Nationals 56 R PDF

5TH NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2020 - 2021
Team ID: TC 56_R
5th NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2020 - 21
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA
Writ Petition W. P. No ___/2021
Special Leave Petition S. L. P. No ___/2021
IN MATTERS RELATED TO ARTICLES 14, 21, 25, 32, AND 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMPHISSA, 1950
ALONG WITH
SECTIONS 340 AND 498A OF THE AMPHISSIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL
RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020
DANIEL & ORS………………………………………………………………...(PETITIONER)

V.
STATE OF UPPAM PRADESH……………………………………………(RESPONDENT 1)
PRABHA & ORS…………………………………………………………….(RESPONDENT 2)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
i
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................ ii
Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................v
Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................vi
Issues Involved ..................................................................................................................... viii
Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................ixx
Body of Arguments ..................................................................................................................1
ISSUE I: Whether the Writ Petition and the Special Leave Petition filed by Daniel & Others
before the Supreme Court of Amphissa is maintainable. ......................................................1
[I.1] No grave injustice caused to the petitioner ................................................................1
[I.2] Discretionary Nature of Article 136 ..........................................................................1
[I.3] The Petitioner Lacks Locus Standi under Article 32 .................................................3
[I.4] Alternate remedies not exhausted ..............................................................................3
ISSUE II: Whether the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. ... 1
[II.1] Maintenance of Public Order being a part of State ListError! Bookmark not
defined.
[II.2] Special Provision for protecting Women, Children, Scheduled Castes and Tribes
.......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
[II.3] Doctrine of Non – Arbitrariness ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ISSUE III: Whether the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.
.............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
[III.1] Applicability of the Mischief Rule of Interpretation Error! Bookmark not defined.
[III.2] Procedure Established by law ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
i
[III.3] Furtherance of Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of

Amphissa under Salus Populi est Suprema Lex & Necessita Public Major est Quam
.......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ISSUE IV: Whether the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. . 13
[IV.1] Religious Freedom subject to Rights of Others ....................................................13
[IV.2] Non-absolute nature of Right to Freedom of religionError! Bookmark not defined.
ISSUE V: Whether the District Magistrate of the Bajna District was legally justified in
denying bail to Daniel and his family members. .................................................................13
[V.1] Religious conversion was undertaken by Coercion and Allurement .................. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
[V.2] Wrongful confinement of Ms. Prabha under Section 340 of the APC ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
[V.3] Mental and Psychological Harassment of Ms. Prabha under Section 498A of the
APC ....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.8
Prayer ......................................................................................................................................15
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 .................................................................... 10

2. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1974 SC 2098. ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Akhtari v. Union of India, MANU/UP/2714/2008. ...................................................................... 12
4. Anandhi Simon v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2021) 3 MLJ 479. .............................. 11
5. Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228. ........................................................ 14
6. Arunachalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284. ........................................................................ 2
7. Baigana v. Dy. Collector of Consolidation, (1978) 2 SCC 461 .................................................. 1
8. C.C.E. v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1928. ............................................................. 2
9. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 .............................................. 14
10. D. Viswanatha Reddy & Co., Kurnool v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2002
(4) ALD 161. ............................................................................................................................................ 12
11. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65. ........................................................... 2
12. Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1970 AIR 181 .................... 14
13. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555. ........................................................... 6
14. Evangelical Fellowship of India v. State of H.P., (2013) 4 RCR (Civ) 283. ........................ 16
15. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR (1981) S.C. 344..... 2
16. G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152. ................................................... 18
17. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Odisha, (2002) 2 SCC 619. ......................................................... 18
18. Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851. ................................................. 2
19. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245. ............................................... 6
20. Joby v. George, (2010) 2 SCALE 172. .............................................................................................. 2
iii
21. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1........................................ 9

22. K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481....................................................................................... 3
23. Kanai Lal Suri v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907. .................................................... 8
24. Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871. ........................................................ 9
25. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650. ..................................................................... 8
26. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. ................................................................. 6
27. Mathai @ Joby v. Georg, (2016) 7 SCC 700. .................................................................................. 2
28. Mrityunjay Kumar v. The State of Sikkim, 2010 Cri LJ 44 ....................................................... 17
29. Mt. Choki v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 Raj 10. ....................................................................... 5
30. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40. .................................................................... 10
31. N Suryakala v. A Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196. ......................................................................... 1
32. Nek Mohammad v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1949 Patna 1 F. ...................................................... 4
33. Nihal Chand v. Bhawan Dei, AIR 1935 All 1002 ......................................................................... 11
34. Noor Jahan Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 1 HLR 468 ............................. 15
35. Om Parkash Dahiya & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2019 (197) AIC 361 .................... 12
36. P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, (1987) 4 SCC 609. ............................................ 3
37. Prem Chand Garg v. Excide Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996. ............................................... 2
38. Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 2540......................................... 5
39. Ramji Lal Modi v. The State of U.P, 1957 AIR 620.................................................................... 14
40. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388. ........................................ 13
41. Re, The Special Courts Bill, AIR 1979 SC 478. ............................................................................. 7
42. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908. ............................................ 16
43. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531 ..................................................................... 8
44. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K. M., AIR 2018 SC 357........................................................................ 13
45. Shamsher Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr, 1974 AIR 2192. ............................................ 11
46. Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 465. ................................................................. 10
47. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538. ............................ 6
48. Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2020) 199 PLR 156. .......................................... 4
49. State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391. .................................................................... 1
50. State of J & K v. Hazara Singh, 1980 Supp SCC 641. .................................................................. 1
51. The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661.
........................................................................................................................................ 8
iv
52. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957
SC 832. ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
53. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633. .. 3
54. U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 75 .............................................................................................. 18
55. VP Bharatiya, Propagation of Religion: Stainislaus State of Madhya Pradesh, XIX JILI
312 (1977)..................................................................................................................... 13
56. Y. Theclamma v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 516. ...................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
I. W. P. No. ___/2021
The petitioners, Mr. Daniel and others have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Amphissa under Article 32 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.1
II. S.L.P. No. ___/2021
The petitioners, Mr. Daniel and others have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Amphissa under Article 136 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.2
1
Article 32 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, 1950, states;
“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part —
1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of
the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.”
2
Article 136 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, 1950, states;
“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court —
v
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Amphissa’s legal framework and laws are pari materia to the
Republic of India. The Constitution of the Republic of Amphissa guarantees its
citizens myriad rights. The Constitution guarantees its citizens
BACKGROUND Fundamental rights that include but are not limited to the Right to Freedom
of Religion, Freedom to carry on Trade, Profession and Business, and Right
to Life and Personal Liberty. The Amphissian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as ‘APC’) is a substantive legislation and ensures the maintenance
of Law and Order.
2. During March 2019, there were multiple news reports on ‘Love Jihad’ and
how it was spreading rampantly in the Republic of Amphissa. Owing to the
same, the Government of Uppam Pradesh promulgated the Uppam Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 (‘Love Jihad
Law’). This ordinance was approved and signed by the Uppam Pradesh State
Governor on 24th November, 2020. As per this ordinance, religious

INTRODUCTION conversion through way of misinformation, force, unlawful means,
allurement, or alleged fraud is a non-bailable offense with punishment
extending to 10 years of imprisonment. The ordinance also mandates
approval by the District Magistrate in cases of religious conversions for
marriage in the state of Uppam Pradesh. The state of Uppam Pradesh saw a
lot of uprisings owing to this ordinance as it was opined that it was violative
of an individual’s Right to marry a person of one’s choice and Restrictive to
one’s Fundamental right to Life, Autonomy, Privacy, and Equality.
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 cause or matter passed
or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
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.
vi
3. In December 2020, two people, Prabha and Daniel who lived in Lunnow, the
Capital of Uppam Pradesh mutually decided to marry each other. Prabha
followed ‘Jainism’ and Daniel followed ‘Islam’. They were to be wed
through the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1956. While Prabha’s
EVENTS family refused to accept the union, Daniel’s family unwillingly accepted it.
LEADING TO 4. Prabha chose to convert to Islam and subsequently decided to not inform her
THE CAUSE
OF family of this choice. On 10th January, 2021 Prabha and Daniel got married.
ACTION The married couple decided to live in Jallabad and on 11th March, 2021 they
decided to visit Daniel’s family who resided in Lunnow.
th
5. They were welcomed by Daniel’s family and soon after, on 15 March, 2021
a 2-week lockdown was instituted in the state of Uppam Pradesh due to the
COVID – 19 pandemic.
6. During the lockdown, Prabha’s brother got injured and was put to bed rest.
PARTIES A. Daniel & Ors.

TO
THE B. Prabha & Ors.
ACTION
C. The State of Uppam Pradesh
7. Despite requests from Prabha to visit her brother, Daniel and his family
refused to let her go see her brother. They expressed their apprehensions of
Prabha contracting the virus while travelling. Prabha was confined to her in-
laws’ place for 2 months and frustrated, she called her parents and asked
them to pick her up.
CAUSE OF 8. Her family suspected Daniel and his family committing Love Jihad and
ACTION owing to these suspicions they filed an FIR under Sections 498A and 340 of
the APC and the provisions of the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. On 20th May, 2021 Daniel and his
family were arrested and presented before a District Magistrate who issued
a non-bailable warrant against Daniel under Section 498A of the APC.
Following this arrest, Daniel and his family preffered for a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court. They also filed a writ petition challenging
the validity of Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Ordinance, 2020.
vii
ISSUES INVOLVED
~ ISSUE I ~
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED
BY DANIEL & OTHERS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA IS
MAINTAINABLE.
~ ISSUE II ~
WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF AMPHISSA.
~ ISSUE III ~

~ ISSUE IV ~

~ ISSUE V ~
viii
WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT WAS LEGALLY

JUSTIFIED IN DENYING BAIL TO DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED
BY DANIEL & OTHERS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA IS
MAINTAINABLE.
Conditions to grant Special Leave Petition has not been satisfied in the instant matter, as the
power under Article 136 is discretionary. Further, the writ petition filed before this Court is
not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioner lacks Locus Standi
and other alternate remedies have not exhausted. Hence the petitions are not maintainable.
ISSUE II

The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is not
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa because maintenance of
public order is a part of the State list and is under the jurisdiction of the legislature. Providing
special provisions for women, children, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is allowed
by the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa and there does exist rational nexus and
intelligible differentia in the promulgation of the ordinance which establishes that the
ordinance is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.
ISSUE III
ix

violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa as the ordinance can be
interpreted through the Mischief Rule of Interpretation. Additionally, the ordinance has been
promulgated with due process and it furthers the rights as enshrined under Article 21 through
application of the maxims Salus Populi est Suprema Lex & Necessita Public Major est Quam.
ISSUE IV

violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Amphissa as religious freedom
is subject to rights of others and, the Right to Freedom of religion is not absolute.
ISSUE V
WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT WAS

LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DENYING BAIL TO DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY.
The District Magistrate of the Bajna District was legally justified in denying bail to Daniel
and his family members because the religious conversion which was undertaken by the
respondent was due to coercion and allurement, which is a punishable offense under the
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020.
Additionally, the petitioner is guilty under Section 340 for the wrongful confinement of the
aggrieved and Section 498A for the mental and psychological harassment caused to the
aggrieved and thus bail should be denied.
x
BODY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION FILED BY DANIEL & OTHERS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
AMPHISSA IS MAINTAINABLE.
1. It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa does not have
jurisdiction to hear the issues brought in through the Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition,
under Article 136 and Article 32 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa respectively.
This contention is sought to be established on four grounds, namely; [I.1] No Grave Injustice
Caused to the Petitioner, [I.2] Discretionary Nature of Article 136, [I.3]
The Petitioner Lacks Locus Standi under Article 32, and [I.4] Alternate Remedies Not
Exhausted.
[I.1] No Grave Injustice Caused to the Petitioner
2. The powers of Supreme Court under Article 136 cannot be invoked without grave
injustice.3 Intervention of the Supreme Court is required only when there has been grave
and substantial miscarriage of justice4. This injustice should be reflected through the facts
of the case which must present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the
decision appealed against.
3. In the instant matter, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that Mr. Daniel’s fundamental
rights under Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution are infringed upon the issuance of
warrant, as these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by the procedure established by
law. The District Magistrate’s actions were reasonable and well within the ambit of law.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Petitioner was not subject to any grave injustice.
[I.2] Discretionary Nature of Article 136
4. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of jurisdiction enshrined by Article 136 does
confer a right to appeal.5 However, it is a special power that is to be exercised with care
and caution; confined to usage of remedy in extraordinary circumstances and cases.6 The
limitations to the power of the court under Article 136 are implicit in the nature and
3
Baigana v. Dy. Collector of Consolidation, (1978) 2 SCC 461.
4
State of J & K v. Hazara Singh, 1980 Supp SCC 641.
5
N Suryakala v. A Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.
6
State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391.
1
character of the power itself.7 The Supreme Court has held that in addition to special
circumstances,8 under which such petitions may be granted, the existence of grave injustice
or miscarriage of justice is necessary to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 136. 9
5. It was held by the Supreme Court that filing of Special Leave Petitions, against all kinds
of orders of High Court or other authorities without taking into account the limited scope
of Article 136, has become a rampant practice without taking into account the
discretionary nature of the Article.10
6. In the instant matter, as there are no extraordinary circumstances that have been created
and as the petitioner has not been subject to grave injustice as contended in [I.1], the
Special Leave Petition will not be maintainable.
[I.3] The Petitioner Lacks Locus Standi Under Article 32
7. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is correlated to the
existence and violation of fundamental rights. It must not be confused with the right to
bring proceedings under the same article.11 Requisite locus standi is needed to invoke the
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction in order to protect that fundamental rights
have been violated and this cannot be done where there is no prima facie violation.12
8. Article 32 can be invoked to enforce Fundamental Rights and violation of a fundamental
rights is sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32. 13 Neither the
ordinance nor the concerned authorities infringe any fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution. Through various judgements held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it was established that if there is no violation of the fundamental rights, a petition
filed under Article 32 is not maintainable before the Supreme Court. 14 Thus, the petitioner
does not have the locus standi to challenge the impugned ordinance as there is no grave
violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.
7
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65.
8
Arunachalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284.
9
C.C.E. v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1928.
10
Mathai @ Joby v. Georg, (2016) 7 SCC 700.
11
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR (1981) S.C. 344.
12
Joby v. George, (2010) 2 SCALE 172.
13
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851.
14
Prem Chand Garg v. Excide Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
2
[I.4] Alternate Remedies are not Exhausted

9. The power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands on
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.15 The Hon’ble Supreme Court can reject the applications under
Article 32 of the Constitution when there exists an alternate remedy. 16 It is merely in few
exceptional cases that such jurisdiction can be invoked without resorting to Article 226
first17. It is pertinent to point out that Article 226 has a non-obstante clause with respect
to Article 32. Furthermore, the Article 226 empowers the High Courts of relevant
jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.
10. In the present matter, the petitioners have not availed any of the alternate remedies, such
as approaching the High Court under Article 226, before approaching the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Amphissian Constitution. It is contended that the issues raised in
the present circumstances, the petition do not demonstrate any exceptional case.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF AMPHISSA.
11. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that the Uppam
Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is not violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. This contention is sought to be
established by three grounds, namely; [II.1] Maintenance of Public Order being a part of
State List, [II.2] Special Provision for protecting Women, Children, Scheduled Castes and
Tribes, and [II.3] Doctrine of Non – Arbitrariness.
[II.1] Maintenance of Public Order being a part of State List
12. Maintenance of Public order is one of the most crucial and fundamental functions of a State
Legislative Assembly. In the case of The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram
Manohar Lohia, the true meaning of Public order was ascertained.18 It was stated that the
term ‘Public order’ forms the basis of any organized society. It was observed that public
order implies the orderly state of society or a community in which citizens can peacefully
pursue their normal activities of life.19
15
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481.
16
Y. Theclamma v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 516.
17
P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, (1987) 4 SCC 609.
18
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633.
19
Supra note 14.
3
13. Public Order is the first subject of entry in the State List as covered in Schedule VII (or 7)
of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa20 and the more comprehensive sense of its
meaning must be taken to ensure wider scope of protection as guaranteed under Article 14
of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.21 The State government handles subjects and
issues in the State List and thus, they have jurisdiction in matters positively or negatively
affecting state public order. As such implementation is within state legislative authority and
because they have legislative competence, the state can enact policies they deem
appropriate to maintain public order.22 The centre does not have authority in legislating
matters related to state policy unless it is related to matters of special circumstances as
established in Articles 24923, 25024, 25225, and 25326 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa.
14. In the instant matter, there have been a lot of religious conflicts in the State of Uppam
Pradesh.27 The chances of these conflicts reducing in the near future are slim to none28.
Thus, the public order and safety is at constant risk. The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 has been passed with the objective of
legally protecting those individuals that are being converted to another religion through
unlawful means29. In order to provide for the existing conflict and anticipated conflict as
implied in the facts, the State Government enacted an ordinance that was well within their
jurisdiction.
15. The provisions of the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 are stricter, more widely scoped, and make the process of conversion
lengthier by adopting more procedures that are to be followed. This furthers the
understanding and the stance of Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa and
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for which Amphissa is a
20
AMPHISSA CONST. art. 246.
21
Nek Mohammad v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1949 Patna 1 F.
22
Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2020) 199 PLR 156.
23
24
25
26
27
Moot Proposition ¶ 6, Lines 3 – 5.
28
29
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, No. 21, Ordinance of
Uppam Pradesh State Legislature, 2020 (Amphissa).
4
signatory.30 The ordinance does not violate Article 14, but regulates the unlawful aspect
of conversion on the grounds of maintenance of public order and thus is necessary and at
the discretion of State authorities.
[II.2] Special Provision for protecting Women, Children, Scheduled Castes and Tribes
16. Article 15 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa guarantees a significant right
under the Right to Equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa.31 It establishes that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.32 Article 15 (3) and Article 15 (4) of the
Constitution of Republic of Amphissa additionally state that nothing prevents the state
from creating special provisions in the interest of women, children33, people belonging to
Scheduled Castes and people belonging to Scheduled Tribes.34
17. Many acts and policies have been instituted keeping in mind this facility and opportunity
provided by the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. It does not take away rights from
those classes not included in it, but confers more rights on those classes of people who are
recognized as socially, and economically vulnerable.35 The only cause for diligence is
while making laws regarding special provisions for women or children, it should not
discriminate against them on the basis of gender only and the same is applicable for
Scheduled Castes and Tribes.36
18. In the instant matter, the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 aims at providing for the unlawful conversion of religion through
misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, any fraudulent means, or
by marriage.37 Its entire purpose is to govern such conversions and hold those conversions
that are a result of actions that are not recognized by the law of the land, accountable. It holds
offenders guilty and sentences them to a term of imprisonment ranged from one year
to five years and a fine not less than Rs. 15,000.38 However, when the same offense is
committed against a woman, child, or a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Tribes,
30
Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
31
32
33
AMPHISSA CONST. art. 15, cl. 3.
34
AMPHISSA CONST. art. 15, amended by The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
35
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 2540.
36
Mt. Choki v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 Raj 10.
37
Supra note 25.
38
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, § 5, No. 21, Ordinance of
5
the penalty increases. The term of imprisonment increases to a period ranging from two
years to ten years and a fine not less than Rs. 50,000.39
19. It is also to be noted that the ordinance doesn’t restrict the scope of an increased punishment
to men only. The same increased penalty would be applicable to a woman who unlawfully
converts another woman through any of the means specified in the ordinance. This widely
scoped interpretation allows for a fairer perception of the object with which the ordinance
exists and in particular, is more in consonance with the concept of ‘Equal protection of laws’
which signifies a more positive interpretation where the applicable laws are imposed on
people in similar situations similarly, thus propagating equal treatment in equal
circumstances, irrespective of factors provided for in Article 15 of the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.40 The ordinance furthers the scope of Article 14 of the

Constitution of Republic of Amphissa and through these special provisions enables
equality in its objective and hence, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.
[II.3] Doctrine of Non – Arbitrariness
20. While Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa guarantees equality and
functions under the notion that all equals are to be treated equally, there must exist some
kind of rationality in its implementation. Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa prohibits arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment.41 It sets as a pre-requisite that State action should not be arbitrary or
discriminatory and must be based on some rational and relevant principle that is withing
the scope of the authority exercising such power.42 A State legislature is authorized to
make reasonable classification for purposes of enactment and object of the legislation as
well as treat all in one or a similar class on an equal footing.43
21. The intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus involved in interpreting the legislation
acts as tests to ensure its constitutional validity. A major role the State has to play is
ensuring that commitments are made dedicatedly in favour of public interest. 44 It was also
established in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, that the question
39
Supra note 31.
40
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245.
41
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
42
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
43
M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 979 (8th ed. 2018).
44
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538.
6
of constitutionality of a legislation will always be presumed in favour of the statute, that

is, the statute will be valid unless the person claiming arbitrariness and unreasonable
nature proves the same.45 Additionally, it was noted that the legislature correctly
acknowledges and comprehends the needs of its citizens and that the law made is aimed
at solving the problem identified and if discrimination occurs, it is based on reasonable
and adequate grounds.46
22. The law can create and segregate classes as per the needs and the experience of society, but in
the process of doing so, the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It may
even recognize a social evil and attempt at providing solutions for that, but a mere inequality
in the application of law cannot question the constitutionality of such law. 47
Ordinance, 2020 distinguishes those groups of people who convert their religion through
unlawful means and those who convert their religion through lawful means. The law provides
penalties for those who convert illegally and provides those who convert through legal
means, a more comprehensive and ambiguity free conversion process. The need for such a
law also is evident with the constant apprehension of religious conflicts in the State
of Uppam Pradesh48 and there being a significant number of unlawful conversions

reported in the country of Amphissa.49
24. It includes a wider meaning for the term ‘religion’ to incorporate those faiths and beliefs
that do not come under the ambit of religions followed by the population of the State of
Uppam Pradesh. The context in which ‘marriage for conversion’ is an offense is also very
clearly mentioned. As per the rule of ejusdem generis which translates to ‘all words in a
similar context offer similar meaning’, the term ‘marriage’ put in a negative connotation
along with words like fraud, allurement, misrepresentation, and coercion implies that
marriage is also viewed in a similar perception. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that it
is not arbitrary and establishes clear perception on what the ordinance says. The marriage
aspect of the ordinance is a reiteration of what was laid down in Lily Thomas v. Union of
45
Supra note 40.
46
Supra note 37.
47
Re, The Special Courts Bill, AIR 1979 SC 478.
48
Supra note 22.
49
7
India50 and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India.51 In these cases, it was observed that if it
appears that someone has feigned to adopt another religion for some worldly gain or
benefit, it would make the marriage so performed void and would constitute ‘religious
bigotry’.52
25. Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that the
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 does not
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, and instead furthers the
scope of the same.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is not violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. This contention is sought to be
established by three grounds, namely; [III.1] Applicability of the Mischief Rule of
Interpretation, [III.2] Procedure established by law, and [III.3] Furtherance of Rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa under Salus
Populi est Suprema Lex & Necessita Public Major est Quam.
[III.1] Applicability of the Mischief Rule of Interpretation
27. The mischief rule of interpretation, which attained the status of a classic rule, aims at
suppressing the mischief so caused and focusses on the remedy.53 As per this rule, the
courts are expected to look at what the common law was before the statute was introduced
and identify the mischief the statute was intended to cover through its existence.54
28. In the landmark Heydon’s Case, it was established that for the true interpretation of any
statute, certain elements including the rationale and reason behind the implementation of
the law have to be considered.55 Based on this, the judiciary has to interpret the statute
and should suppress the mischief thus advancing the remedy.
50
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650.
51
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531.
52
53
Kanai Lal Suri v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907.
54
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661.
55
Heydon’s Case, [1584] EWHC Exch J36.
8
29. The rule is aimed at giving courts justification to go beyond what the actual words say and
consider the problem at hand and consider the remedy the statute was considering. 56 The rule
helps remove ambiguity in the statute by considering the elements to be interpreted. 57 In the
landmark judgement of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, it was observed and
held that a statute cannot be struck down on account of there being scope for
mischief.58 So, if there is a scope for mischief, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to

interpret the statute in a manner that reduces the mischief that can be caused and not hold
it unconstitutional.
30. In arguendo, the scope of mischief provided by the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 needs to be interpreted by the judiciary.
The judiciary has the power to interpret the ordinance and compare it with the issue at
hand and accordingly prosecute the accused. This does not make it arbitrary, but instead
furthers the functioning of the judiciary whose primary function is to interpret the laws.
No prior law similar to that of the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious
Conversion Ordinance, 2020 exists in the state and this makes the necessity of the law
that much more. There exists a gap in providing for unlawful conversion of religion in the
State of Uppam Pradesh and this lacunae has been bridged by the promulgation of this
ordinance. The judiciary has to interpret the ordinance in a manner that ensures that the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa are not infringed upon,
and if the violation is inevitable, then to ensure that it is to the least possible extent.
31. Additionally, the objective of the ordinance is very clear. Its aim is to legally provide for
the conversion of religion through means mentioned in the ordinance. The provisions of
the ordinance are in consonance with its objective and the rights guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa59 are being regulated in a reasonable
manner as contended in [II.3]. Thus, the promulgation of the ordinance does not violate
Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, but needs to be interpreted by the
Judiciary in a manner that ensures minimal violation of rights, if any.
56
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1965 SC 871.
57
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, AIR 1957 SC 832.
58
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
59
9
[III.2] Procedure Established by law

32. Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Amphissa reads that no individual shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. 60
Procedure established by law has had many interpretations including the most literal one, a
legal framework prescribed by the law of the state and that this restricted the right of
personal liberty as guaranteed under the article to a reasonable extent 61. In Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, it was held that ‘procedure established by law’ within the scope of Article
21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa must be ‘right and just and fair’ and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.62 It should answer and pass the test of reasonableness in
order to conform with Article 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.63
33. Along with the law, the means and methods of operating the law should also be ‘right and
fair and just’ and not arbitrary.64 Courts have upheld the necessity of ‘due process’ which
is synonymous with ‘procedure established by law’, to be in consonance with
righteousness, fairness and justice and that a person’s right to life cannot be deprived by
anything other than procedure laid down by law.65 It was also observed that ‘procedure’
meant fair, and not formal procedure.66 Article 213 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa gives the Governor power to promulgate an ordinance if both the houses of the
State legislature are not in session and if the Governor is satisfied with the existing
circumstances which make it necessary for him to take immediate action.67
Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated into an ordinance through assent from the Governor of
the state of Uppam Pradesh on November 24, 2020.68 Prior to the Governor signing the
ordinance, it was cleared by the State cabinet on November 20, 2020. 69 The Governor of a
state should act on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers in executive action and is
60
Supra note 51.
61
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
62
Supra note 34.
63
Supra note 47.
64
Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 465.
65
Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40.
66
Supra note 50.
67
AMPHISSA CONST. art. 213, cl. 1.
68
69
Supra note 60.
10
not required to function personally without the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers70 and the same was followed by the Governor of the state of Uppam Pradesh.
35. In arguendo, a formal procedure may not have been followed, but a fair one was. In
anticipation of religious riots owing to the increase in reports of ‘Love Jihad’ in the country
and to provide for the existing riots in the State of Uppam Pradesh, the necessity and
urgency for the implementation of the ordinance cannot be contested.71 Article 213 of the
Constitution of Republic of Amphissa provides the Governor with powers to enact an
ordinance when he or she deems it necessary to do so.72 The Governor additionally sought
approval from the State Cabinet ministers and proceeded as per the procedure. 73 In arguendo,
if any rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa have been violated
and accordingly regulated, Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa allows it, considering that the ordinance was reasonable as contended in [II.3].
[III.3] Furtherance of Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa under Salus Populi est Suprema Lex & Necessita Public Major est Quam
36. Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa has a wide scope and guarantees
certain crucial fundamental rights to the citizens of the country. The Right to marry a person
of one’s choice is one such right that has been enshrined in this article. In the landmark
judgement of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K. M., it was reiterated that the Constitution
guarantees its citizens the right to take decisions pertinent to their happiness and that the
right to marry a person of one’s choice is implied in the same.74 The right to life and
personal liberty also covers the Right to privacy as first established in Nihal Chand v.
Bhawan Dei before Amphissa got independence.75 The same was reiterated in Justice
K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, where the Right to Privacy was recognized as a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of
Amphissa.76 While these rights are guaranteed, they can be restricted or minimally
infringed upon if the law permits as long as such violation is reasonably justified and in
furtherance of public order.77
70
Shamsher Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr, 1974 AIR 2192.
71
72
Supra note 59.
73
Supra note 60.
74
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K. M., AIR 2018 SC 357.
75
Nihal Chand v. Bhawan Dei, AIR 1935 All 1002.
76
Supra note 58.
77
Anandhi Simon v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2021) 3 MLJ 479.
11
37. Salus Populi est Suprema Lex, which literally translates to welfare of the people should be the
Supreme Law. This legal maxim is the abiding all pervasive faith of the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.78 In the verdict of Akhtari v. Union of India, it was noted that the
Railways Act, 1989 was enacted keeping in mind Salus Populi est Suprema Lex and that it
was meant for the welfare of people at large. The burden lies on the executive to give effect
to the statutory provisions in its letter and spirit.79 The maxim Necessita Public Major est
Quam translates to public necessity being greater than private necessity. These principles
that are at the behest of the state are subject to restrictions as per the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.80
38. In the instant matter, the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversions
Ordinance, 2020 does not prima facie infringe upon a person’s right to marry an individual
of one’s choice or the right to privacy.81 These rights are only being regulated for public
welfare and interests. By regulating these rights, the ordinance enables distinction between
those people whose rights are being violated owing to the offenses committed as mentioned
in the ordinance from those whose rights are aimed at being protected. By instilling a lawful
religious conversion process that is comprehensive and detailed, there would be an increase
in lawful conversions when compared to unlawful ones. It is the duty of the executive in the
State of Uppam Pradesh to ensure that this statute is implemented keeping in mind its
objective. Public disorder in the state of Uppam Pradesh has been rampant throughout and
is constantly on the rise.82 With incidents and reports of ‘Love Jihads’ increasing83, the
constant pressure on the state to maintain public order also increases and to tackle the same, it
can be reasonably concluded that the ordinance with this objective has been promulgated.
39. By implementing this ordinance, an individual’s right to choose is being strengthened and
given better structure and additionally an individual’s right to autonomy, which includes
the conversion aspect of it is being regulated to ensure free consent as enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.
78
D. Viswanatha Reddy & Co., Kurnool v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2002 (4) ALD 161.
79
Akhtari v. Union of India, MANU/UP/2714/2008.
80
Om Parkash Dahiya & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2019 (197) AIC 361.
81
Supra note 51.
82
Supra note 63.
83
Supra note 41.
12
violate Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, and instead strengthens it.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is not violative
of Article 25 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa. This contention is sought to be
established by two grounds, namely; [IV.1] Religious Freedom subject to rights of other
citizens, [IV.2] Non-absolute nature of Right to Freedom of religion.
[IV.1] Religious Freedom subject to the rights of other citizens
42. Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa gives a person the Freedom of
Conscience and right to practice, profess and propagate any religion.84 To have the freedom
to choose one’s faith is essential to one’s autonomy, and such a guaranteed freedom
strengthens the core norms of the Constitution.85 The Supreme Court observed that there
can be no State restrictions on the fundamental tenets of religion unless it has to
something to do with respect to public order, morality, health and other explicitly
mentioned restrictions.86
43. “What is freedom for one, is freedom for others, in equal measure, and there can, therefore,
be no such thing as Fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.”87 In
lieu of this statement, it is established that a person can exercise his religious freedom so
long as it does not infringe on the fundamental rights of other people. The Right to
propagate a religion is a fundamental right, and so is the Right to conscience which is
enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, forceful religious conversion is
a breach of fundamental rights.
44. While interpreting the word “propagate” in Article 25 (1),88 the Supreme Court held that the
article does not grant the right to convert another person to one’s own religion but only
84
85
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K. M., AIR 2018 SC 357.
86
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388.
87
VP Bharatiya, Propagation of Religion: Stainislaus State of Madhya Pradesh, XIX JILI 312 (1977).
88
Supra note 82.
13
to transmit and spread one’s religion by elucidating the basic tenets of the his/ her religion. 89
The Apex Court further reiterated that religious proselytization is not protected by this
article.90 Therefore, it came to be judicially established that although religious propagation
enjoys constitutional protection under the right to freedom of religion, conversion does not.
45. In the context of mass conversions as stated in the ordinance 91, there is usually an ulterior
motive behind those. These mass conversions are an outcome of political agenda and usually,
have nothing to do with faith and conscience.92 Therefore, the strict action, by the
way of the Uppam Pradesh Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 20202, towards
mass conversion, is justified.
[IV.2] Non-Absolute Nature of Right to Freedom of Religion
46. No right in any organised society is absolute and enjoyment of one’s rights should be in
consistence with another person’s life, thus the Right to freedom of religion is not
absolute.93 Freedom of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order, health, and
morality. The Supreme Court has also observed that the Right to freedom of religion under
the provisions of Article 25 are expressly made subject to public order.94 An attempt to
raise communal tensions by unlawful conversions will effectively be a breach of public
order, affecting the whole community at large.95
47. The provisions of the ordinance, read as a whole, along with the explanations and
definitions, make it reasonably clear that the ordinance aims at curbing and punishing
only such activities which deal with unlawful and forced conversions, and aims to
maintain public order. The ordinance, thus, strikes the correct balance between individual
Fundamental rights and interest of public order.96 Furthermore, it was established that
unlawful conversion has the potential to create law and order issues in a society, thus
creating public disorder.97
48. To maintain public order, the Apex Court held that adoption of a different religion for the
sake of some worldly gain was religious bigotry and not viable in the backdrop of the Indian
89
Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1970 AIR 181
90
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 (1) SCC 677.
91
92
Neha Chauhan, Religious Conversion and Freedom of Religion in India: Debates and Dilemmas, 1 JILI. 126,
133 (2017).
93
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098.
94
Ramji Lal Modi v. The State of U.P, 1957 AIR 620.
95
Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228.
96
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118.
97
Supra note 88.
14
society.98 Conversion to some other religion merely with the object of claiming a right
exclusive to a particular religion will be a fraud upon the law.99 To curtail such breach of
Fundamental Rights, the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 is enacted.
49. Additionally, anti-conversion legislations have been enacted by the multiple states in the
“interest of public order”. Public order and public health are exclusively State subjects as
contended in [II.1] and the Centre cannot legislate as regards the same. The State, by virtue
of the contested ordinance, establishes checks and balances to ensure that the freedom of
religion, as prescribed in the Constitution, is exercised lawfully and without any adverse
consequences. Owing to this and the existing religious riots that the State of Uppam Pradesh
is witnessing100, it can be reasonably concluded that the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of

Unlawful Religious Conversion, 2020 restricts the scope of rights guaranteed by Article 25 of
the Constitution for reasons of public order and maintaining public peace and safety.
violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa.
ISSUE V: WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT

WAS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DENYING BAIL TO DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY
MEMBERS.
51. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that the District
Magistrate of the Bajna District was legally justified in denying bail to Daniel and his
family members. This contention is sought to be established under three grounds, namely:
[V.1] Religious conversion was undertaken by Coercion and Allurement, [V.2] Wrongful
confinement of Ms. Prabha under Section 340 of the APC, and [V.3] Mental and
Psychological Harassment of Ms. Prabha under Section 498A of the APC.
[V.1] Religious conversion was undertaken by Coercion and Allurement
52. As guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of Republic of Amphissa, every person has
the right to freely propagate one’s religion to another and even, challenge another person’s
beliefs without deriding or casting aspersions on it.101 Furthermore, it is fundamentally
98
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
99
Noor Jahan Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 1 HLR 468.
100
101
Supra note 82.
15
guaranteed that every person can choose to practise, preach and propagate his/her religion
and can choose to change his beliefs, as long as such changes in his own act of
conscience is not influenced by force, fraud, inducement, incitement or allurement.102
53. Further, it was also held in Rev Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh that a person will
be considered to infringe on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to the citizens of a
country, if he purposely undertakes upon himself to convert another person to his
religion.103
54. In the instant matter, the petitioner and his family allured and coerced the respondent to
convert and practise the Islamic faith, which is identified as a non-bailable offence in the
Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020.104 The
ordinance defines allurement as a means which would include offer of any temptation in
form of gifts, gratifications, easy money, employment, education or better lifestyle among
others.105 The ordinance also defines coercion as the act of compelling an individual to
act against his/ her will by the use of psychological pressure or physical force/ threat.106
55. In the present case, it is pertinent to understand that the petitioner’s family accepted the
marriage of Mr. Daniel and Ms. Prabha ‘begrudgingly’ (¶10).107 This makes the bride
vulnerable and the bride is further under the psychological pressure to win acceptance
from the groom’s family, as is the unspoken norm in traditional patriarchal societies. It
can be subsequently deduced that acceptance into her marital household would mean a
better lifestyle for the bride. It is established that the respondent’s sole reason to
undertake such conversion is to appease her in-laws in the hope that they will be more
acceptful of the marriage (¶ 10).108
56. The existence of psychological pressure to be accepted into her marital household and the
allurement of peace and better lifestyle that comes with, was reason enough for the
respondent to convert from her natal religious belief system. It is humbly submitted that
there was no voluntary conversion of religion and the respondent was coerced and allured
102
Evangelical Fellowship of India v. State of H.P., (2013) 4 RCR (Civ) 283.
103
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908.
104
105
106
Supra note 103.
107
108
16
into converting her faith, which makes the petitioners liable for unlawful conversion
under the Ordinance.
[V.2] Wrongful confinement of the Ms. Prabha under Section 340 of the APC
57. Section 340 of the APC lays down that the wrongful restraint upon a person in a manner
that prevents the person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits amounts to
“Wrongful Confinement’ of the person.109
58. Further, it was held in Mrityunjay Kumar v. The State of Sikkim that to support the charge of
wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential. It is sufficient to
prove if the mental condition of the person confined is such that he reasonably believes
that he is not free to move and that he will be forthwith restrained if he attempted to do
so.110
59. In the instant matter, the period of lockdown in the state of Uppam Pradesh was only for a
period of two weeks and the relaxations of the lockdown only limited travel options but did
completely prohibit travel.111 It is also explicit from ¶ 12 that the respondent’s brother
had suffered a grave medical injury, and it was important for the respondent to visit him
during such times.112
60. The petitioner had restrained the respondent on the ground that there were restricted travel
options and they were apprehensive of contracting the virus.113 It is however clear that the
respondent did have travel options to visit her brother and she is an able-bodied person, who
would have taken sufficient precautions to guard against the virus. Further, as there was no
complete lockdown in the state, it is understood that there were was no strict imposition of
the lockdown and people could travel in a situation of emergency. It can be deduced from ¶
12 that the petitioners explicitly and wrongfully confined the respondent and “did not permit
her to leave” their residence. The respondent was therefore, wrongfully restrained and she
was prevented from proceeding beyond the petitioner’s house. It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner must be held guilty under Section 340 of the IPC.
109
Amphissian Penal Code,1860, § 340, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (Amphissa).
110
Mrityunjay Kumar v. The State of Sikkim, 2010 Cri LJ 44.
111
112
113
17
[V.3] Mental and Psychological Harassment of the Ms. Prabha under Section 498A of
the APC.
61. Section 498A of the APC punishes the husband or the relative(s) of the husband who
subject a woman to cruelty.114 For the purpose of this section, cruelty is understood as
any wilful conduct that can abet the women to suicide or can cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or mental/physical health of a woman.
62. For the commission of an offence under such a provision, it is necessary to prove that a
married woman was subject to cruelty or harassment by either her husband or his
relative(s).115
63. It is pertinent to note that cruelty can either be physical or mental, as it was held in the that
straitjacketing the definition of cruelty is a difficult task as it is a relative term, and cruelty
for one person may not constitute cruelty for another.116 This was further affirmed in
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, where the judicial bench held that the concept of
cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and it also upon the social and
economic status to which such person belongs.117
64. In the instant matter, the respondent was subject to cruelty by the petitioners under Section
498A of the APC. The respondent was informed of her brother’s accident and grave
condition and it was important to her to visit her family in such crisis. The respondent
greatly treasured her brother and expressed her desire to visit him in many instances. It
mattered to the respondent to be present with her brother and family. The petitioner,
however, did not allow her to visit and assaulted her autonomy and right to movement. By
trivialising her desires and wrongfully containing her to the petitioner’s premises, they
subjected her to great mental anguish.
65. Further. the respondent affirmed that she “started feeling like a prisoner in the house of her
own in-laws”, (¶12) which is testimony to the mental and psychological trauma she was
subjected to as she was wrongfully confined.118 It can also be deduced from ¶ 13, that she
suffered extreme frustration and was so desperate to escape such cruelty as she resorted to
contacting her estranged family who were previously cut off and were not on amicable
114
Amphissian Penal Code,1860, § 498A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (Amphissa).
115
U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757.
116
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152.
117
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Odisha, (2002) 2 SCC 619.
118
Moot Proposition ¶ 12, Line 9.
18
terms with the respondents.119 Thus, the respondent did not suffer cruelty as defined
under Section 498A of the APC and, it is further submitted that the petitioner must be
held guilty for the same.
District Magistrate of the Bajna District was legally justified in denying bail to Mr.
Daniel and his family members.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts put forth, arguments advanced and the authorities citied, it is
most humbly prayed by the Respondents in this matter that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Amphissa may be pleased to:
1. HOLD, that the present Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition is not maintainable.
2. DECLARE, that the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Ordinance, 2020 is constitutional as it is not violative of Articles 14 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Amphissa.
5. HOLD, that the District Magistrate of the Bajna District was legally justified in
denying bail to Daniel and his family members.
AND/ OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully prayed for as Counsel for the Respondents who
are humbly bound to pray.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Respondents
119
Moot Proposition ¶ 13, Line 1.
19

Nationals 56 R 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

Nationals 56 R PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5TH NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2020 - 2021

Team ID: TC 56_R

5th NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2020 - 21

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

Writ Petition W. P. No ___/2021

Special Leave Petition S. L. P. No ___/2021

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMPHISSA, 1950

SECTIONS 340 AND 498A OF THE AMPHISSIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

THE PROVISIONS OF THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020

DANIEL & ORS………………………………………………………………...(PETITIONER)

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................ ii

Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................v

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................vi

Issues Involved ..................................................................................................................... viii

Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................ixx

Body of Arguments ..................................................................................................................1

[I.1] No grave injustice caused to the petitioner ................................................................1

[I.2] Discretionary Nature of Article 136 ..........................................................................1

[I.3] The Petitioner Lacks Locus Standi under Article 32 .................................................3

[I.4] Alternate remedies not exhausted ..............................................................................3

[II.3] Doctrine of Non – Arbitrariness ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

[III.2] Procedure Established by law ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

[III.3] Furtherance of Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of

[IV.1] Religious Freedom subject to Rights of Others ....................................................13

[IV.2] Non-absolute nature of Right to Freedom of religionError! Bookmark not defined.

1. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 .................................................................... 10

21. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1........................................ 9

II. S.L.P. No. ___/2021

Governor on 24th November, 2020. As per this ordinance, religious

PARTIES A. Daniel & Ors.

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT WAS LEGALLY

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL RELIGIOUS

WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT WAS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE

[I.4] Alternate Remedies are not Exhausted

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

Republic of Amphissa.40 The ordinance furthers the scope of Article 14 of the

of constitutionality of a legislation will always be presumed in favour of the statute, that

of Uppam Pradesh48 and there being a significant number of unlawful conversions

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

mischief.58 So, if there is a scope for mischief, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to

[III.2] Procedure Established by law

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

is witnessing100, it can be reasonably concluded that the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of

ISSUE V: WHETHER THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF THE BAJNA DISTRICT

beliefs without deriding or casting aspersions on it.101 Furthermore, it is fundamentally

Counsels for the Respondents

You might also like