2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Team Code- NSL08

2ND DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

12 - 14TH OCTOBER, 2023
_________________________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVRAT

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVRAT

WRIT PETITION NO.______________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF –

SAMRIDHI & Another ..…. PETITIONERS

V.

UNION OF ARYAVRAT …...RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES

OF

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVRAT

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT]

________________________________________________________________

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] I

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................. V
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................. VI - VII
ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................... VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................ IX - X
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1 – 4
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] II

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________
◆ CASE LAWS:
Sl. CASE CITATION PAGE
No.
1. “Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors.” AIR 1998 SC 2363 5

2. “Kalpana Mehta and Others v. Union of India and Others” AIR 2018 SC 2493 4

3. “Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India” 2018 INSC 790 1

4. “S. R. Bommai v Union of India” 1994 AIR 1918, 2

1994 SCC (3)
5. “Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others” (2014) 4 SCC 242 5

◆ STATUTE:
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Adoption Regulations, 2017
3. The Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969

◆ BOOKS:
1. Commentary on the Constitution of India, Durga Das Basu, Lexis Nexis (8th edition, 2008).
2. Constitutional Law of India, Dr. Narendra Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency (10th edition,2018)

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] III

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
_________________________________________________________________________________________

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Anr. Another

Cr. P.C. The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973
INSC Supreme Court of India.

LGBTQIA+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender, Queer, Intersex,
and Asexual and all other
Communities
No. Number

Ors. Others

Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

UCC Uniform Civil Code.

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] IV

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
_________________________________________________________________________________________
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENT, UNION OF ARYAVRAT, HAS APPEARED
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SENT TO THE RESPONDENT WITH
REGARD TO THE WRIT PETITION AND PIL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVRAT.

Article 32 read as-

“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 warranto 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 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”

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] V

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Aryavrat, a Sovereign Country in Asiana continent, consisting of 28 States and 8 Union territories,
has the population of around 140 crores where 70% people belong to Hinduism, i.e., in majority
religion, other 20% are from Islam, and the rest 10% practice other religions. Out of the 28 states
only the State of Kankan which was a Portuguese colony has successfully implemented Uniform
Civil Code in the country.

2. An adult Hindu Trans-man, namely Mrinal, having relationship with One Akram, an adult Muslim
Trans-woman since 2010, both are residents of Avanti State which does not have Uniform Civil
Code (hereinafter referred as UCC). After 2018 both of them revealed their relationship publicly as
because the hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavrat decriminalized homosexuality on the same year.

3. Although, the Supreme Court of Aryavrat by decriminalizing homosexuality, ensured a special

position of the members of LGBTQ+ community, but they still face discriminations and stigmas in
the society as the societal norm had only male and female stratum. One of the discriminations is
the couples from the LGBTQ+ communities do not have their marriage certificates, if they marry.

4. Despite of being customarily married to disclose their relationship with respecting each other’s
faith and respective customs, the trans couple were unable to get their marriage officially registered
as neither of them fall under the definitions of ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ and belonged to different
religion.
5. After the customary marriage Mrinal gave birth to a baby boy for whom they were unable to get
the birth certificate as the same required for the name of father and mother and the marriage
certificate of them. Their problem got complicated when inspite of being gave birth to a baby boy,
Mrinal desired to be the father of that baby.

6. They also tried to get their marriage registered when applications for getting the birth certificate
was rejected previously by the authorities in the State of Avanti, the same was also rejected by the
respective authorities as the lack of UCC. As there is no way to solve their problems, they finally
approached before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavrat vide filing a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of Aryavrat for the issuance of the birth certificate, recognition of their
marriage and the implementation of UCC which recognizes same sex marriage and inter-religious
marriage.

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] VI

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

7. Meanwhile, an NGO- Samridhi, working for the welfare of Muslim women, had filed Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking to implement UCC throughout
the country of Aryavrat.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clubbed the Writ Petition and the PIL as both of that petitions
mainly aim to the implementation of UCC throughout the country.

9. The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board has filed an Impleading Petition in both the Public
Interest Litigations filed by the NGO and the Trans-couple in respect of violation of secular
structure of the Aryavrat, as they opposed Implementation of Uniform Civil Code by stating that it
infringes their personal right and the same is in violation of the rights granted under the
Constitution.

10. Despite of being an election agenda of the government of Aryavrat to impose Uniform Civil Code,
the Government is opposing a Uniform Civil Code which recognizes LGBTQIA Community as
well as opposing the PIL filed by the Trans-couple on the ground of maintainability as they have an
alternative remedy.

11. As the Trans-Couple find them not to be a necessary party to the proceedings, they are opposing
the Impleading Petition filed by All Indus Muslim Personal Law Board. 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.

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] VII

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
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 Aryavrat 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?

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] VIII

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
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?
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents most humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court
that the Petitioners do not have the locus standi to file the PIL and Writ Petitions as
none of the Fundamental Rights have been violated. The remedies under Article 32
can be invoked only in cases where the Fundamental Rights have been violated. Thus,
the clubbed Petition (PIL and the Writ Petition) is not maintainable under Article 32
of the Constitution of Aryavrat.

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

PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVRAT AND IS IT
THE STATES’S INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE
SUBJECTS?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent most humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that
the implementation of Universal Civil Code (UCC) is genuinely violative of one’s
Fundamental Rights and other personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
Aryavrat as for the nature of the legislation. The legislation aims to rule over all religions
in Aryavrat. But as there are so many religions in Aryavrat and the believer of Hinduism
or Hindutva is in the majorities there, the implementation of UCC will cause the State’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?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents most humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the
non-issuance of the Birth Certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA couple is not violation of the Child’s
right by the state because neither the child falls under the definition of "live birth" Under section 2 (d) of The
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 nor the couple are entitled to have parenthood as they are unable to
produce any valid document of their marriage. So, thus it is clear that the child is illegitimate.

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] IX

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

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?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the
court has no constitutional power to frame laws which led the legislature have become
the executive wing of the Judiciary because the power to framing laws is the only power
vested upon the legislature which is stated under the Constitution of Aryavrat. The
Judiciary has the power to interpret the law but they should not have any power to frame
laws.

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] X

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
_________________________________________________________________________________________
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?
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent most humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the PIL
is not maintainable because seeking legal validation of same sex marriage, would cause complete havoc
with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values and the implementation of
Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would amount to violation of minor’s right as well as personal laws in
Aryavrat.
Living together as partners and having sexual relationships by same sex individuals was 'not
comparable to the Aryavratian family concept’. The marriage between heterosexual couples has been
the norm throughout the history. It is foundational to both the continuance and existence of the state.
Marriage in Aryavrat is regarded as a “Sanskar,” “sacrament,” and a “holy union,” and it is fully
dependent upon customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos, and societal values. According to the
traditional concept of marriage, it is consisting of a biological man, woman, and child, which cannot be
disrupted. In a same-sex marriage, it is neither possible nor feasible to term them as ‘husband’ and the
other as ‘wife’ in the context of the legislative scheme of various personal laws. There is no legislation
in Aryavrat which recognise same sex marriage as a valid marriage. The registration of marriage of
same-sex persons also results in a violation of existing personal and codified law provisions — such as
‘degrees of prohibited relationship’; ‘conditions of marriage’; ‘ceremonial and ritual requirements’
under the personal laws governing the individuals”. Recognizing same-sex marriages could cause havoc
in the system of personal laws.
In Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India 1, case, judgement was given by the Hon’ble court,
decriminalized homosexuality but it did not mention or legalize same sex marriage belong to LGBTQ+
community.
As the marriage between Mrinal and Akram is against the personal laws, social norms, it cannot
be considered as a valid marriage. So, the child will be recognised as an illegitimate child.
Implementation of UCC is actually the violation of especially personal laws. It seeks to replace
individual religious laws with a uniform code applicable to all citizens of Aryavrat. Personal laws are in
Aryavrat are governed by separate laws, based on religion. These laws are deeply rooted in religious and
cultural traditions, and any attempt to reform them is seen as an attack on religious identity. As a result,

1 Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India 2018 INSC 790

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 1

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

there are significant disparities in personal laws based on religion, and these disparities often lead to
discrimination and injustice.
The Ld. Counsel humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that it is not feasible to implement
the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in a country like Aryavrat as the legislation is -

• A move against secularism: In Aryavrat, a country with diverse languages and traditions, expecting
people of diverse culture and traditions to act on the same laws, based on a uniform system is
somewhat preposterous. Aryavrat takes pride in its integrity within diversity. For maintaining
diversity, we need to respect every minority community’s personal choice and law. That is what has
led this nation to live in peace for such a long duration of time. The question that we need to ask
ourselves is that whether the violation of personal laws is acceptable or not.
In the landmark judgment of S. R. Bommai v Union of India 2, the
honourable Supreme Court explained the concept of Secularism as, “The Constitution has chosen
secularism as its vehicle to establish an egalitarian social order. Secularism is part of the
fundamental law and basic structure of the Indian political system.”

• An infringement of personal religious laws: The Muslim community vehemently opposes the
move by the government and they all say that UCC would violate their personal laws gravely and
would thus result in irreversible damage to their religion and the laws therein. As a matter of fact,
the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code is, the very idea of assimilating all the personal laws
into a uniform code will infringe the constituents of personal laws of most of the minority religion.

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

PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVRAT AND IS IT
THE STATES’S INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE
SUBJECTS?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent most humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the UCC is
violative of one’s’ Fundamental Rights and other personal rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of
the constitution of Aryavrat which talks about freedom of religion and absolutely, the state directly
interferes in the realm of personal laws through the enactment of UCC.

As we all know that Art. 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice,
and propagate religion to all citizens and Art. 26 gives freedom to manage religious affairs which are an
integral part of their religious identities. UCC directly violates Article 25 and 26 as it has is a vision to

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

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 2

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

contribute to a uniformly structured legislature that will reserve all the aspects resolving around the
personal religious and civil laws of every religion in Aryavrat.

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a contentious issue in Aryavrat, particularly when it comes
to conflicts with Muslim personal law. The UCC aims to replace various personal laws in Aryavrat with
a common set of laws for all citizens, irrespective of their religion.

One of the main areas of conflict between the UCC and Muslim personal law is in the realm of
family law. Under Muslim personal law, marriage, divorce, and inheritance are governed by Sharia law,
which is based on Islamic religious principles. However, the UCC seeks to replace these religious-based
laws with a common civil code, which would apply to all citizens.

It would lead to a homogenization of pluralistic and diverse Aryavratian society, and it would
be a violation of their religious rights and cultural practices. Personal laws are generally based on
religious traditions, customs, and scriptures, and are an integral part of the cultural, traditional, and
religious identities of their communities. It needs to respect the diversity and autonomy of different
religions and communities. It is absolutely right if anyone talks about the potential erosion of cultural
and religious identities in the implementation of a UCC as a threat to religious freedom and cultural
identity.

Personal laws in Aryavrat are governed by different specific laws, based on religion. Hindu
law, Muslim law, Christian law are governed personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance,
and adoption for their respective communities. These laws are deeply rooted and connected in religious
and cultural traditions, and if anyone trying to step forward to reform them is seen as an attack on
religious identity. So, as a result, it is impossible to follow the Uniform Civil Code as it is violated
fundamental rights and other personal rights and the religious identity of the peoples of Aryavrat under
Art. 25 and 26.

Accordingly, the state wants to interfere in the realm of personal laws as their ideology based out
of the majoritarian religion (Hindu) in Aryavrat as well as for their election agenda through the
implementation of UCC.

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?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the non-
issuance of the Birth Certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA couple is not amounting to the
violation of the Child’s right by the state. The legislation, the Registration of Births and Deaths

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 3

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Act,1969, under sec. 2(d) defined ‘live-birth’ as “‘live-birth’ means the complete expulsion or extraction
from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such
expulsion or extraction, breathes or show any other evidence of life, and each product of such birth is
considered live-born;” This section fully stressed upon “…. the complete expulsion or extraction from
its ‘mother...’.” It is very much complex and hard to consider the ‘mother’ of a child born from a
LQBTQIA couple. So, that child cannot be considered as live-born as per the said section.

Moreover, coming to the right of parenthood of LGBTQIA couple, the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 has no mention beyond the binary genders: male and female. As per Rule 5 of
The Adoption Regulations, 2017 issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority, an autonomous
and statutory body of Ministry of Women and Child Development in the Government of Aryavrat,
prohibits the adoption of a child to even a heterosexual couple who are in live-in relationship. Sub-rule
(3) of Rule 5 of The Adoption Regulations, 2017 states, “No child shall be given to a couple unless they
have at least two years of stable marital relationship.” In the present case, the Petitioners are claiming
the parenthood of the baby boy born from them. But they are not entitled to have the parenthood of the
boy as they are unable to produce their marriage certificate which proves their marital relationship.

As a matter of fact, the child born from them is an illegitimate child. Hence, the non-issuance of the
Birth Certificate to that child is not the violation of the child’s right by 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?

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the court has no
constitutional power to frame laws which led the legislature have become the executive wing of the
Judiciary.

In Kalpana Mehta and Others v. Union of India and Others 3, Chief Justice Dipak Misra, under
the headings ‘Supremacy of the Constitution’, ‘Power of judicial review’ and ‘Doctrine of separation of
powers’, has held that the Constitution is a supreme fundamental law which requires that all laws,
actions and decisions of the three organs should be in consonance and in accord with the constitutional
limits and hence held “41. This Court has the constitutional power and the authority to interpret the
constitutional provisions as well as the statutory provisions. The conferment of the power of judicial

3 Kalpana Mehta and Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 2018 SC 2493

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 4

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

review has a great sanctity as the constitutional court has the power to declare any law as
unconstitutional if there is lack of competence of the legislature keeping in view the field of legislation
as provided in the Constitution or if a provision contravenes or runs counter to any of the fundamental
rights or any constitutional provision or if a provision is manifestly arbitrary.”

In the recent case of Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors. 4, the Supreme Court of Aryavrat have
held that the Judiciary is not the law-making body in Aryavrat. Enacting a law is the function of
Parliament and state legislatures. Even if the Court were to address the correct authority, Courts in
Aryavrat have no authority to direct the legislature to frame a law, let alone specify a time-period. This
may be said to violate the basic principle of “separation of powers” which states that the executive,
legislature and judiciary should function independently of each other. Under the Aryavratian
Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to protect fundamental rights and
to interpret law. The Constitution does not give power to Courts to direct the framing of a law.

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others 5 ,who had,
in the context of capital punishment for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for
short), held that the lawmakers have entrusted the task of weighing and measuring the gravity of the
offence with the institution of judiciary by reposing a very high amount of confidence and trust. It
requires a judge to apply his judicial mind after weighing the pros and cons of the crime committed in
the golden scales to ensure that the justice is delivered. In a way, therefore, the legislature itself entrusts
the judiciary to lay down parameters in the form of precedents which is oft-spoken as judge made law.
This is true of many a legislation. Such law, even if made by the judiciary, would not infringe the
doctrine of separation of powers and is in conformity with the constitutional functions.

Thus, the court or the Judiciary in Aryavrat has the power to interpret the laws or has the power to
directs the legislature to make certain changes, but does not have the power to make laws. So, in no way
the constitutional power of court to frame laws has led to the scenario where legislature have become
the executive wing of the judiciary.

4 Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2363,
5 Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others (2014) 4 SCC 242

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 5

 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

_________________________________________________________________________________________
PRAYER
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to
A. dismiss the PIL and the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners,

B. or to pass any order or relief which your Honour may deem fit, in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience to which the counsel shall forever be duty bound to.

Sd/-
____________________________________
Ld. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONSENT

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] 6