, distressed by the sudden
abandonment, made multiple attempts to reach out to Mr. Ramesh but received no response. He tried to initiate legal
proceedings under applicable personal laws but was denied relief on the ground that their marriage is not recognized
under Indian law.Feeling aggrieved and facing a legal vacuum in terms of spousal rights, Mr. Dinesh approached an NGO
named Colours, which advocates for the rights and dignity of the LGBTQI community in India.
Colours, with the aid of its legal advisory panel, invoked the Supreme Court’s judgment in
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalised consensual same sex relations by reading down
Section 377 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the right to privacy, dignity, identity, and freedom of expression under
Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. However, despite the progressive jurisprudence on decriminalisation,
issues of recognition of same sex marriage, legal remedies in domestic relationships, maintenance, custodial
rights,inheritance, and protection from cruelty remain unaddressed in Indian law.
Accordingly, Colours has filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking:
1.Legal recognition and validation of same sex marriages in India.
2.Equal access to legal remedies under matrimonial and family laws.
3.A declaration that non recognition of same sex marriage is violative of Articles 14,
15, 19, and 21.

Issues for Consideration

1.Whether the non recognition of same sex marriage violates the Fundamental Rights
enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India?
2.Whether a foreign same sex marriage between Indian citizens is entitled to
recognition under Indian law?
Argue for and against the Petitioner.
PROBLEM -1
The moot case is set in the fictional state of Bhageshwari within the country of Vishweshwara,
a quasi-federal nation with cultural and religious diversity. Bhageshwari is predominantly
Hindu, with both parties involved Deepika and Ranveer belonging to the Hindu religion.
Deepika, an 18 year old medical student at Vikramaditya Medical College, meets Ranveer, her
senior, through a dating app. They develop a close friendship, which turns romantic in July
2023. By February 2024, they move in together in a rented apartment. The
y frequently discussed marriage, expressed their commitment to friends, and shared future plans through
WhatsApp messages.

In November 2024, Deepika’s childhood friend Karan returns from the US. She begins
spending time with him, which creates tension in her relationship with Ranveer. At a party on
Christmas Eve, Karan hints at wanting to marry Deepika, leading to a confrontat
ion. The situation escalates, and Ranveer leaves their apartment on December 25. Deepika attempts to
reconnect, but Ranveer avoids her. She eventually moves out on December 30 and begins living with Karan.

On January 2, 2025, Ranveer is served with an FIR filed by Deepika under Section 69 of the
newly enacted Vishweshwara Nyaya Code (VNC), which replaces the previous penal code.
The FIR claims that Ranveer deceived Deepika with a false promise of marriage. K
aran testifies in support of Deepika, and WhatsApp messages are presented as evidence. The Sessions Court
finds Ranveer guilty and sentences him to 8 years' imprisonment. He has appealed to the Supreme Court of
Vishweshwara, where the case is pending.

Key issues for participants:

1.Maintainability of the appeal.
2.Constitutional validity of Section 69 of VNC and Ranveer’s liability under it.
3.Admissibility of electronic evidence to prove intent.
Note: Laws of Vishweshwara mirror those of India, and VNC is textually identical to the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BHAGESWARI
CRIMINAL APPEALANT JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

RANVEER ………………… APPEALANT

VERSUS

STATE OF BHAGESWARI ……………….. ……… RESPONDENT

TO,

THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE

OTHER HONORABLE COMPANION JUDGES OF

THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF BHAGESWARI.

HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT

ABOVE NAMED .

APPEAL UNDER SECETION 413 OF BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURKHSHA SANHITA

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. THAT PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF COVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT OF BHAGESHWARI DATED ____________.

2. THAT THE ORDER OF 8 YEARS IMPRISONMENT WAS PASSED AGAINST THE APPELANT OF
CHARGES UNDER SEC 69 OF VISHWESHWARA NAYAY CODE (VNC).
3. THAT APPLEANT PRAYED TO THIS HON’BLE COURT TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF ABOVE
MENTIONED CASE AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO
4. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE SAID IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE AND SET THE APPELLANT AT LIBERTY.

ORDER FROM COURT ANNEXER -A

5. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS FOLLOWED :-

• THE APPELLANT AND COMPLAINANT MET ON A DATING APP AND BEGAN A ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIP IN JULY 2023.
• IN FEBRUARY 2024, THEY BEGAN COHABITING IN A RENTED APARTMENT, TREATING THE
RELATIONSHIP AS SERIOUS AND COMMITTED. THEY SHARED INTENTIONS OF MARRIAGE WITH
FRIENDS AND EXCHANGED MESSAGES EVIDENCING MUTUAL CONSENT AND PLANNING.
• IN NOVEMBER 2024, THE COMPLAINANT REKINDLED HER FRIENDSHIP WITH HER CHILDHOOD
FRIEND, KARAN, LEADING TO TENSION AND CONFRONTATION. ON DECEMBER 24, 2024, AT A
PARTY, KARAN PROPOSED MARRIAGE TO DEEPIKA, WHICH TRIGGERED A DISPUTE.
• THE APPELLANT MOVED OUT ON DECEMBER 25, 2024, AND THE COMPLAINANT MOVED IN WITH
KARAN ON DECEMBER 30, 2024.
• ON JANUARY 2, 2025, AN FIR WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE VISHWESHWARA
NYAYA CODE, ALLEGING SEXUAL RELATIONS INDUCED BY A FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
• THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTED THE APPELLANT AND SENTENCED HIM TO EIGHT YEARS OF
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT, RELYING HEAVILY ON WHATSAPP EXCHANGES AND THE TESTIMONY
OF THE COMPLAINANT AND KARAN.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

1. THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT FAILED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A BREACH OF PROMISE AND A
FALSE PROMISE MADE WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT. AT NO POINT DID THE APPELLANT DECEIVE
THE COMPLAINANT; THE RELATIONSHIP WAS GENUINE AND CONSENSUAL, WITH MUTUAL
DISCUSSIONS OF MARRIAGE.
2. THE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE WAS NEITHER ILLUSORY NOR MADE WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT AT
THE INCEPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP. THE BREAKDOWN OCCURRED DUE TO PERSONAL
DIFFERENCES AND THE ENTRY OF A THIRD PARTY, WHICH CANNOT RETROACTIVELY RENDER THE
PROMISE FALSE.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND KARAN
WITHOUT SCRUTINY, OVERLOOKING CONTRADICTIONS AND POSSIBLE BIAS, PARTICULARLY
CONSIDERING THE TIMING AND NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT.
4. THE COURT FAILED TO EVALUATE THE MESSAGES AND SHARED CONDUCT IN TOTALITY, WHICH
DEMONSTRATED A COMMITTED AND CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP RATHER THAN COERCION OR
INDUCEMENT.
5. THE SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS IS DISPROPORTIONATE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRIOR
MISCONDUCT, AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, OR EVIDENCE OF DELIBERATE EXPLOITATION.
6. THAT IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 69 OF THE VISHWESHWARA NYAYA CODE
(VNC) SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE PROVISION PROCEEDS ON THE PRESUMPTION
THAT ONLY MEN ARE CAPABLE OF DECEIT IN THE CONTEXT OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS,
THEREBY EXCLUDING WOMEN, NON-BINARY INDIVIDUALS, AND PERSONS OF OTHER GENDER
IDENTITIES FROM ITS AMBIT. SUCH SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATION IS NEITHER FOUNDED ON
 INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA NOR DOES IT BEAR A RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT SOUGHT
TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE LEGISLATION. THE PROVISION RESTS ON PATRIARCHAL AND
STEREOTYPICAL NOTIONS OF MALE CULPABILITY AND FEMALE VICTIMHOOD AND IS THUS
IMPERMISSIBLY DISCRIMINATORY.
7. THAT THE IMPUGNED PROVISION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE OF
ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PERMITS SPECIAL MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION
AND UPLIFTMENT OF WOMEN. SECTION 69 DOES NOT OPERATE AS A MEASURE OF SUBSTANTIVE
EQUALITY OR EMPOWERMENT BUT RATHER PERPETUATES REGRESSIVE GENDER NORMS,
PORTRAYING WOMEN AS INHERENTLY PASSIVE OR INCAPABLE OF AGENCY. PROTECTIONIST
LAWS THAT REINFORCE DEPENDENCY OR VICTIMHOOD WITHOUT ADVANCING EQUALITY
OFFEND THE SPIRIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL FEMINISM AND VIOLATE THE DOCTRINE OF
SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY.
8. THAT THE IMPUGNED PROVISION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM ON ACCOUNT OF ITS UNDER-
INCLUSIVE AND HETERONORMATIVE FRAMEWORK. IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE LIVE-IN
RELATIONSHIPS AND NON-HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, THEREBY EXCLUDING A SIGNIFICANT
CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS FROM ITS PROTECTIVE AMBIT. THE NON-RECOGNITION OF LGBTQIA+
RELATIONSHIPS RENDERS THE PROVISION DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUALITY
CODE, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN NAVTEJ
SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2018) AND NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY V. UNION OF
INDIA (2014), WHICH RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES.
9. THAT IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 69 CRIMINALIZES CONSENSUAL SEXUAL
RELATIONS BETWEEN ADULTS, SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT
CULMINATE IN MARRIAGE. SUCH PENALIZATION INFRINGES THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO
PRIVACY, DIGNITY, AUTONOMY, AND SEXUAL FREEDOM, WHICH ARE INTEGRAL FACETS OF
ARTICLES 19(1)(A) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS UPHELD IN K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF
INDIA (2017) AND JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF INDIA (2018). THE STATE CANNOT IMPOSE A
MORALISTIC FRAMEWORK OF INTIMACY THROUGH THE THREAT OF CRIMINAL SANCTION.
10. THAT THE TERMINOLOGY EMPLOYED IN THE IMPUGNED PROVISION, PARTICULARLY THE
EXPRESSION “IDENTITY SUPPRESSION,” IS VAGUE, UNDEFINED, AND OVERBROAD. THE PROVISION
DOES NOT CLARIFY WHETHER “IDENTITY” REFERS TO MARITAL STATUS, RELIGION, CASTE,
PROFESSION, OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS, THEREBY RENDERING THE STATUTE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
ARBITRARY AND SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION. PENAL STATUTES MUST BE PRECISE AND
UNAMBIGUOUS TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF FAIR PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 21. THE ABSENCE
OF CLARITY CREATES A CHILLING EFFECT ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CONDUCT AND
VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN CRIMINAL LAW.
11. THAT UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023, ELECTRONIC RECORDS
SUCH AS EMAILS, MESSAGES, AUDIO-VISUAL CONTENT, AND METADATA ARE EXPRESSLY
ADMISSIBLE AND ARE ACCORDED THE SAME LEGAL STATUS AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
12. THAT THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE PRODUCED MUST SATISFY THE FOLLOWING ESSENTIAL
CONDITIONS AS PER SECTION 63:
(I) IT MUST HAVE BEEN GENERATED OR RECEIVED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ACTIVITY;
(II) IT MUST HAVE BEEN STORED IN A SECURE SYSTEM, FREE FROM TAMPERING OR
MANIPULATION;
(III) IT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65, WHEREVER REQUIRED.
13. THAT A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65 IS A PRECONDITION FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DIGITAL
EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PARTY PRODUCING THE SAME IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OR CONTROLLER
OF THE DEVICE. THE CERTIFICATE MUST:
(I) BE IN WRITING AND DULY SIGNED;
(II) STATE THAT THE COMPUTER/DEVICE WAS REGULARLY USED;
(III) CONFIRM PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM;
(IV) SPECIFY THAT THE RECORD WAS ENTERED OR STORED DURING ORDINARY COURSE OF
ACTIVITY;
(V) IDENTIFY THE RECORD AND DESCRIBE ITS MANNER OF PRODUCTION.
14. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 65, THE ELECTRONIC
RECORD IS RENDERED INADMISSIBLE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT AS
SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.
15. THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 91 APPLIES ONLY TO SECURE ELECTRONIC RECORDS,
I.E., THOSE AUTHENTICATED VIA SECURE DIGITAL SIGNATURES OR VALIDATED BY A CERTIFIED
AUTHORITY. THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED
MEETS THE CRITERIA OF A "SECURE ELECTRONIC RECORD."
16. THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE WHATSAPP MESSAGES AND OTHER DIGITAL CONTENT HAVE
NOT BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE MANDATORY SECTION 65 CERTIFICATE, NOR HAS THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY BEEN DEMONSTRATED. HENCE, THE SAID EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE AND CANNOT BE
THE BASIS FOR CONVICTION.
17. THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION THE MATTER.
 PRAYER

IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO: ADMIT THIS APPEAL AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE SESSIONS COURT IN SESSIONS
CASE NO. _________ SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED ________ CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE VISHWESHWARA NYAYA CODE,ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF
ALL CHARGES,AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPLEANT MAY KINDLY BE DISPENSED WITH AS THE APPELANT IS
IN JAIL AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MODIFY THE SENTENCE SUITABLY,PASS SUCH OTHER OR
FURTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED JUST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

Place: ADVOCATE OF APPEALANT

Date:
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT _______), DELHI

SUIT NO. _______ OF 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.,

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at [Insert Full Address],
Through its Director, Shri [Insert Name]
… PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/s Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.,

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at [Insert Full Address],
Through its Director, Shri [Insert Name]
… DEFENDANT

SUB:- SUIT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A REPUTED INDIAN COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE

BUSINESS OF WOMEN'S APPAREL, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
[INSERT ADDRESS]. THE PLAINTIFF IS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR WHO IS DULY EMPOWERED TO FILE AND VERIFY
THIS PLAINT.

2. THAT THE DEFENDANT IS A PROMINENT COMPANY IN THE CHILDREN’S

GARMENT INDUSTRY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT [INSERT
ADDRESS].

3. THAT IN THE COURSE OF EXPANDING ITS OPERATIONS, THE PLAINTIFF

APPROACHED THE DEFENDANT FOR A BUSINESS COLLABORATION. A
 FORMAL CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF CHILDREN’S GARMENTS WORTH RS.
6,00,000/- WAS ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

4. THAT THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE UNDER THE SAID CONTRACT REQUIRED

AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON DELIVERY (1ST JANUARY 2017),
AND THE REMAINING RS. 2,00,000/- AS FINAL SETTLEMENT ON 1ST MARCH
2017.
5. THAT THE PLAINTIFF MADE THE INITIAL PAYMENT OF RS. 4,00,000/- UPON
DELIVERY. HOWEVER, DUE TO SUDDEN AND UNFORESEEN BUSINESS
LOSSES, THE PLAINTIFF RENEGOTIATED AND THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO
ACCEPT RS. 50,000/- AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE REMAINING
RS. 2,00,000/-. THE PLAINTIFF MADE THIS PAYMENT ON 1ST MARCH 2017.
6. THAT ON 3RD MARCH 2017, THE DEFENDANT DELIVERED THE REMAINING
GOODS UNDER THE CONTRACT. UPON INSPECTION, THESE GOODS WERE
FOUND TO BE SUBSTANDARD AND DEFECTIVE.
7. THAT THE PLAINTIFF ISSUED A FORMAL NOTICE ON 4TH MARCH 2017
REQUESTING REPLACEMENT OF THE DEFECTIVE GARMENTS. THE
DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS NOTICE AND ASSURED ACTION, BUT
FAILED TO ACT. A SECOND NOTICE DATED 20TH MARCH 2017 ALSO
REMAINED UNANSWERED.
8. THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS LOSS AND
REPUTATIONAL HARM DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO DELIVER
GOODS OF MERCHANTABLE QUALITY, AND THEREFORE CLAIMS RS.
1,50,000/- AS DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.
9. THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ON 3RD MARCH 2017 WHEN
DEFECTIVE GOODS WERE DELIVERED, AND CONTINUED WITH THE
DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO ACT UPON REPEATED NOTICES. THE CAUSE OF
ACTION STILL SUBSISTS.
10. THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY AND ENTERTAIN
THIS SUIT AS THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED AND PART OF THE
TRANSACTION OCCURRED WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
11. THAT THE SUIT IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
12. THAT THE VALUE OF THE SUIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COURT FEE AND
JURISDICTION IS RS. 1,50,000/- ON WHICH THE APPROPRIATE COURT FEE
HAS BEEN AFFIXED.
PRAYER:

IT IS, THEREFORE, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:

A) PASS A DECREE OF RS. 1,50,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) AS
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT;

B) AWARD COSTS OF THE SUIT;

C) PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

PLACE: DELHI
DATE: _______ PLAINTIFF

THROUGH:

COUNSEL

VERIFICATION

I, [NAME], DIRECTOR OF R.D. PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD., DO HEREBY VERIFY AT DELHI

ON THIS ___ DAY OF _______, 20 THAT THE CONTENTS OF PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 8 OF THE
PLAINT ARE TRUE TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND THOSE OF PARAGRAPHS 9 TO 12 ARE TRUE
BASED ON LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED AND BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. THE LAST PARA IS
THE HUMBLE PRAYER TO THIS HON’BLE COURT.

PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT _______), DELHI

SUIT NO. _______ OF 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S R.D. PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD.

… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

M/S SAPATRANGI PVT. LTD.

… DEFENDANT

I, [NAME], S/O [FATHER’S NAME], AGED ___ YEARS, R/O [ADDRESS], DIRECTOR OF
M/S R.D. PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD., DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE
AS UNDER:

1. THAT I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY AND FULLY

CONVERSANT WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND
AM COMPETENT TO SWEAR THIS AFFIDAVIT.
2. THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE ACCOMPANYING PLAINT HAVE BEEN READ
AND EXPLAINED TO ME AND THE SAME ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO MY
KNOWLEDGE.
3. THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE PLAINT ARE TRUE COPIES
OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ORIGINALS.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

VERIFIED AT DELHI ON THIS ___ DAY OF _______, 20 THAT THE CONTENTS OF

THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND
NOTHING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREFROM.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Colours,
A REGISTERED NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION (REG. NO. ____) HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT [INSERT ADDRESS],
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
…PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110001
…RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(SEEKING LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND ENFORCEMENT OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14, 15, 19(1)(A), AND 21)

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. THE PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC-SPIRITED ORGANISATION ADVOCATING FOR THE

RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF THE LGBTQI+ COMMUNITY IN INDIA. IT SEEKS
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO ADDRESS THE SYSTEMIC
DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO SAME-SEX COUPLES ARISING FROM NON-RECOGNITION OF
THEIR MARITAL STATUS UNDER INDIAN LAW.
2. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IN
VIEW OF THE CONTINUED DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO
SAME-SEX COUPLES, PARTICULARLY INDIAN CITIZENS WHOSE FOREIGN SAME-
 SEX MARRIAGES ARE UNRECOGNIZED IN INDIA, THEREBY DEPRIVING THEM OF
ACCESS TO REMEDIES UNDER FAMILY, MATRIMONIAL, AND INHERITANCE LAWS.
3. MR. RAMESH AND MR. DINESH, BOTH INDIAN CITIZENS, SOLEMNISED THEIR
MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAWS OF IRELAND IN 2016. UPON RETURNING TO INDIA IN
2018, THEIR RELATIONSHIP DETERIORATED, AND MR. DINESH WAS LEFT
WITHOUT RECOURSE TO MATRIMONIAL REMEDIES DUE TO THE NON-
RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN INDIA. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER
PERSONAL LAWS FAILED ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR MARRIAGE IS NOT VALID
IN INDIA.
4. THIS SITUATION EXPOSES A CONSTITUTIONAL VACUUM, WHEREIN INDIAN
CITIZENS IN VALID FOREIGN MARRIAGES ARE ARBITRARILY EXCLUDED FROM
THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED TO SPOUSES UNDER INDIAN LAWS, SOLELY ON
THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
5. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA [(2018)
10 SCC 1] RECOGNISED THAT MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQI+ COMMUNITY ARE
ENTITLED TO EQUALITY, DIGNITY, AND THE FULL RANGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14, 15, 19, AND 21. THE DENIAL OF RECOGNITION TO
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AMOUNTS TO A CONTINUING VIOLATION OF THESE
RIGHTS.

GROUNDS

A. THAT THE NON-RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14,

BEING ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY, AND DENIES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
LAWS.

B. THAT ARTICLE 15(1) PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF SEX, WHICH

INCLUDES SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS RECOGNISED IN NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR.

C. THAT THE DENIAL OF MARITAL STATUS INTERFERES WITH THE FREEDOM OF

EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A), PREVENTING SAME-SEX
COUPLES FROM EXPRESSING THEIR PERSONAL AND FAMILIAL IDENTITY.

D. THAT ARTICLE 21, GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY,
INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY, PRIVACY, AND CHOICE IN MATTERS OF MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY LIFE. THE EXCLUSION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM LEGAL
RECOGNITION INFRINGES THESE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

E. THAT MANY INDIAN LAWS, INCLUDING THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954, AND
OTHER SECULAR STATUTES, DO NOT EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT SAME-SEX MARRIAGES BUT
HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN A HETERONORMATIVE MANNER THAT VIOLATES
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY.

F. THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE ARBITRARILY DENIED LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE

TO MARRIED COUPLES UNDER INDIAN LAW—SUCH AS MAINTENANCE, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROTECTION, INHERITANCE, AND CUSTODIAL RIGHTS—THEREBY CREATING
A CLASS OF CITIZENS WITH LESSER PROTECTIONS.

PRAYERS

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS STATED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER MOST
RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

A) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT THE NON-RECOGNITION OF

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES VIOLATES ARTICLES 14, 15, 19, AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA;

B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RECOGNISE AND REGISTER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

UNDER SECULAR MARRIAGE LAWS, INCLUDING THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954;

C) DECLARE THAT MARRIAGES VALIDLY PERFORMED BETWEEN SAME-SEX COUPLES

UNDER FOREIGN LAW, WHERE BOTH SPOUSES ARE INDIAN CITIZENS, SHALL BE
RECOGNISED AS VALID IN INDIA;

D) PASS SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM JUST
AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

VISHESH SHARMA
Y22190051
YADAV COLONY

FILED ON: 2025

PLACE: NEW DELHI
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

COLOURS …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT – UNION OF INDIA

I, AJAY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW

AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING MY OFFICE AT SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW
DELHI – 110001, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS UNDER:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. THAT THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND IS
LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS THE RELIEFS SOUGHT PERTAIN TO MATTERS OF
LEGISLATIVE POLICY BEST LEFT TO THE WISDOM OF PARLIAMENT.
2. THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO REWRITE PERSONAL
AND STATUTORY LAW, PARTICULARLY MARRIAGE LAWS, WHICH FALL WITHIN
THE LEGISLATIVE DOMAIN. JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE AT THIS STAGE WOULD
AMOUNT TO OVERSTEPPING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
REPLY ON MERITS:

3. THAT THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MARRIAGE IN INDIA IS DRAWN

FROM BOTH PERSONAL LAWS AND SECULAR STATUTES. THESE LAWS HAVE
HISTORICALLY RECOGNISED MARRIAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL MALES AND
FEMALES AND ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE PREVAILING SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
NORMS.
4. THAT THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954, WHICH THE PETITIONER INVOKES, IS A
SECULAR LEGISLATION DESIGNED FOR INTER-CASTE AND INTER-RELIGIOUS
MARRIAGES, BUT ITS TEXT AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT DO NOT CONTEMPLATE OR
INCLUDE SAME-SEX UNIONS.
5. THAT INDIAN PERSONAL LAWS—WHETHER CODIFIED UNDER THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW, OR OTHER COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC
STATUTES—DEFINE MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN,
AND RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WOULD NECESSITATE A
COMPREHENSIVE OVERHAUL OF THESE SYSTEMS.
6. THAT THE LEGISLATIVE SILENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
DOES NOT BY ITSELF AMOUNT TO UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER SUCH MARRIAGES SHOULD BE RECOGNISED INVOLVES COMPLEX
SOCIAL, MORAL, AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT MUST BE DELIBERATED BY
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
7. THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIGNITY, THOUGH FUNDAMENTAL, DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY TRANSLATE INTO A POSITIVE OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO
LEGISLATE OR RECOGNISE EVERY FORM OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP UNDER
THE UMBRELLA OF MARRIAGE.
8. THAT THE NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR JUDGMENT DECRIMINALISED CONSENSUAL
SAME-SEX RELATIONS, BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY MANDATE LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES OR CONFER SPOUSAL RIGHTS UNDER
INDIAN LAW.
9. THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO JUDICIALLY IMPOSE MARRIAGE EQUALITY WOULD
RAISE NUMEROUS UNRESOLVED ISSUES REGARDING INHERITANCE, ADOPTION,
CUSTODY, MAINTENANCE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION, AND OTHER
SPOUSAL RIGHTS, WHICH REQUIRE EXTENSIVE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
AND ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL LEGISLATION.

PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE

COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
A) DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AS BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AND BEYOND THE SCOPE
OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION;

B) HOLD THAT THE MATTER FALLS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND NO MANDAMUS CAN BE ISSUED TO FRAME OR AMEND PERSONAL
LAWS OR SECULAR STATUTES;

C) PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

DEPONENT
(SIGNATURE)

VERIFICATION

VERIFIED AT NEW DELHI ON THIS ___ DAY OF ________, 2025, THAT THE CONTENTS
OF THE ABOVE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO MY KNOWLEDGE
AND BELIEF AND NOTHING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREFROM.

DEPONENT
 Interview Questions

1. What inspired you to pursue a career in law?

To be honest, it wasn’t a straight path. I initially considered civil services, but during my college
years, I was deeply drawn to debates and public speaking. What really hooked me was the
power of legal reasoning — the way the law shapes society, resolves conflict, and can be used
both as a shield and a sword. Eventually, I realized that law wasn't just a career; it was a way to
be part of something larger — to influence systems, protect rights, and sometimes, correct
injustices. That purpose is what pulled me in, and it’s what keeps me going even today.

2. How did you decide on your area of specialization?

Like many young lawyers, I started off as a generalist. I took whatever work came my way —
civil matters, criminal trials, writs, even a few matrimonial cases. But over time, I gravitated
toward constitutional and commercial law. I found myself fascinated by the balance of power
between the State and the individual, and the complex web of rights, contracts, and obligations
in business disputes. It wasn’t a single decision — it was more of a slow realization of where my
interest and strengths aligned. Eventually, those became the areas where I was most sought
after.

3. What was your journey like from being a young lawyer to becoming a senior advocate?

It was long, unpredictable, and often humbling. In the early years, I spent more time waiting
outside courtrooms than arguing inside them. There were times when I questioned my choices
— especially when work was slow or when a case I’d prepared night and day for got adjourned
in 30 seconds. But slowly, with persistence and some very generous mentors, things started
moving. Reputation in this profession builds slowly — through consistency, reliability, and
integrity. Being designated as a senior advocate wasn’t a moment of arrival; it was a reminder
of responsibility — to the Bar, to the Bench, and to the next generation of lawyers.

4. What were some of the biggest challenges you faced early in your career?

One of the biggest was simply getting good quality work. Chambers are crowded, and the
profession can be quite hierarchical. It takes time to be trusted with substantial matters.
Another challenge was financial instability — there were months when I earned less than the
price of a good shirt. Beyond that, court culture can be tough. You have to develop a thick skin
and a clear head. But those early years also taught me resilience. They taught me how to
survive, adapt, and grow. Every setback became a lesson in disguise.

5. How do you see the legal profession changing in the next 10 years?

The profession is becoming faster, more specialized, and increasingly tech-driven. We’ll see
more virtual courts, cross-border disputes, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
taking center stage. The traditional slow pace is giving way to a more dynamic, client-focused
practice.
6. What are your thoughts on AI and technology in legal practice?

AI is a powerful tool — it can assist in research, due diligence, and even drafting. But it cannot
replace judgment, courtroom instinct, or the human touch in advocacy. Technology should be
seen as an aid, not a threat.

7. What skills do you think future lawyers must develop to stay relevant?

Apart from a strong foundation in law, young lawyers must learn to think critically, write clearly,
and adapt quickly. Tech literacy is essential, but so is emotional intelligence. The future lawyer
must be both digitally agile and ethically grounded.

8. What should law students focus on while in law school to become good litigators?

Focus on building clarity of thought, communication skills, and a deep understanding of legal
reasoning. Read judgments, not just textbooks. Participate in discussions, debates, and keep
observing how arguments are structured — in court or even in a classroom. Litigation is not just
about knowing the law; it’s about how you present it.

9. How important is mooting, internships, or publications in shaping a legal career?

All three are valuable in different ways. Mooting sharpens your research and oral advocacy.
Internships give you a sense of the profession’s ground realities. Publications help you develop
analytical depth. But what matters most is not how many you do — it’s how seriously you
engage with each.

10. How can a student stand out in a chamber internship?

Be observant, humble, and proactive. Don’t wait to be spoon-fed work — ask intelligent
questions, show initiative in researching, and be meticulous with your drafts. Most importantly,
listen more than you speak. Good interns leave an impression not by being loud, but by being
reliable.

11. What books or judgments would you recommend every law student should read?

Start with:

• “Courting the People” by Anuj Bhuwania – for insight into PILs.

• “Open and Shut” by Sunetra Choudhury – a gripping look at Indian criminal trials.
• Granville Austin’s works on the Constitution. And read landmark judgments like:
• Kesavananda Bharati,
• Maneka Gandhi,
• Puttaswamy,
• Shayara Bano, and
• Navtej Singh Johar — they teach you not just law, but how law lives in society.
12. How do you prepare for a high-stakes case?

I start by mastering the facts — every detail, every document, every timeline. Then I dive into
the law, building my argument around the strongest possible legal foundation. I anticipate the
other side’s moves, prepare responses, and craft a narrative that’s both legally sound and
compelling to the judge. And above all, I rehearse — not mechanically, but to sharpen clarity
and flow.

13. What’s your approach to cross-examination and argument strategy?

Cross-examination is not about theatrics — it’s about precision. I identify the key points I need
to extract or discredit, and I stick to that path. The goal is to build your case through their
witness. As for arguments, I keep them structured: facts first, law second, and persuasion
throughout. Simplicity and logic win more often than emotion or volume.

14. How do you handle situations when the law is not on your side?

When the law is against you, fall back on equity, interpretation, or public interest — depending
on the case. You find the narrowest path available and walk it carefully. Sometimes, you’re just
trying to get the best possible outcome, not a total victory. And sometimes, you lay the
groundwork for a future bench to reconsider the law.

15. Can you share an experience where you learned something unexpected from a
courtroom situation?

Years ago, I argued a routine matter before a trial judge who asked a single question that
completely changed the trajectory of the case. I realized then that no hearing is “routine” and
no judge is predictable. Since that day, I prepare every brief as if it might end up shaping
precedent — because you never know when a simple case will turn complex, or when the court
will catch what you overlooked.