Before The Honourable Supreme Court of India: in The Matter of Conglomerate of Faiths Petitioner

Team-1
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ARMANIA]
IN THE MATTER OF
CONGLOMERATE OF FAITHS …………PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ………….RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
1.TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………2
2.LIST OF ABREVATIONS………………………………………………………………….3
3.INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………….…………………………………………………..4
4.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………...…………………………………………5
5.STATEMENT OF FACTS…….…………………………………………………….………6
6.STATEMENT OF ISSUES…….……………………………………………………………7
7.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………8
8.ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………...9-16
Issue-1: Whether the review petition is maintainable?.........................................................9-10
Issue-2: Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates
provisions of Article 21,19 of Indian Constitution……………………………………….11-13
Issue-3: Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies...14-15
9.PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...16
Page | 2
LIST OF ABREVATIONS
ROYAL GLOBAL
UNIVERSITY 1ST
NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2021
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL
FORM
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
& AND
IT Information Technology
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Page | 3
v. Versus
SCR Supreme Court Weekly Reporter
Ker Kerela
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
Constitution of India,1950……………..………………………………………..J. N PANDEY
Indian Penal Code………….………………………………………………...Act of Parliament
WEBSITES REFERRED:
https://indiankanoon.org/
https://mib.gov.in/
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
https://www.lawctopus.com/
Page | 4
www.lexisnexis.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 The petitioner has filed this review petition under Article 137 of the constitution of
India.
 The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the land as established by Part V,
Chapter IV of the Constitution of India.
 The Supreme Court has original, appellate, advisory and review jurisdiction.
 Article 137 of Indian constitution provides that Review of judgments or orders by the
Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules
made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it.
Page | 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ahalya challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code in a Writ
Petition submitted to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution.
The following facts are those that gave rise to the petition: Manoj, the petitioner’s husband,
filed a divorce petition against her in the Family Court on the grounds of adultery and
desertion. While the divorce process was pending, the petitioner’s husband filed a complaint
under Section 497 IPC accusing Raju of having an extramarital affair with the petitioner
Ahalya.
Ahalya filed a Writ Petition to have the Complaint struck down on the grounds that Section
497 of the Indian Penal Code, which established the crime of adultery, is unconstitutional.
The Petitioner pleaded that:
a) Section 497 of IPC is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it made an irrational
classification between men and women perpetrating romantic paternalism and,
Page | 6
b) Right to life under Article 21 includes Right to reputation.
In a unanimous judgement issued on July 23, 2022, the Five Judge Constitution Bench of the
Court overruled its earlier rulings and declared Section 497 IPC to be unconstitutional,
violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Section 198(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of adultery
under Section 497 IPC.
On August 10, 2022, the Supreme Court received a review petition from Conglomerate of
Faiths, an association registered by certain leaders of the three major religions in the nation.
In it, they requested that the hasty decision be reconsidered on several grounds, including:
1. One of the oldest sins that every religion has condemned;
2. The ruling contravenes the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty;
3. The creation of a right to consent sexual activity within a marriage clearly affects the
parties’ mutual exclusive rights;
4. Within the marriage, the right to personal choice is limited;
5. The choice has an impact on both public and private morals as well as the sanctity of the
marital home.
The Review Petitioner has asked for a directive to the Union Government to reformat Section
497 IPC to remove the inconsistencies. In order to make the Review meaningful, the Review
Petitioner additionally sought for the replacement of any two of the Judges from the Bench.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?
2. Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates

provisions of Article 21,19 of Indian constitution?
3. Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?
Page | 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?

It is humbly submitted by counsel of petitioner before the Hon’ble Court that, the instant
review petition is maintainable before the Court of Law. Article 32 allows the Supreme Court
to issue directions or writs and gives the right to an individual to knock on the door of the
court if his fundamental right has been infringed or violated. The law or the act will be
reviewed by the court which makes it the most important article in the process of legal
review. According to the Rules of the Supreme Court, such a request must be submitted
within 30 days from the date of judgment or order. The principle of judicial review ensures
the principle of complete justice.
2.Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates provisions of

Article 21,19 of Indian constitution?
It is humbly submitted by the counsel of petitioners before the Hon’ble Court that to
reformat Section 497 IPC to remove the inconsistencies. The decision by the supreme court in the
Page | 8
instant matter is unconstitutional before the Court of Law. The court has lacked the essential
ingredients to maintain the matter before the apex Court. Though the Hon’ble Court has
declared the section 497 of IPC unconstitutional yet certain issues regarding constitutionality
of the judgement must be highlighted before this Court as review petition to prevent any
miscarriage of justice.
3.Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?

It is humbly submitted by counsel of petitioner before the Hon’ble Court that, the instant
matter is maintainable before the Court of Law.
Article 32 of Indian constitution as follows as
(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.
Page | 9
(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.
 Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to issue directions or writs and gives the right to
an individual to knock on the door of the court if his fundamental right has been
infringed or violated. The law or the act will be reviewed by the court which makes it
the most important article in the process of legal review. According to the Rules of the
Supreme Court, such a request must be submitted within 30 days from the date of
judgment or order.
 Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, on the similar lines, gives the Supreme Court
the discretionary powers to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, order,
decree, sentence or determination, in any cause, which has been passed by any court
or tribunal. The Supreme Court thus enjoys being appellate in most of the cases. The
Supreme Court often deals with cases that involve the ‘question of law’, where it
thinks that the verdict given by the other court is not satisfactory. The discretionary
power of the Supreme Court is subject to judicial review.
Article 32 of Constitution provides that:

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme
Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex
court is given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights
bestowed by the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental
Rights’
The principle of judicial review ensures the principle of complete justice. The Supreme Court
and the High Court have used this principle while delivering landmark verdicts like in the
case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan1.
Under the review petition, the binding judgments of the Supreme Court/High Court can be
reviewed.
Article 137 of the Constitution provides for the authority of the Supreme Court of India to revise
any judgment it pronounced (or orders made) pursuant to Article 145 of the Constitution
The Supreme Court can check the constitutional amendment in order to see that it doesn’t violate
any fundamental right or the basic structure of the constitution. The leading case, in this category,
is Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India2.
The counsel for petitioners submit that the said review petition is maintainable under the
court of law as prescribed under Article-137,32,and 136 of Indian constitution.
1
(1997) 6 SCC 241
2
(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
Page | 10
2.Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates provisions of
Article 21,19 of Indian constitution?
It is humbly submitted by counsel of petitioners before the Hon’ble Court that the decision
by the supreme court in the instant matter is unconstitutional before the Court of Law. The
court has lacked the essential ingredients to maintain the matter before the apex Court.
Though the Hon’ble Court has declared the section 497 of IPC unconstitutional yet certain
issues regarding constitutionality of the judgement must be highlighted before this Court as
review petition to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
Section 497 of IPC:
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to
believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual
intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or
with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
Page | 11
In the case of Joseph shine v. UOI3 The Court held that Section 497 was archaic and
constitutionally invalid as it stripped a woman of her autonomy, dignity and privacy. It
opined that the impugned provision resulted in the infringement of a woman’s right to life
and personal liberty by espousing an idea of marriage that subverted true equality by applying
penal sanctions to a gender-based approach to the relationship between a man and a woman.
It held that the exaggerated focus on the aspect of connivance or consent of the husband
translated to subordination of the woman. The Court reaffirmed sexual privacy as a natural
right under the Constitution.
Adultery is an offence which breaks the family relations and deterrence should be there to
protect the institution of marriage and it affects the spouse, children and society as a whole. It
is an offence committed by an outsider with full knowledge to destroy the sanctity of
marriage.
The discrimination by the provision is saved by Article 15(3), which provides state right to
make special laws for women and children.
Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs The State Of Bombay4
In this case, the constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged on the grounds that it violates
Article 14 and Article 15, by saying a wife cannot be a culprit even as an abettor. The 3 judge
bench upheld the validity of the said provision as it is a special provision created for women
and is saved by Article 15(3). And Article 14 is a general provision and has to be read with
other Articles and sex is just classification, so by combining both it is valid.
In the said case, the appellant was being prosecuted for adultery under Section 497 IPC. As
soon as the complaint was filed, the husband applied to the High Court of Bombay to
determine the constitutional question under Article 228 of the Constitution. The Constitution
Bench referring to Section 497 held thus:-
Under Section 497 the offence of adultery can only be committed by a man but in the absence
of any provision to the contrary the woman would be punishable as an abettor. The last
sentence in Section 497 prohibits this. It runs as “In such case the wife shall not be
punishable as an abettor.It is said that this offends Articles 14 and 15”.
Article 14 of Indian Constitution runs as follows:
Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 15 of the Indian constitution runs as follows:
Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
3
(2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898
4
(1954) SCR 930
Page | 12
 The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
 No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any
of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard
to
 access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
 the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for women and children
 Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes
The decision be reconsidered on several grounds, including:
 As Adultery is one of the oldest sins that every religion has condemned; The ruling
contravenes the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty;
 The creation of a right to consent sexual activity within a marriage clearly affects the
parties’ mutual exclusive rights; also Within the marriage, the right to personal choice
is limited;
As the choice has an impact on both public and private morals as well as the sanctity of the
marital home.
The portion of Article 15 on which the appellant relies is this:
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of ... sex, But what he
overlooks is that that is subject to clause (3) which runs “Nothing in this article shall prevent
the State from making any special provision for women ....” The provision complained of is a
special provision and it is made for women, therefore it is saved by clause (3)
V.Revathi v. Union of India5

In this case, the court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 497 read with Section 198
by stating that this provision disables both wife and husband from punishing each other for
adultery hence not discriminatory. It only punishes an outsider who tries to destroy the
sanctity of marriage. And thus it is reverse discrimination in ‘favour’ of her rather than
‘against’ her.
W.Kalyani vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police & Anr6
5
(1988) 2 SCC 72
6
(2012) 1 SC 358
Page | 13
The constitutionality of Section 497 did not arise in this case but it says that mere fact that
appellant is a woman makes her completely immune to the charge of adultery and she cannot
be proceeded against for that offence.
The counsel for petitioner humbly submits that The judgement produced by hon’ble is
unconstitutional as it is not violating fundamental rights of any class of citizens, under Article
14,15 and 21 of Indian Constitution also Section-497 of IPC is valid as it is a special
provision created for women and is saved by Article 15(3).
3.Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?

 The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that it
violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The five Judge Bench
unanimously, in four concurring judgments, held that the law was archaic, arbitrary
and paternalistic, and infringed upon a woman’s autonomy, dignity, and privacy.
Section 198(2) of the CrPC which allowed only a husband to bring a prosecution
under Section 497 of the IPC was also struck down as unconstitutional.
 The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that it
violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The five Judge Bench
unanimously, in four concurring judgments, held that the law was archaic, arbitrary
and paternalistic, and infringed upon a woman’s autonomy, dignity, and privacy.
Page | 14
Section 198(2) of the CrPC which allowed only a husband to bring a prosecution
under Section 497 of the IPC was also struck down as unconstitutional.
 The court held that “It is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer and
not the woman. This position may have undergone some change over the years but it
is for the Legislature to consider whether Section 497 should be amended
appropriately so as to take note of the “transformation” which the society has
undergone. The Law Commission of India in its Forty-second Report, 1971,
recommended the retention of Section 497 in its present form with the modification
that, even the wife, who has sexual relations with a person other than her husband,
should be made punishable for adultery. The suggested modification was not accepted
by the Legislature. The report of the Law Commission shows that there can be two
opinions on the desirability of retaining a provision like the one contained in Section
497 on the statute book. But, we cannot strike down that section on the ground that it
is desirable to delete it.”
In the cases of E.P.Royappa v.State of Tamil nadu 7and Shayara Bano v. UOI8
The classification is found to be arbitrary in the sense that it treats only the husband as an
aggrieved person given the right to prosecute for the offence and no such right is provided to
the wife. The provision is not based on equality.
The offence is based on the notion of women being a property of husband and adultery is
considered to be a theft of his property because it says consent or connivance by the husband
would not make it an offence.
The provision does not treat the wife as an offender and punishes only the third party. But
this has a exception in the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay In this case, the
constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 14 and
Article 15, by saying a wife cannot be a culprit even as an abettor. The 3 judge bench upheld
the validity of the said provision as it is a special provision created for women and is saved
by Article 15(3). And Article 14 is a general provision and has to be read with other Articles
and sex is just classification, so by combining both it is valid.
It is submitted by the counsel for Petitioner that, Though Adultery is treated as victimless by
the court in the decision of Joseph shine v. UOI9 This provision aims to protect the sanctity
of marriage. Marriage is treated as a divine bond in most of the religions in India to consider
the religious beliefs adultery under section 497 of IPC should not be struck down but it
should be refoematted and remove the inconsistencies where women are treated as criminals.
7
1974 AIR 555 1974 SCR (2) 348 1974 SCC (4)
8
(2017) 9 SCC 1
9
(2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898
Page | 15
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to Adjudge and declare
1.That the review petitions under Article 32 is maintainable.
2. That the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates provisions of
Article 21,19 of Indian constitution.
3. That the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Page | 16
Page | 17

Before The Honourable Supreme Court of India: in The Matter of Conglomerate of Faiths 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

Before The Honourable Supreme Court of India: in The Matter of Conglomerate of Faiths Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team-1

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ARMANIA]

CONGLOMERATE OF FAITHS …………PETITIONER

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Weekly Reporter

1. Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?

2. Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates

3. Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?

1.Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?

2.Whether the decision by the Supreme court is unconstitutional as it violates provisions of

3.Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?

1.Whether the Review petition is maintainable under the law?

Article 32 of Indian constitution as follows as

Article 32 of Constitution provides that:

Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs The State Of Bombay4

Article 14 of Indian Constitution runs as follows:

Article 15 of the Indian constitution runs as follows:

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

The portion of Article 15 on which the appellant relies is this:

V.Revathi v. Union of India5

3.Whether the Section-497 of IPC be reformatted to remove the inconsistencies?

You might also like