5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TC 125_R

5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2021

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO ………/OF 2021

[ UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA ]

WRIT PETITION NO. ………/ OF 2021

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA ]

IN THE MATTER OF

DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY PETITIONER

Vs.

STATE OF UPPAM PRADESH RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUE 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11

PRAYERS 20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& And

AIR All India Report

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honourable

SCC Supreme Court Case

SC Supreme Court

Vs. versus

No. Number

W.P. Writ Petition

UP Uppam Pradesh

MP Madhya Pradesh

SLP Special Leave Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION REFERRED

 The Constitution of Amphissa,1950

 APC –Amphissa Penal Code, 1860
 The UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,2020

CASES REFERRED

 Rev Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh , 1977 SCR (2) 611

 KS Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
 Lily Thomas v. UOI (2000) 6 SCC 224
 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531
 Priyanshi@km shamreen v. State of UP & Others 14288 of 2020
 Sir Chunilal v.Mheta & sons vs. the spinning & manufacturing co., Ltd.1962 AIR
1314 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 549

BOOKS REFERED

 J N Pandey, constitution of India,57th edition,2020

 MP Jain, Indian constitutional Law ,8th edition, 2019

ONLINE SOURCES

 www.indiankanoon.com
 https://www.timesofindia.indiatime.com
 https://www.blog.ipleaders.in
 https://www.scconline.com
 https://www.legalservice.com
 https://www.indianexpress.com
 https://www.lawtimejournals.com
 https://byjus.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article
136 & Article 32 of the Constitution of Amphissa as follows:

136.Special leave to appeal by the supreme court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of amphissa.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.

32.Remedies for enforcement of right 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 powers 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 the clause (1) &
(2), Parliament may by the law empower any other 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

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The Republic of Amphissa is located in the South Asian Region of Asia. The majority
population of 75% of the Republic of Amphissa is Hindu, around 24% of the population
are from the faith of Christianity, Islam, Jainism.

 Republic of Amphissa is the most ethically and religiously diverse country in the world
and its history is dotted with numerous religious conflicts and riots.

 In March 2019 certain newspaper published a report about Love Jihad which is an
activity of certain Organizations under which young Muslim men and boys in the state
target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by
feigning love. The news report stated that there has been 3000-4000 conversions in the
past four years having the nature of Love Jihad in the Republic of Amphissa.

 Jurisprudence from High Courts across the country have said that conversion is not a
casual matter. In 2014, the High Court of Uppam Pradesh stated in a judgement that if
conversion “ is resorted to merely with the object of creating a ground for some claim of
right “ it would be “ a fraud upon the law “. In the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of
Amphissa in 2000 the Supreme Court nulled the marriage on the basis that if someone
“feigns to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain or benefit “ it was
“religious bigotry”.

 The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance,2020,

is a law enacted by the govt. of Uppam Pradesh, Amphissa. The Uppam Pradesh state
cabinet cleared the ordinance on 20 November 2020 following which it was approved
and signed by state governor on 24 November 2020.

 The Uppam Pradesh ordinance makes conversion non-bailable with up to 10 years of

jail time if undertaken through misinformation , unlawfully, forcefully, allurement or
other allegedly fraudulent means and requires that religious conversions for marriage in
Uppam Pradesh to be approved by a district magistrate. The law also encompasses strict
action for mass conversion, including cancellation of registration of social organization
involve in mass religious conversion.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 In December 2020, Prabha and Daniel, a young couple residing in the Lunnow, the
capital of Uppam Pradesh, expressed their willingness to marry each other. Prabha, was a
Jain by religion and Daniel belonged to a family practicing Islamic faith. Belonging to
different religions, they wished to be wedded under the Special Marriage Act 1956.
This marriage was severely objected to by Prabha’s family who did not approve of inter-
faith marriages. On the other hand, Daniel’s family begrudgingly accepted their marriage.
Prabha decided to convert to Islam, out of her love and respect for Daniel’s family and
faith and hoping that his family would be more willing to accept their marriage if she
undertakes such a gesture. However, it was decided that Prabha’s conversion would be
kept to be secret from her parents.

 The marriage occurred on 10th January, 2021. After the marriage the couple shifted
into a separate apartment of their own in Jallabad where they happily resided for 2
months. On 11th March, they decided to visit Daniel’s home in Lunnow. Upon their
arrival, they were greeted warmly by his family.

 Cases of covid were steadily rising within the state and on 15th March, a two week
lockdown was announced in the state. In the midst of this, Prabha’s younger brother fell
down from stairs and was put to bed-rest. Prabha strongly wished to visit him several
times but Daniel’s family did not allow her to go during due to limited transportation
options and on an apprehension, that Prabha may contact Covid-19 while travelling in
such a risky situation. Prabha had requested many times to Daniel and her in-laws to
allow her to meet her brother but they did not permit her to leave, Prabha started feeling
like a prisoner in the house of her own in-laws.

 Daniel’s family under section 498A APC, section 340 of APC as well as under the
Uppam Pradesh Anti-Conversion Act. Information was sent to Bajna Police station
situated near the Being frustrated, after 2 months, Prabha called up her parents and asked
them to pick her up. Her family became extremely angry on hearing the circumstances.
Upon knowing about the details of their marriage and the conversion, they suspected that
Daniel and his family had forced Prabha to convert into a different religion and were now
forcefully restraining her against her will. Thus, her family immediately went and filed an
FIR in Rainbow Police Station against residence of Daniel’s family, and soon, his
family members were arrested on 20th May, 2021.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 The magistrate denied bail to Daniel’s family and issued a non-bailable warrant against
Daniel under section 498A. Daniel and his family preferred a Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court and also filed a writ petition challenging the validity of
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020.

 Considering the substantial questions of law relating to interpretations of the constitution,

both the petitions are scheduled for hearing before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT , 2020 IS VALID?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT , 2020 IS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT , 2020 IS VALID?

 It is submitted before the hon’ble court that, the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 is valid.
 The act is clear as it states, “Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another
religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement or
marriage”.

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT , 2020 IS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

 It is submitted before the hon’ble court that, this is where the provisions of “Uppam
Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020” safeguard human
rights by preventing ‘fake’, ‘fraudulent’ or ‘deceitful’ premise of the marriage.
 After all, it is the duty of the state to protect any citizen from any unfair practice,
including forced conversion in the name of marriage.

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?

 It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the special leave petition filed by the
Daniel and his family is not maintainable as special leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for
case to be maintainable. Also the present case, no substantial question of law is involved
and interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed .

10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT, 2020 IS VALID?

 The respondent humbly submits that, the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 aims to prohibit unlawful conversion from one
religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or
by any fraudulent means or by marriage on for the matters connected therewith.
 Similarly, the provisions do not discourage or mandate against inter-faith marriages. The
inter-faith and inter-caste marriages can never be considered bad but again the
underlying intention should not be malafide. Such legislation was necessary to prevent
only those marriages which are done with sole purpose of conversion.
 In fact, the very essence of this legislation is to protect certain gullible individuals who
may trapped into forceful conversion on the pretext of marriage. Thus, it is submitted
that these acts are held to be valid.

THERE WAS NEED TO PROMULGATE THE ORDINANCE:

 It is humbly submitted that ordinance is clear as it states, “ Prohibition of conversion

from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage nor shall any person
abet, convince or conspire such conversion: Provided that, if any person reconverts to his
immediate previous religion, shall not be deemed to be a conversion under this act.”As at
the face of it, it does not espouse any motive to single out any religion or faith.
 Moreover, to further clear any misconception even more, it may be known to all that the
constitution has provision for a Special Marriage Act1 under which the person may enter
into inter-faith marriage without changing his or her religion. Again, inter-faith marriages
can never be prohibited under the law provided they are ‘pious’, ‘fair’ and devoid of ‘ill
intention’.

1
1954
11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 Precisely, this is where the provisions of ‘Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful

Conversion of Religion Act, 2020’ safeguard human rights by preventing ‘fake’,
‘fraudulent’ or ‘deceitful’ premise of the marriage. After all, it is the duty of the state to
protect any citizen from any unfair practice, including forced conversion in the name of
marriage.

THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS :

 Nowhere in the act, comprising of 14 sections and three schedules, are the terms ‘Hindu’,
‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’, ‘Paris’ or ‘Religious majority’ or ‘minority’ used .It has been
drafted in a manner so as to be equally applicable to every citizen irrespective of their
religious or gender identity.
 The Rev Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh case2:
 This judgment by the Supreme Court passed by a constitutional bench headed by
Justice A N Ray probably gives one of the best definitions of Freedom of Religion.
 The question before the court was whether the fundamental right to practice and
propagate religion includes the right to convert.
 The court held in clear terms that while Article 25 3 does provide freedom of religion,
it also went on to state the word propagate religion does not give the right to convert.
 The word propagate has been used in Article 25(1) of the Amphissa constitution, but
that does not give the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to
transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.
 The Bench also observed that while propagating religion was allowed, converting
does not form part of fundamental rights. What the Article grants is not the right to
convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion,
but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.

THE PROVISION OF ACT IS VALID UNDER FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

 The act simply reinforce what has already been deemed illegal in many parts of the
country and is a mere continuation of the protection sought from and accorded by the
state to protect victims of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. It is neither
unconstitutional nor anti-secular.
 Under section 3 of the act states that reconversion to one’s immediate previous religion
is not deemed to be conversion under the ordinance. This provision was made to avoid
unnecessary conversions.

2
1977 SCR (2) 611
3
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 Section 4 which allows any aggrieved person, brother-sister, parents or any other
person related by blood marriage and adoption to file FIR against such conversion it
has to be noted that lodging an FIR will not annull the conversion, police will
investigate into the fact whether such conversion was free or not. Further, investigation
is time bound by way of section 57 and section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 and in normal cases it will not exceed beyond the period of 60 or 90 days as the
case may be but registration of FIR under pressure is not abnormal and chances of false
FIR or not uncommon their needs to be check on such abuse.
 Mere scope of misuse cannot be a ground of holding a law unconstitutional the same as
also been stated by the Supreme Court in justice KS. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India 4
where in the court ruled that a statute cannot be struck down on the ground that there is
a scope for misuse.
 Section 5 make provision for the punishment for violation of section 3 it makes
punishment severe in cases of contravention against minor women or person belonging
to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe it is not a known that scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe people due to their socio-economic status in the society or targeted by
the fringe elements from other religion. Also similar kind of provision is also present in
state anti conversion law does a severe punishment is provided for the offence against
this categories of people. Moreover Article 15(3) & 15(4) of the constitution of
Amphissa which enables the state to make special provisions for women children and
scheduled caste and scheduled tribe.
 The punitive action is extremely necessary to check such marriages as the ordinance
envisages “Marriage done for the sole purpose of Unlawful Conversion or vice-versa to
be declared void”, which means that any marriage which was done for the sole purpose
of unlawful conversion or vice-versa by man of one religion with the woman of another
religion either by converting the woman before or after marriage by converting the
woman before or after marriage may be declared void by the family court or where
family court is not established, the court having jurisdiction to try such case on a
petition presented by either party thereto against the other party of the marriage5.

4
(2017) 10 SCC 1;AIR 2017 SC 4161
5
https://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 Section 6 provides that a marriage for the sole purpose of conversion or vice versa will
be declared void by the courts the provision is nothing but the sayings of the Supreme
Court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India6 case where Lily had filed the petition in the
Supreme Court on the status of earlier marriage regarding a case when non Muslim gets
converted to the get rid of the first wife in this case conversion by an already married
Hindu man to Islam solely for entering into the bigamous marriage wasn’t question it
was in this context that the court said on such conversion the previous marriage will not
be automatically dissolved and the second marriage would be void.
 This act prohibits conversion by marriage even though it is not clear what this term
means section 6 of the act provides that any marriage for the sole purpose of conversion
is void but the section also provides that vice versa situation is void too. Potentially this
can means that conversion performed for the sole purpose of marriage void too.
 Section 8 provides for the pre conversion declaration to be made to the district
magistrate of 60 days in advance that concerned conversion is free and without any
fraud question undue influence and allotment similarly a one-month advance notice is
to be given by the person conducting the religious ceremony for conversion to the
district magistrate of place where such conversion is scheduled the district magistrate
after receiving information about conversion shall get an enquiry conducted through
policy as to the real intention purpose and clause of the proposed conversion. It is to be
noted that these procedures these are made to avoid unnecessary conversions and to
make the conversion lawful non observation of this provision is made punishable and
will also renders such conversion void and illegal.
 In the Sarla Mudgal Case7 the court held that the religious conversion into Islam by a
person from non-Islamic faith is not valid if the conversion is done for the purpose of
polygamy.

6
(2000) 6 SCC 224
7
1995 AIR 1531,1995 SCC (3) 635
14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

OF RELIGION ACT , 2020 IS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 in Section 5 makes provision for punishment for violation
of section 3. It makes punishment severe in cases of contravention against minor, women or
person belonging to SC or ST. It has been stated that by making such provision, the section
appears to violate article 14 that is Right to Equality. The law has to treat everyone equally.
But, in making this argument, one tend to forget Article 15(3) & Article 15(4) of the
Constitution of Amphissa which enables the state to make special provision for women,
children and SC & ST. Moreover, it is not unknown that SC &ST people due to their socio-
economic status in the society are targeted by fringe elements from other religion. Also,
similar kind of provision is also present in other state’s Anti-Conversion law. Thus, a severe
punishment is provided for offence against these categories of people.
 The UP Govt. has placed its reliance on the judgment of Rev Stanislaus v. State of MP8
wherein the apex court ruled that there was no fundamental right to convert and the
fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate a religion can be reasonably restricted
on the grounds of public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III. The
judgment also mentions that unlawful conversion can create law and order problems.
Furthermore, the ordinance is not the first law to regulate conversion; same has already been
done in many states. Moreover these laws were declared constitutional in the light of Article
25.
 Furthermore, nowhere in the act, comprising of 14 sections and three schedules, are the
terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’, ‘Parsi’ or ‘minority’ used. It has been drafted in a
manner so as to be equally applicable to every citizen irrespective of their religious or
gender identity9.
 Precisely, this is where the provision of ‘UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
religion Act, 2020’ safeguard human rights by preventing ‘fake’, ‘fraudulent’ or ‘deceitful’
premise of the marriage .
 After all, it is the duty of the state to protect any citizen from any unfair practice, including
forced conversion in the name of marriage.

8
1977 SCR (2) 611
9
https://www.blog.ipleaders.in
15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 In fact, the very essence of this legislation is to protect certain gullible individuals who may
be trapped into forceful conversion on the pretext of marriage10.
 Article 213 of the constitution empowers the governor of a state to promulgate an
ordinance if the legislative assembly of the state or when legislative council is there, both
the houses, are not in session and the governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which
render it necessary for him to take immediate action , he may promulgate such ordinance as
the circumstances appear to him.
 The UP Ordinance is to “Stop Love Jihad” and “Give Justice to Women” is couched in the
language of forceful or deceitful conversion.
 It was not inconsistent with the provision of the constitution
 Art.13 – Laws inconsistent with or in degoration of the fundamental rights-(2)The
State shall not make any law which takes away or abridge the rights conferred by
this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the
contravention of this clause shall to the extend of the contravention, be void.
 Art. 13 (3)(a) explains the word law as-Art.13 (3)(a)- “Law’’ includes any
ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in
the territory of Cambridge the force of law.
 Art.14 – the mandates of art.14 broadly requires a legislation to have a legitimate object or
goal, and a structural framework. That has a reasonable nexus with object sought to be
achieved.
 In present case, there has been no violation of Art.21 of the constitution. The act does not
prohibit any person from choosing their life partner irrespective of their religion and
moreover it recognizes the marriage lawfully as obtaining prior permission to marry.
 Right to privacy was also not violated. Public notice was given in order to avoid confusion
in the conversion and also to prohibit unlawful activities happening through the unlawful
conversion.
 To establish of violation Art.21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Art.14
and test of reasonableness under Art.19. Art.14 ensures fairness and guarantees against
arbitrariness. It provide that every action of govt. must be informed by reasons and guided
by public interest. Art.19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if
it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed thereon.

10
https://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com

16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 Conclusively, the spirit behind this legal exercise is to protect the rights of common citizen
against forcible religious conversations in the name of marriage, and to protect their choice
to retain their religious identity or lawfully convert their religion, provided it is done out of
free will and free of external coercion.

Hence, the respondent has humbly submits that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act is to safeguard the human rights by preventing fake, fraudulent or deceitful premise
of marriage.

17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special leave petition
filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as special leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional question of law is involved and
interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.

NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE EXIST IN THIS CASE AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE:

 It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner must show the exceptional and
special circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave
injustice will result and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the
decision appealed against the merits .Only then the court would exercise its overriding
power under Article 136 11special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of
justice or when substantial justice is done through the decision suffers from some legal
errors.
 In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstance have been shown by the
petitioner. Substantial justice has already been done by the magistrate itself and the
petitioner is unable in presenting the flaws in the present case. This that the law is well-
settled in this regard and the present case is not an exception.

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE UNDER FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

 The marriage is void because only the sake of marriage and acceptance from
Daniel’family members Prabha decided to convert to Islam. So as per the UP Prohibition
of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 “Marriage done for the sole purpose of
Unlawful Conversion or vice-versa to be declared void”. Priyanshi. kum shamreen vs.
State of UP(Allahabad HC)12 – Conversion only for the purpose of marriage is invalid in
the eyes of law.

11
Special leave to appeal by the supreme court
12
14288 of 2020
18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 Daniel and his family members cruel her by not allow her to see his younger brother who
is bed-rest, prabha requested many times to them but they didn’t allow her to visit his
younger brother. This made her frustrated and disturbed her mentally.
 Daniel and his family members wrongfully restraint her from visit to her home to meet
her brother who is bed-rest.
 The magistrate denied bail to Daniel’s family and issued a non-bailable warrant against
Daniel under section 498A of APC.
 In this case, there is no special circumstance exist and substantial justice has already been
done by the magistrate.
 In Sir Chunilal vs. Mehta & sons Ltd. V. Century Spinning and manufacturing
Co.[16]13,the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held, “The proper test for
determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our
opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and,
substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question
in the sense that it is not finally, settled by this court or by the Privy council or by the
federal court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If
the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those
principles or that the plea raised in propably absurd the question would not be a
substantial question of law”.14
 In this present case Daniel and his family tries to divert their mistake from unlawful
conversion, cruelty against prabha and wrongfull confinement of her to questioning the
validity of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 and also filed
SLP even though there is no substantial law of injustice.

Hence, the counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is
not maintainable and the counsel request the court to dismissed the SLP of the petitioner.

13
1962 AIR 1314 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 549
14
https://indiakanoon.org
https://www.scconline.com
19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied, may this hon’ble court be
pleased to adjudge and declare that :

 The Special Leave Petition should be dismissed.

 The decision given by the Magistrate should be upheld.
 The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 is valid
and constitutional.
 The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 does not
violate the fundamental rights of the Constitution of Amphissa.

And/Or

Any other just and equitable order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

For this act of kindness, the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

S/d.

(Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)

20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT