1

TEAM CODE - NLS04

2nd DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

IN THE MATTER OF

SAMRIDDHI & ANR ….Petitioner

V.

UNION OF ARYAVART & ANR ….Respondent

Most respectfully submitted before the Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AND FILED BY THE

COUNSELS OF THE RESPONDENT
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION..............................................................................

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

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

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

ISSUES RAISED..............................................................................................

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................

PRAYER.........................................................................................................
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[Link] ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1 HON’BLE HONOURABLE

2 LGBTQIA LESBIAN, GAY,

BISEXUAL,
TRANSGENDER, QUEER,
INTERSEX, AND
ASEXUAL

3 UCC UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

4 PIL PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION

5 UDHR UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS

6 ANR ANOTHER

7 CRC CONVENTION ON THE

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

8 SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

9 ICCPR INTERNATIONAL
 4

COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

10 NO. NUMBER
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED
The Constitution Of India,1950

CASES REFERRED
Saradamma v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) 02 KL CK 0162
Keshav Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000) 05 PAT CK 0004
R.S. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

BOOKS REFERRED
[Link] Constitution of India, 56th ed (2019)
M P Jain Indian Constitutional Law
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, 1949,

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 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 all 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.
 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aryavart is a Sovereign Country in Asiana consisting of 28 States and 8 Union territories and
is by and large conservative country. The Population of Aryavart is around 140 crores. Hinduism
is the major religion and 70% of the population practice Hinduism, 20% practice Islam, and
other 10% practice other religions. Only the State of Kankan which was a Portuguese colony has
successfully implemented Uniform Civil Code in Aryavart.

2. Mrinal who is a Hindu trans-man is in a relationship with Akram who is a Muslim trans-
woman. They both are residents of Avanti State which doesn’t have Uniform Civil Code. They
both have been in a relationship since 2010 at a time when same-sex relationships were
considered taboo and unacceptable by the [Link] were unable to openly proclaim their
relationship because of the social set up of the Country & State.

3. The couples waited for a very long time 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. Though the harassment
by the authorities had stopped due to decriminalization of homosexuality by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court yet the homosexual couples still faced discrimination and stigma in the society.

4. There was a misconception in the society about the gender identity of the individuals. The
societal norm had only male and female stratum and entire government machinery ran around
recognizing only these genders. Though, in recent times there were identification of transgender
rights in some areas, there were still huge lacunae in recognizing their rights in most of the field
especially that of marriage.

5. The couples in the present case decided to open up regarding their relationship and to get
officially married. In admission to the fact that both of them belong to LGBTQ+ community but
also were of different religion. They respected each other’s faith and decided to get married
under their respective Customs. Their wedding was attended by their near and dear ones.
 8

6. Though friends and family supported their marriage, 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.

7. In the meantime, Mrinal gets pregnant and gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Their problem got
complicated as they were unable to get birth certificate issued for their son as the same required
name of father and mother and in their case though Mirnal gave birth to the child, Mirnal
identified to be a male and therefore the father. Moreover, since their marriage itself could not be
registered, they were unable to get birth certificate for their child.

8. Their application was rejected by the authorities in the State of Avanti. Further, they also tried
to get their marriage registered, which was also rejected by the authorities in the State of Avanti.
They find that they were in a legal conundrum. Because of lack of a Uniform Civil Code to
govern the personal laws, they were stuck in a limbo. Hence, they decided to approach the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart vide filing a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution
of Aryavtrat with plea of issuance of birth certificate to their child and recognition of their
marriage and consequently sought to implement a Uniform Civil Code which recognizes both
same sex marriage and inter- religious marriage and grants equal rights to all irrespective of sex
and religion.

9. Meanwhile, an NGO - Samridhi working for the welfare of Muslim women has been fighting
to implement Uniform Civil Code across the Country. They have been providing free legal aid to
Muslim women so as to assist them fight for their rights. Though there were various legislations
governing law of maintenance and other secular issues, it was seen that by and large Muslim
women were unable to access them. In order to provide access to justice and legal rights, the
NGO had filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to implement Uniform Civil Code throughout
the Country of Aryavrat before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. The same was pending consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The main ground taken
by the NGO was that the Muslim women are treated poorly and they do not have legal weapons
to claim maintenance, or file such claims before the Courts. Their rights which are enjoyed by
 9

women of other community are being curtailed by their personal laws. Hence, the NGO wants
the implementation of Uniform Civil Code across the country of Aryavart wherein women
irrespective of religion will have equal rights. The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board is
opposing Implementation of Uniform Civil Code as they claim that it infringes their personal
right and the same is in violation of the rights granted under the Constitution. Hence, the
All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board has filed Impleading Petition in both the Public Interest
Litigations filed by the NGO and the Trans-couple along with violation of secular structure of the
Aryavart.

11. The Government of Aryavart whose ideology is based out of the majoritarian religion
supported to impose Uniform Civil Code and has also made it as their election agenda. However,
the Government is opposing a Uniform Code which recognizes LGBTQIA community stating
that such marriages are not recognized in any religions.

12. The Government of Aryavart is opposing the PIL filed by the Trans-couple on the ground of
maintainability as they have an alternative remedy.

13. 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. These cases have
garnered huge media attention and have become topic of debate. Public opinion is being sought
by various media networks and there are different views and opinions supporting and opposing
both the sides. The Supreme Court recognizing the importance of the case had permitted live
telecast of 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.
 10

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavrat or not and is it feasible to
implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavrat?

2. Whether 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?

3. 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?

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?
 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavrat or not and is it
feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavrat?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court of Aryavart that the PIL in
question may not be maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner's
concerns can be addressed through the democratic legislative process, allowing elected
representatives to deliberate and enact laws that respect the diverse beliefs and traditions of our
nation. Judicial intervention should be exercised cautiously and not supplant the Legislature's
rightful role in lawmaking. Regarding the feasibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code, it is
humbly submitted that Aryavrat's diverse cultural and religious landscape presents significant
challenges. Implementing a Uniform Civil Code must be approached with pragmatism,
considering the intricate cultural and religious nuances. Legislative deliberation, public
consensus, and respect for minority rights are essential in determining the feasibility and
appropriateness of such a significant change in our legal framework.

2. Whether 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?

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that a UCC, if not carefully
implemented, may infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Aryavrat,
including the right to religious freedom, cultural autonomy, and equality. The Constitution
safeguards the diverse cultural and religious landscape of Aryavrat, and imposing a UCC without
due consideration for these rights may lead to [Link] respondent contends that while the
state has a role in upholding constitutional principles, any move toward implementing a UCC
should not be perceived as undue interference in the realm of personal laws. The Constitution
allows for the coexistence of diverse personal laws, and a UCC should respect this diversity
while upholding individual rights. The state's role should be to strike a balance between these
rights and personal laws, rather than imposing a uniform code.
 12

3. 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?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that the non-issuance of a birth
certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA couple does not inherently violate the child's
rights. Our arguments focus on the complexities surrounding personal laws, the respect for
diverse beliefs, and the need for a gradual, consultative approach to implementing a Uniform
Civil Code that respects Aryavart's cultural and religious diversity while safeguarding the rights
of LGBTQIA individuals and inter-religious couples. We contend that alternative legal remedies,
consultations with stakeholders, and a balanced approach are essential in addressing this
complex issue within the framework of Aryavart's federal structure and constitutional principles.

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?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that the Constitutional power of
the Court to frame laws has not led to a scenario where the Legislature has become the Executive
wing of the Judiciary. Our arguments revolve around the separation of powers doctrine,
emphasizing that each branch of government has distinct roles and responsibilities. The
judiciary's power to frame laws is exercised within the bounds of constitutional interpretation,
not as an encroachment on legislative or executive functions. We contend that this balance
ensures the system's checks and balances and safeguards democratic principles, preventing any
undue concentration of power.
 13

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavrat or not and is it
feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavrat?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court of Aryavart that the PIL in
question may not be maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner's
concerns can be addressed through the democratic legislative process, allowing elected
representatives to deliberate and enact laws that respect the diverse beliefs and traditions of our
nation. Judicial intervention should be exercised cautiously and not supplant the Legislature's
rightful role in lawmaking. Regarding the feasibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code, it is
humbly submitted that Aryavrat's diverse cultural and religious landscape presents significant
challenges. Implementing a Uniform Civil Code must be approached with pragmatism,
considering the intricate cultural and religious nuances. Legislative deliberation, public
consensus, and respect for minority rights are essential in determining the feasibility and
appropriateness of such a significant change in our legal framework.

Maintainability of PIL:

The PIL is not maintainable before this Honourable Supreme Court as alternative remedies are
available to address the issues raised. The petitioner has the option to seek legislative changes
through the democratic process, where elected representatives can deliberate and enact laws that
reflect the diverse needs and beliefs of the population. The judiciary should not supplant the role
of the Legislature but rather uphold its autonomy. The PIL lacks specific instances of
constitutional or legal violations that warrant judicial intervention. The petitioner has not
demonstrated that existing laws, as they stand, are unconstitutional or that citizens' rights are
systematically infringed upon. It appears to be based on the petitioner's policy preferences rather
than evidence of widespread legal or constitutional transgressions.

Implementing a Uniform Civil Code is a complex and multifaceted task that requires pragmatism
over judicial activism. The Legislature is better equipped to address the nuanced and culturally
 14

diverse landscape of Aryavrat's personal laws. Judicial intervention in matters of personal laws
may not be the most practical approach, as it risks overlooking the intricacies of religious and
cultural diversity.

Saradamma v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) 02 KL CK 01621: In this case, the Madras High
Court dismissed a PIL, stating that it appeared to be motivated by political considerations rather
than a genuine concern for public interest.

Keshav Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000) 05 PAT CK 00042: The Supreme Court held that PILs
cannot be used as a means to adjudicate private disputes. If the matter is essentially a private
dispute, it should be dealt with through regular legal procedures and not as a PIL.

Feasibility of Implementing Uniform Civil Code:

Aryavrat is a nation characterized by rich cultural and religious diversity. Implementing a

Uniform Civil Code that respects this diversity while harmonizing personal laws is an intricate
undertaking. Legislation that applies uniformly across all religions and communities may not
adequately address the unique customs, traditions, and practices of each group. The respondent
emphasizes that any move toward a Uniform Civil Code must be cautious about protecting the
rights of minority communities. The Constitution of Aryavrat grants religious and cultural
minorities the freedom to manage their religious and cultural affairs. Implementing a Uniform
Civil Code should not infringe upon these constitutional rights.

The respondent contends that the feasibility of a Uniform Civil Code should be determined
through comprehensive legislative deliberation. Such deliberation allows for a nuanced and
democratic approach to addressing personal laws. The Legislature, with its elected
representatives, is better suited to assess the practical implications, cultural sensitivities, and
societal nuances of implementing a Uniform Civil Code. There is a significant change like
implementing a Uniform Civil Code should ideally be preceded by public consensus and open
dialogue. A decision of this magnitude should not be imposed by judicial fiat but should emerge
from the collective will and understanding of the populace.
1
Saradamma v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) 02 KL CK 0162
2
Keshav Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000) 05 PAT CK 0004
 15

R.S. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 13:according to Jeevan Reddy
Justice It was stated that religion is a matter of individual faith and it can not be mixed up with
secular practices and can be regulated by the government by the enactment of a law Throughout
India, there is a principle of positive secularism as distinct from the theory of secularism adopted
by United States as well as the European States, i.e. there is a wall of separation between religion
and state.

In conclusion, the respondent argues that the PIL is not maintainable as alternative remedies are
available, and there is a lack of specific legal or constitutional violations to warrant judicial
intervention. Regarding the feasibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code, the respondent
emphasizes the complexities of Aryavrat's cultural and religious diversity, the need to protect
minority rights, and the importance of legislative deliberation and public consensus in
determining the best course of action.

3
R.S. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
 16

2. Whether 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?

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that a UCC, if not carefully
implemented, may infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Aryavrat,
including the right to religious freedom, cultural autonomy, and equality. The Constitution
safeguards the diverse cultural and religious landscape of Aryavrat, and imposing a UCC without
due consideration for these rights may lead to [Link] respondent contends that while the
state has a role in upholding constitutional principles, any move toward implementing a UCC
should not be perceived as undue interference in the realm of personal laws. The Constitution
allows for the coexistence of diverse personal laws, and a UCC should respect this diversity
while upholding individual rights. The state's role should be to strike a balance between these
rights and personal laws, rather than imposing a uniform code.

Aryavart is a country characterized by its cultural and religious diversity. The Constitution, in
Articles 25 to 30, guarantees the right to freedom of religion and the protection of cultural and
educational rights. Imposing a Uniform Civil Code without due consideration for these diverse
beliefs and practices may infringe upon these constitutional provisions. It is argued that personal
laws, rooted in religion and culture, have been a cornerstone of Aryavrat's legal system. The
recognition of diverse personal laws is not merely a matter of tradition but also a constitutional
right. Interfering with personal laws may be seen as a violation of these rights protected by the
Constitution.

The respondent acknowledges the importance of ensuring gender equality and protection of
rights for all individuals, including LGBTQ+ individuals. However, it is argued that such rights
should be upheld within the framework of existing personal laws, rather than imposing a uniform
code. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and other gender-specific
legislation already provide legal protections to individuals irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Implementing a Uniform Civil Code must consider the protection of minority rights, particularly
those of Muslim and other minority communities. The Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, and
 17

other legislation grant religious and cultural minorities the right to establish and administer
educational institutions. A Uniform Civil Code should not infringe upon these rights.

It is argued that any significant legal reform, such as implementing a Uniform Civil Code, should
be preceded by comprehensive legislative deliberation and public consensus. Imposing such a
code through judicial fiat may not be the most democratic or practical approach. The respondent
invokes the Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom and the protection of personal laws
under Article 44, which calls for a Uniform Civil Code. However, it is stressed that this article
explicitly states that the code shall be voluntary and that respect for religious freedom must be
maintained.

The implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) can potentially infringe upon the
fundamental rights and personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Aryavart. The
Constitution upholds the right to freedom of religion and the right to follow personal customs
and practices. Any attempt to impose a uniform code, particularly in matters of personal laws,
risks impinging on these rights. Citizens of Aryavart have long enjoyed the freedom to follow
their own religious and cultural practices, and the UCC could be seen as a heavy-handed
intrusion into these deeply personal matters. It is essential to recognize that personal laws are
often closely tied to an individual's cultural and religious identity. The respondent argues that
imposing a UCC that disregards these diverse identities could lead to a sense of cultural and
religious alienation among various communities. The Constitution of Aryavart enshrines the
right to preserve and protect one's culture, and any attempt to standardize personal laws may be
perceived as erasing these unique identities, thus violating the fundamental rights of citizens.

Concerns are raised about the potential for discrimination and inequality under a UCC. Personal
laws, as they exist today, provide certain protections and rights to specific groups, particularly
women and minority communities. These laws have evolved to address specific historical
injustices and social realities. The UCC may inadvertently remove these safeguards, leading to
unequal treatment and rights violations. It is crucial to protect these vulnerable groups and ensure
that their rights are not diminished by the imposition of a uniform code. Critics claim that
enforcing a UCC would violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion, as citizens would
 18

be compelled to follow a common civil law. It was argued that personal laws provide individuals
with the freedom to practice their religion without interference from the state.

While uniformity in certain legal matters is essential, the respondent argues that it should not
come at the cost of individual freedoms and rights. The Constitution itself acknowledges the
importance of maintaining a balance between the uniform application of laws and the
preservation of cultural and religious diversity. A more nuanced approach, which respects
personal choices and beliefs while addressing the need for uniformity in specific legal areas, may
better serve the interests of justice and uphold constitutional rights.

In conclusion, the respondent asserts that discussions surrounding the implementation of a UCC
should be inclusive and consultative, involving representatives from diverse communities. Such
an approach can help identify potential violations of fundamental and personal rights and work
toward a solution that respects the Constitution's principles while addressing the need for legal
consistency. Rushing into a UCC without considering these complexities could indeed risk
violating the fundamental rights and personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of
Aryavart.
 19

3. 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?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that the non-issuance of a birth
certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA couple does not inherently violate the child's
rights. Our arguments focus on the complexities surrounding personal laws, the respect for
diverse beliefs, and the need for a gradual, consultative approach to implementing a Uniform
Civil Code that respects Aryavart's cultural and religious diversity while safeguarding the rights
of LGBTQIA individuals and inter-religious couples. We contend that alternative legal remedies,
consultations with stakeholders, and a balanced approach are essential in addressing this
complex issue within the framework of Aryavart's federal structure and constitutional principles.

The respondent contends that the non-issuance of a birth certificate is a result of the lack of legal
recognition of same-sex marriages in the State of Avanti. As per the prevailing legal framework,
marriage is defined in traditional terms, and there is no provision for same-sex couples to register
their marriages. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, which allows inter-religious marriages, does
not explicitly address same-sex marriages. The child has a fundamental right to a name and
nationality under Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
state's hands are tied by the existing legal constraints. The absence of legal provisions for
recognizing same-sex marriages hampers the state's ability to issue a birth certificate for a child
with two same-sex parents.

It is further asserted that the remedy to this situation lies in legal reform. The state cannot be
faulted for acting within the framework of the law. To ensure the child's right to identity and
nationality, it is essential to advocate for legislative changes that recognize same-sex marriages
and address the legal requirements for issuing birth certificates in such cases. The constitutional
provisions in Aryavart grant states a degree of autonomy in personal law matters. While the issue
is one of human rights and equality, it also involves delicate questions of cultural and religious
traditions. Any changes in this regard should be balanced with the state's constitutional duty to
respect these [Link] is pointed out that there are legal alternatives available to the couple,
such as adoption and guardianship, which could potentially resolve the issue of obtaining a birth
certificate for their child. While these alternatives might not fully address the child's right to a
 20

birth certificate with the names of both parents, they do provide a legal path for recognizing the
child's relationship with the non-biological parent.

In summary, the respondent argues that the non-issuance of a birth certificate for the child is a
result of the prevailing legal framework and the absence of recognition of same-sex marriages.
The solution lies in advocating for legal reform to address this issue comprehensively and ensure
the child's rights are respected within the constraints of existing laws.

Against Issuance of Birth Certificate for the Child:

The State's non-issuance of the birth certificate for the child born from an LGBTQIA couple
does not constitute a violation of the child's rights. It is important to emphasize that the State is
bound by existing legal frameworks and definitions, which traditionally recognize a "mother"
and a "father" as the child's legal parents. These legal definitions are not exclusive to Aryavart
but are prevalent globally as part of established family law. One of the primary reasons for the
non-issuance of the birth certificate stems from the lack of legal recognition of Mrinal and
Akram's marriage. In the absence of a Uniform Civil Code, their marital status remains in limbo.
The State's reluctance to issue a birth certificate without clear marital status is a reflection of the
broader legal ambiguity surrounding such unions.

The refusal to issue a birth certificate with both parents' names, considering Mrinal as the
"father," is consistent with respecting deeply ingrained social and religious norms. Aryavart is
known for its cultural and religious diversity, and these norms have a significant influence on the
country's legal and societal fabric. Departing from these norms may lead to unintended
consequences and social discord. The push for the issuance of a birth certificate in this case is
intertwined with a broader debate over implementing a Uniform Civil Code. While proponents
argue for inclusivity and equal rights for LGBTQIA couples, opponents, including various
religious and cultural groups, contend that such recognition challenges the fundamental structure
of traditional families. The State must consider these diverse viewpoints while making legal
decisions. It is important to note that alternative legal mechanisms, such as adoption or
guardianship, exist to address the parental rights of LGBTQIA couples in situations where their
 21

marriage is not legally recognized. These mechanisms offer a path for securing the child's legal
rights and protection without altering the established legal definitions of "mother" and "father."

In conclusion, the respondent side asserts that the non-issuance of the birth certificate for the
child is not a violation of the child's rights but rather a result of the existing legal framework, the
absence of marital recognition, and the need to respect prevailing social norms. They argue that
any potential change in this matter should be pursued through comprehensive legal reforms
rather than individual cases that could set controversial legal precedents.
 22

4. Whether the Constitutional power of the Court to frame laws has led to the scenario
where Legislature has become the Executive wing of the Judiciary?
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Supreme Court that the Constitutional power of
the Court to frame laws has not led to a scenario where the Legislature has become the Executive
wing of the Judiciary. Our arguments revolve around the separation of powers doctrine,
emphasizing that each branch of government has distinct roles and responsibilities. The
judiciary's power to frame laws is exercised within the bounds of constitutional interpretation,
not as an encroachment on legislative or executive functions. We contend that this balance
ensures the system's checks and balances and safeguards democratic principles, preventing any
undue concentration of power.

The Constitutional power of the Court to frame laws, often through judicial pronouncements and
interpretations, is essential for maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of
government - the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. It acts as a crucial check and balance
mechanism to ensure that laws conform to the Constitution's principles and protect individual
rights. This power does not diminish the role of the Legislature but reinforces the principle of
separation of powers. The Judiciary's authority to interpret and frame laws arises primarily when
there are disputes or ambiguity regarding existing laws or when new situations emerge that
require legal clarity. This role is a corrective mechanism, allowing the Judiciary to step in when
legislative or executive actions may infringe upon constitutional rights or fall short of legal
standards.

The perception that the Legislature has become the Executive wing of the Judiciary overlooks
the efficiency and responsiveness that the Judiciary provides in addressing pressing legal issues.
In a dynamic society, waiting for legislative action can result in delays and injustices. The
Court's ability to frame laws swiftly, when necessary, ensures that the law adapts to evolving
societal needs and values. Courts are uniquely positioned to protect individual rights and uphold
the public interest. By framing laws, they can provide legal clarity, set precedents, and rectify
legislative gaps or inadequacies. This power is exercised with the utmost consideration for the
Constitution and the protection of citizens' rights. While the Judiciary may frame laws in specific
cases, it is not a substitute for the Legislature's primary responsibility for lawmaking. The
 23

Legislature retains the authority to enact comprehensive laws that govern various aspects of
society, and judicial pronouncements do not diminish this legislative role.

In conclusion, the respondent side argues that the Constitutional power of the Court to frame
laws is a vital element of checks and balances, ensuring that laws align with the Constitution and
safeguard individual rights. This power does not diminish the Legislature's role but complements
it by addressing legal ambiguities and protecting the public interest efficiently. The Judiciary's
role in law-making should be viewed as a necessary aspect of a robust democratic system rather
than a perception that the Legislature has become the Executive wing of the Judiciary.
 24

PRAYER

In the light of the facts and the arguments set out above, [Link], the petitioner
respectfully makes the following submissions.

May it please the Court, rejecting al1 contrary claims and submissions, to adjudge and
declare, as follows:

First, the PIL is not maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavart.

Second, It is not feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavarta and
UCC is violative of one’s Fundamental rights and other personal rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Aryavart.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And
for this, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.