Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

IV INTRA BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018
IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018
IV INTRA BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION – 2018
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON-2018
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
GAKI And Others……………………………………………PETITIONER

GAKI And Others..................................….....…………………….……. PETITIONER
V.
V.
State of Vindhya Pradesh……………………………………..RESPONDENT
State of Vindhya Pradesh…………………………………….…………RESPONDENT
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 1

TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES………………………….…….……………………………4
WEB RESOURCES…………………….………………………………4
CASE LAWS……………………….…………………………………..5
LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………. 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………….………………………7
STATEMENT OF FACT……………………………….………………….8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………….11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..........................................................................13

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

1.1 That the matter involves the substantial question of law of general public importance.
1.2 That the matter involves the substantial question of law and the gross injustice has been
done
1.2.1 Substantial question of law is involved
1.2.2 Gross injustice has been done
2. Whether there is a violation of fundamental right.

2.1 Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State Policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………….22

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES
1 The Constitution of India, 1950

2 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
WEB RESOURCES
1. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)
2. www.indiankanoon.org (INDIAN KANOON)
3. www.thehindu.com (THE HINDU)
4. www.lawctopus.com (LAWCTOPUS)
6 www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)
7. http://www.nishithdesai.com
8. www.bluebook.com (BLUEBOOK)
CASE LAWS
CASE NAME CITATIONS

Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co (2007) 8 SCC 359

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003)11 SCC 241
CCE v. Standard Motor Products AIR 1989 SC 1298 : (1989) 2 SCC 303
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustes, (2004) 3 SCC 214
Port of Mumbai
MG Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264 : (2001) 2 SCC 666
Justice K S Puttaswany (Retd.) v. UOI AIR 2018 SC
S.R Bommai v. UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) SCC 1

Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1245 : (1962) 1 SCR 151
Yusuf Ibraahim Mohammad Lokhat v. State of 1974 AIR 645
Gujarat
J Srinivas Raju v. State of Orissa 113 (2012) Cut LT 13 (22)
Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 226.
Re Kerala Education Bill AIR 1959 1 SCR 995.
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
Hon’ble Honourable
SC Supreme Court

HC High Court
UOI Union of India
AIR All India Reports
ICMA Indian Christian Marriage Act
Art. Article
SCC Supreme Court Caese
SLP Special Leave Petition
S. Section
¶ Para
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner herein, Under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, this Hon’ble Court has
been vested, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal
in the territory of India. In this case, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned
orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Vindhya Pradesh.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The State of Vindhya Pradesh amended the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions
of Services) Rules, 1961. It was published in the Vindhya Pradesh Gazette on 10 th March, 2000
with the Governor’s assent.
The amendment added sub-rule 5 & 6 to sub-rule 4 into Rule 6 in effect which totally disqualify
the candidate from the state civil services either, it is an administrative services of any grade i.e.
I,II,III& IV and from judicial services in the State of Vindhya Pradesh.

The amended sub-rule 5 signifies the complete ban of getting married before the age of 18,
disqualifies the candidate to get the government job & amended sub-rule 6 is not very much clear
how it has to be applied. Also, there is no burden of proving that the child has conceived before
the amendment or after the amendment.
Public Interest Litigation was filed by a public spirited citizen, GAKI in the Hon’ble High Court,
challenging the vires of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961. The association of
various religionshad also filed a writ petition on 8 th August, 2018 challenging the vires of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961. The petitioner raised several challenges inter alia,
on the following grounds namely:
Sub rule 5 violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India which highlights Right to life and
personal liberty that includes right to marry. The amended provisions have taken away the
fundamental right of citizen’s right to marry. In the same manner, sub-rule 6 is also a violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India since, the reverse burden of proof is cast upon the
candidate to show that he/she is innocent, violating the general presumption of the candidate
being innocent until proven guilty. The amended provision also been challenged on the ground
of Article 14, inter alia, Equality before law. The amendment, i.e., the addition of sub-rule 5 also
violates the fundamental right to practice and propagate religion under Article 25 of the
Constitution.
The State of Vindhya Pradesh defended the vires of the said amendment on the following
grounds namely:
Article 14 & 21 are not an absolute Fundamental Right & every Fundamental Right is subject to
reasonable restrictions.
Fundamental Right cannot read in isolation it but it has to be read with Directive Principles.
Reasonable restrictions have to be implemented through Directive Principles of State Policy

which should be upholding the interest of Public not an individual.
The High Court has brought within the ambit of the public policy for the development of the
State.

ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE 1
Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?
ISSUE 2
Whether there is a violation of fundamental right?
ISSUE 3

Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State Policy?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1] Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, Special Leave Petition filed by the
Petitioner is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question of law of general public
importance. If the SC does not intervene the matter it will result in gross injustice, and that
miscarriage of justice had already been visible by the erring judgment of the HC of Vindhya
Pradesh. The Hon’ble HC has upheld the validity of the amendments 1 done by the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961. The said amendment
completely disregard catastrophe of the fundamental right that includes the right to marry,
1
Moot Preposition,

violating the general presumption of the candidate being innocent until proven guilty, 2 violation
of Article 14 & right to practice and propagate religion as well as violation of cultural right.
Therefore, the special leave petition of the petitioner must be accepted because of the violation of
the sets of fundamental right & the Hon’ble Court can use its wide jurisdiction conferred under
Art. 136,3 to correct the wrong done by the decision given by the HC of Vindhya Pradesh.
[2] Whether there is a violation of Fundamental Right?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes sub-rule 5 & 6 are
in violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The
amended provision of Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services), 1961
are in contravention of Art. 14, 21 and 25, reducing the effect of the provision.
[3] Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State
Policy?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes sub-rule 5 & sub-
rule 6 which are the directives of state policy in reference of Art. 38 come in violation of Art.14,
Art.21 and Art.25.
2
Moot Preposition,
3
Art. 136, The Constitution of India 1950.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1]. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTANBLE
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, Special Leave Petition filed by the
Petitioner is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question of law of general
public importance. If the SC does not intervene the matter it will result in gross injustice,
and that miscarriage of justice had already been visible by the erring judgment of the HC
of Vindhya Pradesh. The Hon’ble HC has upheld the validity of the amendments 4 done
by the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961. The
said amendment completely disregard catastrophe of the fundamental right that includes
the right to marry, violating the general presumption of the candidate being innocent until
4
Moot Preposition,

proven guilty,5 violation of Article 14 & right to practice and propagate religion as well
as violation of cultural right. Therefore, the special leave petition of the petitioner must
be accepted because of the violation of the sets of fundamental right & the Hon’ble Court
can use its wide jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136, 6 to correct the wrong done by the
decision given by the HC of Vindhya Pradesh.
[1.1]THAT MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction conferred under Art.
136 on the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive one7 and at the same time when
question of law of public importance then it can be resolved by filing a Special Leave
Petition. It is well settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure
by SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetrated,8 therefore a duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting the
illegality of the judgments.
3. Art. 136 is the residuary power of the SC to do justice where the Court is satisfied that
there is injustice.9 This Art. should be utilized for determining only substantial question
of law10 when the erred had already been done by the HC and now the conscience of this
Court pricks it or its heart bleeds for imparting justice or undoing injustice.11
4. In this instant matter, there is a sequence of the violation of fundamental right, firstly
under Art. 21 that includes right to marry with the subsequent violation of right to proof
with the general presumption of the candidate being innocent until proven guilty.12 As in
accordance with the principle reiterated by the SC, “Equality is a basic feature of the
Constitution of India and any treatment of equals unequally or unequals as equals will be
5
Moot Preposition,
6
Art. 136, The Constitution of India 1950.
7
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
8
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003)11 SCC 241
9
CCE v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298 : (1989) 2 SCC 303, See also, M P Jain, Indian
Constitutional Law, 238 ( 8th ed., LexisNexis, 2018)
10
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 232 (8th ed., LexisNexis, 2018)
11
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustes, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214, 244 : AIR 2004 SC 1815.
12
Moot Prepodition

violation of basic structure of the Constitution of India.” 13 There is also a gross violation
of Art. 25 that give right to freedom of religion. So, the series of violation of fundamental
right that one side responsible for the sanctity of the Constitution of India & with same
side leads to the matter of general public importance therefore needs to be intervene by
the SC.
[1.2]THAT MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF
LAW AND GROSS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, matter involves substantial
question of law as it concerns the sequence of violation of the fundamental right ----and
the gross injustice had already been meted out by the decision of HC of Vindhya Pradesh,
which has hastily and arbitrarily upheld the validity of the amendments by the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961.
[1.2.1] SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED
6. It is humbly submitted that where findings are entered into without considering relevant
materials and proper legal procedure, interference of SC is called for. 14 In the present case
the Hon’ble HC has erred while deciding a very substantial question of law. The law
which is in question is substantial or not depends upon the fact that the matter is of
general public importance or not. So, in the instant case the amended sub-rule 5 stated the
complete ban of getting married before the age of 18, disqualifies the candidate to get
government job come with the contravention of the citizen’s right to marry as well as
prohibits the various personal laws and the communities to practice and propagate
religion as well as exhaust the citizen’s right to practice their culture.
[1.2.2] GROSS INJUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE

7. The judgments of the HC is bad in the eyes of law as it did not recognize the basic
structure of the constitution by upholding the validity of the amendments done for the
appointments in Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961. Grave miscarriage of
13
MG Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264 : (2001) 2 SCC 666.
14
Justice K S Puttaswany (Retd.) v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC

justice has been done by the decision of Hon’ble HC for which interference of SC is
required.
8. The amendment to the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services)
Rules, 1961 highlights the sub-rule 5 & 6 results in gross violation of fundamental right
that need to be address by this Hon’ble court.
[2] WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
[2.1] VIOLATION OF ART.21
9. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes
sub-rule 5 & sub-rule 6 come in violation of Art.21 i.e., Right to Life and personal
liberty.
[2.1.2]RIGHT TO MARRY COMES UNDER ART. 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
10. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,15 in this case SC viewed that the concept of right to
marry comes under Art. 21 right to life and personal liberty of the Constitution of India.
11. India is the secular land where the citizens have a right to propagate and practice religion
as well as culture. Similarly, different religion in India given the equal status and the
word ‘secular’ mean the same which is mentioned and added to the preamble of the
Constitution of India by forty-second amendment.
15
AIR 2006 SC 2522.

12. The concept of marriage given in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 used the word
‘sacramental’ that says that a marriage is a ‘holy union’ and the nature of child marriage
if happens then it will always taken as a valid marriage.
13. In accordance to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the section 5 deals with conditions for a
hindu marriage , which is as follows:
A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are
fulfilled, namely:-
1. Neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage;
2. At the time of the marriage , neither party –
a. Is incapable of giving valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of
mind;or
b. Though capable of giving a valid consent has been suffering from mental disorder
of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation
of children ; or
c. Has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
3. The bridegroom has completed the age of [twenty-one years]and the bride , the age
of [eighteen years] at the time of marriage;
4. The parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom
or usage governing each of them permits the marriage between the two;
5. The parties are not sapindas of each other , unless the custom or usage governing
each of them permits of a marriage between the two;16
14. The S. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 brought the concept of void marriage-
Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void may,
on a petition presented by either thereto,[against the other part], be so declared by a decree
of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
section 5.17
15. Here, the law of marriage based on hindu concept come in contravention with the
amendment provision of sub-rule 5 that make the complete ban on getting married before
the age of 18.
16
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
17
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

16. The marriage under Muslim Law also not specifies the particular age to get married. It
says that every muslim of sound can enter into the contract of marriage who has attained
the age of puberty which is presumed 15 years. A marriage under muslim law is valid if
the parties have attained the age of puberty and all other conditions specified by law.
17. The HC of Gujarat observed that “According to the personal law of Muslims, the girl no
sooner she attains the puberty or complete the 15 years, whichever is either, is competent
to get married without the consent of her parents.” 18 This gives an idea that personal laws
should be prevails by deciding the case of marriage.
18. ICMA also provides a preliminary notice to be issued 14 days prior to the marriage if the
marriage is to be contracted between the person who not attained the age of 18. After the
expiration of the said period, the parties can go on with the marriage without the consent
of their guardians.
19. In this instant case, the complete ban of getting married before the age of 18 disqualifies
the citizen to appear in the Civil services as well as judicial examination infringes the
persons’ right to marry as well as the amended provision is interferes with the personal
laws and customs which is practice in India.
[2.1.3] RIGHT TO BURDEN OF PROOF
20. The amended sub-rule 6 that does not give right to a candidate to proof that child is
conceived before the amendment or after violates the general presumption of the person
to being innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence imposes on the
persecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be
presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The amended sub-rule 6 also questions the doctrine of natural justice that read with Art.
21 of the Constitution of India. Art. 21 highlight the protection of Life and liberty which
is a fundamental provision to protect liberty and ensure life with dignity. So, the violation
18
Yusuf Ibraahim Mohammad Lokhat v. State of Gujarat

of the doctrine of natural justice lies in the Art. 21 part III of the Constitution of India.
This also taken the general right to proof and presume candidate innocent violate Art. 21.
[2.2]VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14-“EQUALITY BEFORE LAW”
22. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that there is a subsequent violation of Art.
14 by the amendments of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of
Services Rules), 1961. These amendments are upheld by the HC which is in one side
unconstitutional as it violate the Part III of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the
people certain fundamental rights and therefore, these amendment are in contravention
with the fundamental rights that need to be address by the Hon’ble SC.
23. Art.14 runs as follows: “The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.” Also, Art. 14 provides positive
and not negative equality.19 Firstly, the amended sub-rule 6 is not very much clear that
how it has to be applied. Secondly, also there is no burden of proving to show that the
child has conceived before the amendment or after the amendment. 20 Taking both the
things simultaneously, it violates Art. 14 as it implies that among equals the law should
be equal and equally administrated that the like should be treated alike without distinction
of race, religion, wealth, social status or political influence.21
24. In this instant case, the application of sub-rule 6 is not very much clear that raise the
doubts in the minds of the candidate with the subsequent addition it shows the class
legislation, that prohibits the candidate to show that candidate conceived before the said
date 10th March 2000 and treated unequally that those who are conceiving before the
amendment are being treated as same as those conceive after the amendment.
25. Article 14 clearly prohibits class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification. It
is very important to note that in government or in public office appointment must be by
seeing the eligibility criteria, and the differentia must be adopted on the basis of
classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the status in question.22
19
J Srinivas Raju v. State of Orissa, 113 (2012) Cut LT 13 (22)
20
Moot Preposition,
21
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245 : (1962) 1 SCR 151.
22
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 910 ( 8th ed. 2018 LexisNexis)

26. The judgment laid down in Deo Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 23 the
candidate has been declared for the appointment due to the Rule 6 of the M.P. Civil
Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 because of having more than two
children i.e., twins in which one has died before the said date and by next pregnancy she
again gave birth to twins after the drafted date. The impugned action taken by the
respondents, by which the petitioner has declared disqualified candidate, is hereby
quashed and the respondents are directed to issue the appointment order to the petitioner
on the post of Forest Guard within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order passed today. The petitioner would be entitled to get the seniority from
the date of appointment along with similarly situated candidates. However, he will not
entitle to get any monetary benefit.24 So, the infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution
of India by the provision of amendment need to be look upon by this Hon’ble SC.
[2.3] VIOLATION OF ART. 25
sub-rule 5 come in violation of Art.25 Of the Part III of the Constitution of India i.e.,
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of Religion.
28. The amended sub rule 5 is complete ban of getting married before the age of 18 and
disqualifies the candidate to get the government job.
29. Freedom of religion is granted to all persons of India.25
30. In the state of Vindhya Pradesh there are many tribal communities such as Gonds, Kols,
Bhills, Murias, Baigas, Korkus, Kamaras, Marias, and Oraons. These local tribes of
Vindhya Pradesh has there own customs and tradition which they are following since
ages and have got the right from article 25.
31. The tribal communities of Vindhya Pradesh follow their own different different customs
and tradition and the age of marriage in all the communities is 18 or below the age of 18
23
AIR 2017 SCC 428.
24
Ibid.
25
S.R .Bommai v. UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) SCC 1.

according to their traditions, as the kols community the age of marriage for girls is 14-18
and the age of marriage for boys is 20 -24, in Bhills the age of marriage for boys and girl
is 14-16 years similarly the age of marriage in Muria Community is 14-16.
[5.]WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PREVAIL OVER DIRECTIVES
PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
[5.1] VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
sub-rule 5 & sub-rule 6 which are the directives of state policy in reference of Art. 38
come in violation of Art.14, Art.21 and Art.25.
[5.1.2] DIRECTIVES PRINCIPLES OF STATE POICY CANNOT OVVERIDE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
2. The fundamental rights are provided to people for their personality development and to
sustain peace and harmony among people.
3. The violation of candidate’s right to equality. Right to life and personal liberty and right
to practice and propagate religion is not justified by giving a greater role to directive
principles of state policy than fundamental rights as no harmonious construction can be
seen here, instead there is a gross violation of candidate’s fundamental right.26
4. In one of the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court it was laid by it that a law
which violates fundamental right cannot be justified on the ground that it is made to
implement a directive contained in Part IV of the Constitution. Directive principles
cannot override Fundamental right. In case of conflict between the two, the Fundamental
right would prevail.27
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also quotes that in case of conflict between Fundamental
Right and DPSPs, the principle of harmonious construction should be applied. But still
26
Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 226.
27
Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1959 1 SCR 995.

after applying the doctrines of interpretation, there is a conflict between fundamental

right and DPSPs, then the former should be upheld.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed
that this Hon’ble SC may be pleased to hold that:
1. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

2. The amended sub rule 5 and sub rule 6 should be omitted.
And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interest of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Shall Forever Pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel for the Petitioner)

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IV INTRA BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

IV INTRA BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION – 2018

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA

GAKI And Others……………………………………………PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 2

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

2. Whether there is a violation of fundamental right.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………….22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 3

1 The Constitution of India, 1950

CASE NAME CITATIONS

Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co (2007) 8 SCC 359

S.R Bommai v. UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) SCC 1

J Srinivas Raju v. State of Orissa 113 (2012) Cut LT 13 (22)

Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 226.

Re Kerala Education Bill AIR 1959 1 SCR 995.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 5

UOI Union of India

AIR All India Reports

ICMA Indian Christian Marriage Act

SCC Supreme Court Caese

SLP Special Leave Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 7

Reasonable restrictions have to be implemented through Directive Principles of State Policy

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 8

Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?

Whether there is a violation of fundamental right?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 9

[1] Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 10

[2] Whether there is a violation of Fundamental Right?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 11

[1]. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTANBLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 12

[1.1]THAT MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 13

LAW AND GROSS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

[1.2.1] SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED

[1.2.2] GROSS INJUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 14

[2] WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

[2.1] VIOLATION OF ART.21

[2.1.2]RIGHT TO MARRY COMES UNDER ART. 21 OF THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 15

of [eighteen years] at the time of marriage;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 16

[2.1.3] RIGHT TO BURDEN OF PROOF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 17

[2.2]VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14-“EQUALITY BEFORE LAW”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 18

[2.3] VIOLATION OF ART. 25

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 19

[5.]WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PREVAIL OVER DIRECTIVES

PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

[5.1] VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

[5.1.2] DIRECTIVES PRINCIPLES OF STATE POICY CANNOT OVVERIDE