16th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Day 1

18th May 2023

Court Room 4

By Shreya Shrivastava

The Advocate's Legion, the Moot Court Committee of Vivekananda School of Law and Legal
Studies (VSLLS) of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies organized the 16 th Intra Moot
Competition for the students pursuing Law on 18 th May 2023 (Day 1) from 2:00 pm onwards
thought an online platform. The Court room comprised of Team Codes: TC-71, TC-52, TC-87,
TC- 88, TC-89, TC-26, Ex Parte, TC-14 respectively.

The event was organized under the guidance of the respected faculty members X and Y with the
organizing committee member as well as the Co-host Mr. Divay supervising the entire event for
the preliminary round. The presiding judge for the day was Ms Kriti Krishana and Mr Parvez
Ahmed with the Student Coordinator Mr Hardik Giri. The Judge Ushers for the proceedings
were Miss Navya Garg and Miss Divyanshi Gangwani. The volunteer from the photography
committee was Miss Nikita Gharana. The court master for the Competition was Mr Shobhit
Sharma while the Court Marshal for the Competition was Miss Annika Singhal.

The Court Marshal addressed the participants and did a wholesome job of giving instructions to
them with respect to their court proceedings in the beginning of every slot. The court proceeding
started at 2:05 pm when the participants started to join the meeting, around 2:00 pm the judges
had also joined the respective meeting. After that the Court Master, Mr. Shobhit Sharma started
to read out the instructions to the participants, after announcing the necessary instructions that
needed to be followed by both the participants as well as the committee member he then stated
about the rules for the competition that needs to be followed throughout the court proceedings.
He also stated about the speaking time allotted to each speaker would be of maximum 15
minutes, 8 minutes per Participants to make their arguments and maximum 1 minute for rebuttal
and sub rebuttal if permitted and then later stated about the parameters upon which the
participants would be. After that the Court Marshal, Miss Annika Singhal asked the respective
participants for their speaking time as per the instructions of the competition.

TC-71 VS TC 52

The proceedings began at 2:12 pm. The applicant TC-71 was the first to speak his contentions
were that Right to Mary is a fundamental right and thus by not allowing the homo sexual couples
to get legalization of marriage under the Special Marriage Act is the violation of the very
fundamental right mentioned under Article 14 by citing the cases such as Shafi Jah, Navjeet
Singh johar. To which the Judge Ms. Kirti Krishana questioned him that why didn’t he
approached the High Court under Article 226? To which he contended that he wanted a
declaration for the entire nation that all individual have regarding right to marriage. He stated
that broader interpretation should be given.The other Judge Mr Parvez Ahmad also questioned
him that the Right to Mary is a statutory right and not a fundamental right to which he stated that
he does not want the entire Statute to be changed but only the wider interpretation of terms such
as male and female to that of persons and spouses. The speaker TC-71 speaker 2 also contended
that the Special marriage Act was violating the very Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 of the Constitution of
India.

The speaking time for TC-52 S1 started at 2:35 who contended that there has been no direct
harm caused to the homo sexual couples and right to Mary does not extend to same and stated
that petition is not maintainable. To which the judge asked that whether excluding group of
people would amount to violation or not to which they contended that Right to Marriage is not
inclusive of fundamental right and it is the right to union that is inclusive. The case of Navtej
Singh Johar was cited by stating that sec 377 was decriminalized and stated that court should
respect the doctrine of separation of powers and the customs and traditions.

The rebuttal started at 2:45 pm where he cited cases by which he asked the declaration for a
wider interpretation of the sections of Special Marriage Act. The Sub rebuttal stated that
widening the scope of the said act would lead to multiple interpretations of the different Acts.

The Feedback of the judges stated that both the participants were confident and argued well and
stated that the written submission ofTC52 speaker 1was well written and TC 71 speaker 2 should
have made her own arguments instead of going through the memorial. The proceedings for this
slot ended with the Organizing committee member Mr Divay taking group photograph with total
of fourteen participants present.

TC -87 VS TC-88

At 3:15 the proceedings started. The contentions made by TC-87 speaker 2 and speaker 1 were
that by not legalizing the Homo sexual marriages is the violation of the very Article 14 and also
stated that that the procreation is the need for marriage and not necessary by citing the case of K
puttu Swami and also violated the article 19(1)(a) of not having the freedom to express their
sexual orientation and thus by not legalizing the same amounts to violation of Articles
14,15,19,21.

The respondents TC-88 speaker 1 and speaker 2 stated that there has been no violation of any
fundamental right as the basic objective of Special Marriage Act was for inter Caste and Religion
marriage and not to giving validity to Same sex marriage and also right to marriage does not
come under the ambit of Fundamental rights and thus court should insure the protection of rights
as well as the societal impacts and thus it is beyond the ambit of the court to allow Same sex
marriage.

The rebuttal started at 1:43 pm to which it was stated that the Special Marriage Act was brought
in context because of the customs and traditions prevalent in the society and thus there is no
violation of fundamental right. The sub rebuttal by tc-88 speaker 1 stated that the court should
focus more upon the core of marriage which takes its validity from customs and traditions and
thus homo sexual couples should be kept out of reach.

The feedback of the judges stated that both the parties argued well and gave suggestions as to
not rush and make arguments by taking pauses for better understanding. The proceedings for this
slot ended with the Organizing committee member Mr Divay taking group photograph with total
of fourteen participants present.

TC-89 VS TC-26

At 4:03 pm the proceedings started. The participant TC-89 S1, dealt with issue 1 and 2, he
started with his contentions by citing the Shakti Vakani vs Union of India case that every
homosexual couples should have the basic right to companionship and when we look at the
Section 4 of Special Marriage Act, it is gender specific in nature and also stated that a person
cannot have a control over his gender that is socially constructed. Then the participant TC-89 S2
started his contentions with regard to the issue 3 stated that the homo sexual couple in this
country has the right to be intimate but does not have legitimate reunion which the violation of
very Article 14, 19, 21. Thus the participant wanted the said Act to be amended in order to be
gender neutral in nature.

Then the contentions for TC-26 S1 started. He contended that the petition is not maintainable and
does not have a locus Standi and have not approached the court with clean hands and thus no
Fundamental Rights have been violated with their regard to Article 14, 15, 19, 21 by citing the
case of NALSA. Further the Judge Kriti Krishana questioned him that as he contended that no
right has been violated but through the facts we can see that due the sexual orientation that the
petitioners carried they were removed from their jobs and days later was also denied their stay in
the rental room so how come we can say that there was no violation of the fundamental rights to
which the participant answered that it is only the right to companionship that has been
guaranteed to the homo sexual couple and thus right to marry is not a fundamental right. Then
the participant TC-26 started with his contentions with regard to issue 3 he contended that the
Special Marriage Act cannot be amended as, as per the doctrine of Severability we check the
severability of the valid and the invalid, so it not the form but the substance that we need to look
on to thus the act as a whole cannot be amended thus the petition is not maintainable. To which
the Judge questioned him that if the court is required to be in accordance with the law stated but
what will happen if there a vacuum in law then what would be the situation? For which the
participant mentioned that the laws should be parallel to the personal laws mentioned under the
schedule 7 of the Constitution. Due to the time constrain the Judge’s had skipped the rebuttal.

The feedback of the judges stated that the speakers were able to put their arguments in
connections with the facts of the cases also they made their arguments very clearly as well as
confidently. The proceedings for this slot ended with the Organizing committee member Mr
Divay taking group photograph with total of fourteen participants present.

EX PARTE VS TC- 14

At 4:20pm the proceeding started. The participant TC-14 S1 started of his contentions with
stating that the Petition is not maintainable as the right to legalize same sex marriage lies only
with the Parliament and not that of Courts and thus it is not the matter of courts. He stated that
the doctrine of separation of power needs to be respected; also if the legislature had any
intentions to include same sex marriages then they would have expressly mentioned the same
which they did not to which the judge questioned that as right to marriage. They also contended
that mere changing of words of the act won’t reconcile the problem. They further stated that
LGBTQ community can have a ceremony with their will but cannot force the court to recognize
and legalize their union.

The feedback of the judges stated that both the participants well argued, there was originality in
their arguments and was well presented. The proceeding got concluded by the organizing
committee member Mr. Divay giving vote of thanks to the Judges and asking all the participants
to leave the Court room.