35th BCI Moot Court Competition 2019 Petitioner Memorial Problem 1 PDF

TEAM CODE: 18
35th BAR CONCIL OF INDIA (TRUST) ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF PINDIANA
Original writ jurisdiction
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Writ petition (CIVIL) NO._____________ OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
1. ASMA ………………………………………………………...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF PINDIANA & MUKHTAR ……………………RESPONDENTS
2. MUKHTAR …………………………………………………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF PINDIANA ………………………………………..RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PINDIANA
35th BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (Trust) ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...5
• STATUTES REFFERED
• BOOKS REFFERED
• WEB SOURCES
• CASES REFFERED…………………………………………................................5,6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………....10
ARGUMENTS IN DETAIL.............................................................................................11-15
1. Whether the petition filed by Asma under article 32 of the constitution of Pindiana
is maintainable or not?
1.1.The Fundamental Rights of Muslim Women guaranteed under Part III of the
Pindiana Constitution are getting violated in large.
1.2.Locus Standi exists in the current case.
2. Whether triple talaq is illegal and against Shariat law application act,1937 or not?
2.1.Triple Talaq has been disapproved under Shariat Law.
2.2.Triple Talaq is void even prior to the Constitutional Bench verdict in Shayara
Bano v. Union of India.
3. Whether triple talaq is an essential religious practice under Art.25 of the
constitution of Pindiana or not?
3.1.Triple Talaq is not an Essential Religious Practice.
3.2.The Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance, 2019 is a
step towards Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution of Pindiana.
4. Whether triple talaq is in violation of Art.14,15,19 &21 of the constitution of
Pindiana or not?
4.1.Triple talaq is gender discriminatory in nature.
4.2.Triple talaq is religion-based discrimination.
4.3.Right to freedom of speech and expression doesn’t protect the pronunciation of
triple talaq.
Page | 2
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
4.4.Triple talaq is an unreasonable law which violates personal liberty & human
dignity.
5. Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second
Ordinance, 2019 is valid or not?
5.1. §3 of the ordinance makes triple talaq an illegal offence.
5.2.Pronouncement of triple talaq amounts to cruelty towards Muslim woman.
5.3.The punishment imposed under §7 of the ordinance is valid.
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….16
Page | 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SI.No. TERM ABBREVIATION

1. Art. Article
2. AIR All India Report
3. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
4. SCC Supreme Court Cases
5. ILR Indian Law Reports
6. Hon’ble Honourable
7. Ors. Others
8. v. Versus
9. ABR All India Bombay Report
10. SCALE Supreme Court Almanac
11. ¶ Paragraph
12. § Section
13. Bom. Bombay
14. Mad. Madras
15. Anr. Another
16. IPC Indian Penal Code
17. No. Number
18. SC Supreme Court
19. HC High Court
20. SLP Special leave petition
Page | 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFFERED:
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
2. INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
3. SHARIAT LAW APPLICATION ACT,1937
4. THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) SECOND
ORDINANCE, 2019
BOOKS REFFERED:
1. Arvind P. Datar, Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis, 2007, 2nd Edition.
2. D.D. Basu, Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis, India, 2009, 8th Edition.
3. B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, 2008, 3rd Edition
4. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, India, 2014, 51st
Edition.
5. Tahir Mahmood (ed.), Asaf A.A. Fyzee Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 5th
edition2008.
WEB SOURCES:
1. http://www.scconline.com
2. http://www.manupatra.com
3. http://www.legalserviceindia.com
4. http://www.lexisnexis.in
CASES REFFERED:
SI.NO. Case name Citation Page.

No.
1. Nain Sukh Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) SCR 1184. 11
2. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & (2005) 1 SCC 59 11
Ors.
3. Shayara Bano & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4609. 12
4. Shamim Ara v. State of U. P (2002) 7 SCC 518 12
Page | 5
5. Zamrud Begum v. K. Md. Haneef and Anr. ,(2003) 3 ALD 220. 12
6. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of (2014) 5 SCC 438 14

India,
7. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 13 SCALE 75. 14
8. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India, AIR 2008 SC 663 14
9. Air India v. Nargesh Mirza AIR 1981 SC 1130 14
10. Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 879 14
11. Re Smt. Amina AIR 1992 Bom. 214. 14
12. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 14
13. Kharak singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295. 14

14. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union (1981) 1 SCC 608. 14
Territory of Delhi & Ors.,
15. Joseph Shine v. Union of India & Ors.,. (2018) 7 SCC 192 15
16. John Vollamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902. 15
17. Mary Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT 644. 15
18. Inderjeet v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1867 15

19. Arati Durgaram Gauda v. A.P. Tata Metallics 2008 (6) Bom CR 1. 15
Ltd,
20. Acharya Jagdiswaranand Avadhut v. Commissioner of (1984) 4 SCC 522. 13
police, Calcutta.
Page | 6
STATEMENTOF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble SC of India has the jurisdiction to maintain the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner Asma, by way of Public Interest Litigation under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
Pindiana. As there is gross injustice to the innocent Muslim women.
Art. 32 of the Constitution of India

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto & 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 SC by clause ( 1 ) & ( 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 SC under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.
Page | 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND:
¶1. Mukhtar and Asma are Sunni and Shia Muslim respectively by religion and both are
resident of State of Chind, Pindiana. Mukthar wanted to have a child, whereas Asam refused
the same. This created a strained relationship between the couple.
RELEVANT FACTS:
¶2.On 12th April, 2017 Mukhtar in the presence of witnesses Ahmed Khan and Na Wazish
Hussain (friends of Muktar) declared “I GIVE ‘TALAQ, TALAQ, TALAQ’, hence I
divorced my wife Asma from the said date and she is free to lead her life and the same was
conveyed to Asma by way of letter sent through post along with Divorce deed duly signed by
witnesses. The amount of Meher (dower) was tendered to be paid as and when required with
the amount of maintenance for the waiting period to the extent of Rs. 50,000.
JUDICIAL TREATMENT:
¶3. Asma exercising her right as a woman and filed a petition invoking original jurisdiction
of the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Pindiana for attacking her by way
of such declaration by Mukhtar. Meanwhile triple talaq was made illegal by passing an
ordinance The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second Ordinance, 2019.
Petitioners also claimed talaq provided by Shariat Law should be declared void-ab-initio as it
causes gross injustice and terminates the matrimonial ties between spouses. It is also stated
in the contention that countries like INDIA where laws are at par with Pindiana, such laws
were declared unconstitutional by high court of Chind.
¶4. Because of which Mukhtar filed a Special Leave Petition to hold the ordinance
unconstitutional. Subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court combined both the matters &
constituted a constitution bench of 7 Judges to resolve both the cases.
Page | 8
ISSUES RAISED
1. WETHER THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE SHARIAT

LAW APPLICATION ACT,1937 OR NOT?
3. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA OR NOT?
4. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14,15,19 & 21

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA OR NOT?
5. WHETHER THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON

MARRIAGE) SECOND ORDINANCE 2019 IS VALID OR NOT?
Page | 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WETHER THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
The petition filed by Asma invoking Art.32 to declare Triple Talak as unconstitutional is
maintainable before this hon’ble SC. Firstly, there exist gross violation of Fundamental
Rights under Art.14,15,19 & 21 of the Constitution. Secondly, Triple Talak gives arbitrary
power to the Muslim husband to act in his own accord. Thirdly, the Petitioner has sufficient
locus-standi to invoke this jurisdiction by way of public interest litigation.
2. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE SHARIAT
LAW APPLICATION ACT,1937 OR NOT?
Triple Talaq is illegal and against Shariat law. Firstly, Talaq-ul-biddat is not an accepted
form of Talaq under the Shariat law or Islamic law. Secondly, the holy Quran itself requires
reconsideration of such hasty decisions. Thirdly, Triple Talaq was held invalid even prior to
the SC verdict in Shayara Bano v. Union of India.
3. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA OR NOT?
Firstly, Triple Talaq is not an essential religious practice hence, it cannot seek protection
under Art.25 of the Constitution. Secondly, the holy Quran itself does not permit triple talaq.
Thirdly, the Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance,2019 is a
step forward towards Uniform Civil Code.
4. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14,15,19 & 21
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA OR NOT?
Triple Talaq is in violation of Art.14,15,19 & 21 of the Constitution. Firstly, there exist an
unreasonable classification. Secondly, pronunciation of triple talaq is not protected under
Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thirdly, Triple Talaq undermines the human dignity of each
innocent Muslim woman.

MARRIAGE) SECOND ORDINANCE, 2019 IS VALID OR NOT?
The Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance,2019 is valid.

Firstly, the ordinance is not arbitrary in nature. Secondly, it only reiterates an already
existing legal provision, § 498 A of IPC. Thirdly, the punishment imposed under the present
ordinance is only to prevent further occurrence and is reasonable in nature.
Page | 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE.
The humbly submitted that Writ Petition filed by Asma is maintainable under Article 32 of
the Pindiana Constitution.
1.1.The Fundamental Rights of Muslim Women guaranteed under Part III of the
Pindiana Constitution are getting violated in large.
In the present case, Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution are getting violated. The object of Article 32 is enforcement of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. A person whose Fundamental Rights have been
infringed has a remedy to approach the Hon’ble SC under Art.32. It was held that “even
where the Supreme Court finds that a law must be held to be void, being in contravention of
some provision of the Constitution, the Court cannot give relief under Article 32 unless it is
satisfied that the right, the infringement of which is complained of by the Petitioner, is a
fundamental right.”1 In the current case it is proved that the Fundamental Rights of women
are getting violated as the whole Talak happens at the wish and will of the Muslim husband
alone and the Muslim women gets no chance to express her stance. This is gross violation of
her Fundamental Rights and hence the petition is maintainable. Further the SLP filed by
Mukhtar under Art.136 is not maintainable as the ordinance only protects the rights of several
innocent Muslim women and is not in derogation of the petitioners Fundamental Rights.
1.2.Locus Standi exists in the current case
When faced with such a petition, the Supreme Court will first deal with the issue of the
petitioner’s locus standi; the petitioner will have to establish that they have the
necessary locus to approach the hon’ble Court. In this regard, the traditional, well established
rule of locus standi is that a person has no right to complain under Article 32 where no
fundamental right has been infringed. The scope of PIL is extremely wide and has been dealt
with by the Supreme Court in numerous cases2 In the current case the Petitioners have the
required Locus standi as there is violation of Fundamental Rights.
2. TRIPLE TALAQ IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE SHARIAT LAW
APPLICATION ACT, 1937.
1
Nain Sukh Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1953) SCR 1184.
2
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 59.
Page | 11
It is humbly submitted that Triple Talaq or Talak-ul-biddat is not an accepted form of Talaq
under the Shariat law or Islam Law and hence it is illegal.
2.1.Triple Talaq has been disapproved under Shariat Law.
Talaq-ul-biddat is not approved by Islamic theology. The concept of "triple Talaq in one
sitting" or "Instant Talaq" is alien to the Holy Quran. The misconception that issuing "so
called Three Talaqs in one sitting" will terminate ''nikah'' (marriage) and will result in
irrevocable talaq is nothing but mockery of the laws. The Holy Quran explicitly lays down
principles for talaq and marital discord as follows:
Surah Nisah ....4:35...
In this ayat of Surah Nisa, Allah clearly asks for arbitration and reconciliation with the help
of relatives. Therefore, no Talaq can be effective without their interference, whether given
once, twice, thrice or a hundred times.
The Surah Talaq Verses 1-12
Thus, it is clear from the above surah that the concept of "Three Divorces" does not exist in
the Quran. The concept of triple talaq in one go was just an innovation by Caliph Umar and
doesn't find any place in the Holy Quran.
The scholars and religious bodies who validate triple talaq in one sitting (without arbitration,
reconciliation, and many other conditions as required in the Quran) need to learn that the
Laws of Allah are above sayings of any Caliph. Even if it served during the reign of a Caliph
it cannot be applicable to for all times to come, as it is only the Quran which is to be followed
for all time.
2.2. Triple Talaq is void even prior to the Constitutional Bench verdict in Shayara
Bano case
Even prior to the Judgement passed by this Hon’ble Court SC in Shayara Bano3, it was held
by this Hon’ble SC in Shamim Ara4that correct legal position is that a mere plea of divorce
given in a written statement by the husband will not by itself operate as proof of talaq;
It is observed by the Supreme Court in that Talaq may be oral or in writing and it must be for
a reasonable cause. It must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation of husband and wife
by two arbitrators one chosen from the family of the wife and other by husband. If their
attempts fail, then talaq may be affected by pronouncement. The said procedure has not been
3
Shayara Bano & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4609.
4
Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.,(2002) 7 SCC 518.
Page | 12
followed. The Supreme Court has culled out the same from Mulla and the principles of
Mohammedan Law.5
3. TRIPLE TALAQ IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE UNDER

ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA.
3.1.Triple Talaq is not an Essential Religious Practice.

Triple Talaq is not an Essential Religious Practice and hence does not have the protection
under Article 25 of the Constitution. It was held by the Supreme Court that Essential
Practices are those that are accepted by the followers as a method of achieving their spiritual
upliftment.6 They are essential only if they are fundamental for the profession of the religion.
The fact that majority of Islamic countries have done away with this practice reflects that it is
not essential. Triple Talaq is against the basic tenets of Quran and what is bad in theology
cannot be good in law.
3.2. The Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance, 2019
is a step towards Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution of
Pindiana.
Though Triple Talaq is not an Essential Religious Practice, it is still being followed. To
abolish such arbitrary practices, Uniform Civil Code is a necessity and this Ordinance is a
step towards it. Art. 37 of the Constitution reads as the provisions contained in this Part shall
not be enforced by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless
fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply
these principles in making laws. Uniformity and equality are not the same. We can have
different Personal laws but the people coming under that set of Personal Law should be
treated equally and when that does not happen, uniformity among Personal laws is required.
Like in the current case, Triple Talaq is a highly arbitrary way of divorce and it is in violation
of the fundamental rights guaranteed to women and hence it should be abolished.
4. TRIPLE TALAQ IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14,15,19 & 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF PINDIANA.
It is humbly submitted that triple talaq violates Art.14,15,19 & 21 of the constitution of
Pindiana. It is further submitted that personal laws also come within the ambit “laws in
force” under Art. 13 of the Constitution of Pindiana and is therefore subject to judicial
review.
5
Zamrud Begum v. K. Md. Haneef and Anr,(2003) 3 ALD 220.
6
Acharya Jagdiswaranand Avadhut v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta, (1984) 4 SCC 522.
Page | 13
4.1.Triple talaq is gender discriminatory in nature.

Triple talaq gives unreasonable and arbitrary power to a Muslim male to divorce his wife just
by uttering three words. This unreasonable power is vested with Muslim male solely based
on gender. Discrimination based on gender identity, destructs the principle of equality.7
Discrimination of women based on physiological grounds8 violates Art.14, 19, 21of the
Constitution of Pindiana. Further, Art.51-A (e) provides to renounce practices derogatory to
the dignity of women. A person setting up grievance of denial of equal treatment must
establish that the differential treatment has neither intelligible differentia nor a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved.
4.2. Triple talaq is religion & sex based discrimination.
No other religion entertains such unreasonable practice of divorce; hence it is a religion-
based discrimination which is expressly prohibited under Art.15. Even customs & usages
having the force of law are void if found inconsistent with any of the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.9
4.3. Right to freedom of speech and expression doesn’t protect the pronunciation of
triple talaq.
No right is an absolute right, it is always subject to reasonable restrictions established by law.
Therefore, the right under Art.19(1)(a) is subject to Art.19(2)10. Pronunciation triple talaq
which is against public morality can never seek protection under Art.19(1)(a).
4.4. Triple talaq is an unreasonable law which violates personal liberty & human
dignity.
Personal liberty11 and human dignity are inextricable facets of Art.21 of the Constitution.12
Instant triple talaq is not even subject to reconsideration, further the consent of the married
Muslim women also becomes immaterial. Women being the weaker section of the society,
when subjected to such unreasonable practices her dignified life and personal liberty is left at
stake.
7
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438; Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of
Kerala, (2018) 13 SCALE 75.
8
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India, AIR 2008 SC 663; Air India v. Nargesh Mirza, AIR 1981 SC 1130; Randhir
Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 879.
9
Re Smt. Amina, AIR 1992 Bom. 214.
10
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
11
Kharak singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
12
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 608.
Page | 14

MARRIAGE) SECOND ORDINANCE 2019 IS VALID OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted that The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second
Ordinance, 2019 is valid. It only upholds the majority view of the SC in the case of Shayara
Bano &ors. v. Union of India &ors.13
5.1. §3 of the ordinance makes triple talaq an illegal offence.
Triple talaq which is against the rule of law, gives an arbitrary power to the Muslim husband
to divorce his Muslim wife at his sole discretion. Art.14 which strikes at arbitrariness &
unreasonableness makes any law with unreasonable classification as unconstitutional.14
Therefore, provisions of personal laws if found derogatory to the part III rights is to be struck
down.15 One fundamental right of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with the exercise
of the another fundamental right of others also with reasonable and valid exercise of power
by State in light of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the interests of social welfare as
a whole.16
5.2. Pronouncement of triple talaq amounts to cruelty towards Muslim woman.
Pronouncement of talaq against a married Muslim woman by her husband, creates high
mental depression to her, as those three words have such high devastating effect on her
matrimonial life. The utmost traumatic effect of talaq is that reconsideration of such
pronouncement is impossible, and the consent of the women is also immaterial. Such act of
the husband is already an offence and punishable under § 498 A of the Pindiana Penal Code,
therefore the Ordinance has only reiterated an already existing legal provision and is valid in
all aspects. “An affront to or the invasion of gender is destructive of the right of every woman
to live with dignity”.17
5.3.The punishment imposed under §7 of the ordinance is valid.
§7 of the ordinance makes uttering of triple talaq cognizable and compoundable offence. The
idea of making an act, an offence is to prevent the commission of such act. Further,
penalising it is to uphold the value of preventive theory of punishment, so that people restrain
themselves from committing such offence. In the quest for reasonableness and fairness the
court would not question the penal policy behind a law.18
13
AIR 2017 SC 4609.
14
Joseph Shine v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 192.
15
John Vollamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902.
16
Mary Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India, 1995 (1) KLT 644.
17
Arati Durgaram Gauda v. A.P. Tata Metallics Ltd, 2008 (6) Bom CR 1.
18
Inderjeet v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1867.
Page | 15
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, evidence adduced, arguments advanced &
authorities cited, the Counsels for the Petitioners humbly pray & implore before this Hon’ble
Court for the following among other reliefs:
1. The petition filed by Asma is maintainable.
2. Triple talaq is illegal and against the Shariat law application Act,1937.
3. Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice under Art.25 of the Pindiana
constitution.
4. Triple talaq is in violation of Art.14,19,21 of the constitution of Pindiana.
5. The Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance,2019 is
valid.
The Court may make any other such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice, equity &
good conscience.
And for this act of Kindness the Petitioners shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Respectfully submitted
S/d_____________________
Counsels for the Petitioner
Page | 16

35th BCI Moot Court Competition 2019 Petitioner Memorial Problem 1 PDF

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

35th BCI Moot Court Competition 2019 Petitioner Memorial Problem 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 18

35th BAR CONCIL OF INDIA (TRUST) ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY

Original writ jurisdiction

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Writ petition (CIVIL) NO._____________ OF 2019

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HIS

SI.No. TERM ABBREVIATION

SI.NO. Case name Citation Page.

5. Zamrud Begum v. K. Md. Haneef and Anr. ,(2003) 3 ALD 220. 12

6. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of (2014) 5 SCC 438 14

13. Kharak singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295. 14

18. Inderjeet v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1867 15

Art. 32 of the Constitution of India

1. WETHER THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC

2. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE SHARIAT

3. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

4. WHETHER TRIPLE TALAQ IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14,15,19 & 21

5. WHETHER THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON

1. WETHER THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC

5. WHETHER THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON

The Muslim women (protection of rights on marriage) second ordinance,2019 is valid.

1. THE PETITION FILED BY ASMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC UNDER

3. TRIPLE TALAQ IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE UNDER

3.1.Triple Talaq is not an Essential Religious Practice.

4.1.Triple talaq is gender discriminatory in nature.

5. WHETHER THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON

You might also like