1

2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION – 2023

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS……..PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA…………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No. NAME PAGE NO.

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 3
1.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
1.2 LIST OF STATUTES 4
1.3 BOOKS REFERRED 4
1.4 WEBSITES REFERRED 5
1.4 LIST OF CASES 6
2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
4 ISSUES RAISED 9
5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12
7 PRAYER 24

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS

1. AIR - All India Report

2. Anr – Another
3. Art – Article
4. Bom – Bombay
5. C.P.C – Civil Procedure Code
6. Cr.P.C – Criminal Procedure Code
7. CriLJ – Criminal Law Journal
8. Hon’ble – Honourable
9. I.P.C - Indian Penal Code
10. Ors – Others
11. SC – Supreme Court
12. SCC – Supreme Court Cases
13. . Supra – Cited before
14. U/A – Under Article
15. U/S – Under Section
16. . v. – Versus
17. W.P (C) – Writ Petition (Civil)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 4

LISTS OF STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Constitution of India, 1950
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Constitutional Law of India by J.N. Pandey

2. The Constitution of India by P. Bakshi
3. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla
4. Civil Procedure Code by C.K. Takwani
5. Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
6. The Code of Criminal Procedure by R.V. Kelkar

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 5

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. http://www.legalservicesindia.
2. https://indiankanoon.org
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in
4. https://www.latestlaws.com
5. https://www.livelaw.in
6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
7. https://lawtimesjournal.in
8. https://www.thehindu.com
9. https://www.casemine.com
10. https://www.barelaw.in
11. https://www.scconline.com
12. https://www.scobserver.in
13. https://www.hindustantimes.com

LIST OF CASES

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 6

1. Ammini E.J and Etc V. Union of Inida And Ors., AIR 1995 Ker 252
2. John Vallamattom And Ors. V. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 1997
3. Joseph shine v. union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898
4. K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr V. Union of India and Ors.,( 2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017
SC 4161
5. Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320
6. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil, 1996 AIR 1697, JT 1996
(3) 98
7. Moran mar basselios Catholics vs. mar poulose anthanasius AIR 1954 SC 526
8. Northern India Caterers (India) v Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 AIR 674
9. Revathi V. Union of India, 1988 AIR 835, 1988 SCR (3) 73
10. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)
11. Sowmithri Vishnu V. Union of India, & Anr. AIR 1985 SC 1618

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 7

THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS HAS APPROACHED THIS HONORABLE

SUPREME COURT U/A 137 (REVIEW PETITION) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1949. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

Article 137 reads as –

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.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONTEST

THE JURISDICTION. IT SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND LAWS ON WHICH THE
CLAIMS ARE BASED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 8

 Yusuf Abdul and Sowmithri are a married couple. Yusuf Abdul has filed a petition in the
Family Court seeking divorce from Sowmithri on the grounds of adultery and desertion.
During the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
 Yusuf Abdul has filed a complaint against Joseph charging him under section 497 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 of committing adultery with Sowmithri, the wife of Yusuf
Abdul.

WRIT PETITION BY SOWMITHRI

 Sowmithri has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of
the Indian Constitution for quashing off the complaint on the ground that the offense
adultery under section 497 of IPC 1860 was unconstitutional on the grounds of
infringement of fundamental rights.
 On 19th September, 2022, the Five Judge Constitution Bench of the court in their
judgement has struck down section 497 of I.P.C., as unconstitutional being violative of
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution and section 198(2) of Cr.P.C., only to the extent
that it is applicable to the offence of adultery under section 497 of I.P.C., over ruling its
earlier decisions.

REVIEW PETITION BY THE ASSOCIATION

 A group of three major religions in the country formed an association registered by some
of its heads named as “CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’.
 On 10th October2022 a review petition has been filed by the Consortium of Religions
before the Supreme Court praying for the reconsideration of the verdict pass.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 9

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS IS

MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER DECRIMINALISATION OF ADULTERY INFLICTS PUBLIC MORALS?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY VIOLATES THE RELIGIOUS

PERSONAL LAWS?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE CONSORTIUM OF

RELIGIONS IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the review petition filed by the
Petitioners i.e., consortium of religions under Article 137 of Indian Constitution in
accordance with the provisions laid down under section 114 order XLVII Rule 1 of the
code of civil procedure, 1908 is not maintainable. Article 137 of the Indian Constitution
empowers the Supreme Court of India to review the judgement pronounced by the apex
court where an appeal cannot be made. The review petition filed by the consortium of
religions is based on the two different social perspectives and such contentions cannot be
maintainable in this honorable Supreme Court of India.

2. WHETHER DECRIMINALISATION OF ADULTERY INFLICTS PUBLIC

MORALS?

It is humbly submitted before this honorable that the decriminalization of adultery

doesn’t inflicts public morals as these public morals always doesn’t yield optimum
results. Public morals are impliedly bound to follow the principles of natural justice
which clearly says to treat everyone equally with due respect. Since immemorial times
women are treated as men’s chattel which is not only a violation of Constitution of India
and basic human rights but is also a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
Adultery though considered as a heinous crime in the society and is penalized shall no
more be considered as such because it doesn’t affect the public policy as it is a private
matter of the individuals which cannot be decided by the mass public.

3. WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 11

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that decriminalization of adultery is

unconstitutional as it violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution i.e., the
fundamental rights. Sec 497 of I.P.C., read with Sec 198(2) of Cr.P.C., violates Articles
14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. All are to be treated equally before the eyes of
the court irrespective of the caste, class, creed and sex. The penal punishment and
procedure for the offense adultery explicitly sees only men as the abettor and women not
to be considered as an aggrieved party though in reality an aggrieved person. And women
were never punished though the offense is committed by her. The so called offense
adultery is a personal act of the individuals where the interference of state is not really
required as it violates the personal liberty in terms of right to dignity and right to privacy.
Hence, the Respondents humbly pray to declare it as unconstitutional.

4. WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY VIOLATES THE

RELIGIOUS PERSONAL LAWS?

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the decriminalizing adultery will
neither infringe nor inflict the personal laws that under the Constitution of India. These
personal laws are inserted in order to let prevail the rituals of the respective religions and
have belief and faith on one’s religious norms but not to deter the crime if an activity is
considered to be an offence in that particular scripture. Religious personal laws though
follow the prescribed rules and regulations laid down by the manuscripts of the respective
religion, if there is any violation of the basic fundamental or the human rights in terms of
interference of individual’s liberty shall no longer be considered as per the changing
scenario.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 12

ISSUE - 1

WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE CONSORTIUM OF

RELIGIONS IS MAINTAINABLE?

In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court can be reviewed if the judgement pronounced
by the apex courts possess the doubt of miscarriage of justice towards society then any person in
the society can file the review petition, if the judgement only effect private parties then either the
parties can only file the review petition in the apex court.

 Article 137 of the Constitution of India 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.

 Article 145 (e) of the Constitution of India provides that

(e) Any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be received and rules as to the
conditions the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the
Court for such review are to be entered;

The word “Review” connotes a judicial re-examination of the case, in order to rectify an error
and prevent the gross miscarriage of justice. Any party aggrieved by an order or judgement may
apply for reviewing the said order or judgement to the same court. It can be filed where no
appeal is preferred or in case there is no provision for appeal. Review Petition is a discretionary
right of court. The grounds for review are limited. Taking into consideration the principle of
Stare Decisis i.e." to stand by that which is decided", courts generally do not unsettle a decision,
without a strong case. This provision regarding review is an exemption to the legal principle of
stare decisis.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 13

A provision for review has been laid down under the Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure
which gives a substantive right of review and Order XLVII Rule 1 there under provides for the
procedure.

 Section 114 Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C, 1908

“Review – Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

i) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,

ii) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

iii) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passes the decree or made the order, and
the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

Under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C, 1908 a judgement may be opened to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. These provisions of Constitution and civil
procedure code provides validity to the review petition. There are certain grounds to file the
review petition before the court. They are-

1) The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the
exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was passed.

Under this ground, the decree stating the decriminalization of adultery does not apply as there is
no such new and important evidence to challenge decree in the review petition.

2) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record

In Moran mar basselios Catholics vs. mar poulose anthanasius AIR 1954 SC 526, it was held
that a review of a judgement is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is called for only where a
glaring omission, patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

3) Any other reason

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 14

The scope of the power of review was explained by the Court in Northern India Caterers
(India) v Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 AIR 674, wherein the Court held that “a party is not
entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a
rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced
by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances
of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. If the attention of the
Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing the Court will
review its judgment. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done
and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.”

The court during the proceedings considered all the basic human rights and the court have shown
special concentration on the privacy, dignity of the individual. So, on the basis of mere society
perpetuations and religious interest, one cannot infringe the basic human rights of individuals. So
there is no error apparent on the face of record.

The review petition doesn’t mentioned any other reason regarding validity of petition. Petition
just consists of religious interests and societal misconceptions, so there is no strong other reason
to support petition. As there is no ground mentioned under order 47 rule1 of C.P.C., supports
review petition.

The honorable supreme court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320,
held the regard to exercise of power of the court in review:

i) a repetition of old and over ruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications.

iv) review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

v) a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and

corrected but lies only for the patent error

vi) the mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 15

For many centuries adultery is considered as crime that doesn’t mean it should be considered as
punishable crime even today. The mere possibility of two perspectives cannot be ground for
review as mentioned in the aforesaid case even though it is might be a societal issue.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the petition filed by the consortium of
religions was not based on the grounds prescribed under order 47 rule 1 of C.P.C, 1908 and
hence the petition is not maintainable.

ISSUE - 2

WHETHER DECRIMINALISATION OF ADULTERY INFLICTS PUBLIC MORALS?

Public morality refers to morals and ethical standards enforced in a society, by law or police
work or social pressure, and applied to public life to the content of the media, and to conduct in
public places. India is a country with very complex society. Indian society consists of various
religions castes and people practices various cultures. In such a society with huge diversity
morals play very significant role. Morals plays a major role in such society but at the same time
not all morals yields optimum results. Some morals also leads to negative impact on the society.
Our society has witnessed n number of morals which violated the basic human rights. Few
people ideologies should not be imposed as morals in the society as right practices.

Morals which respects the basic human rights are really beneficial to society. Superstitions
and unfair moral practices, Indian society has suffered for generations. Society has abandoned
many immoral practices which were considered as good moral practices. Morals and customs are
the one of the major sources of law but that doesn’t mean these morals are the sole source and
everyone must follow them blindly. No matter how unfair they are. Only the morals and
practices which gives great importance to basic human rights should be treated as sources of law
and remaining unfair practices should not be treated as sources of law.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 16

We adopted the legal system to deliver fair justice to every individual but not to campaign the
unfair practices. Laws should not possess any kind of unfair practices. One must abandon these
existing unfair practices in the society that need to get modified.one such unfair practice which
prevailing in the society from ancient period is criminalizing adultery. Adultery is considered as
a heinous offence in almost every religion and in some communities, punishment for adultery is
death penalty. Criminalizing the adultery violates the basic individual rights and it discriminates
the individual on the basis of their gender. This gender discrimination dimension under section
497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The provision of law under section 497 was that of colonial
era. It was drafted by Lord Macauley in 1860. The provision was based on the erroneous
presumption that “Women are the property of men”, and only husband has the sole right over the
body of his wife.

Treating everyone equally with due respect has been the moral and ethical responsibility of
the state irrespective of the discriminations among themselves. It is clearly evident that the law
was not to criminalize the sexual relations outside the marriage but rather held a particular
gender on the side of liability and the other one as the chattel of the former. It clearly portrays
that the decriminalization of such practice, where criminalization of adultery itself violates the
morals, the ethics and the basic human rights on the basis of their gender. Leading a life with
dignity in respectful manner is the basic human right that is provided by the nature itself without
the intervention into the personal space of others that invades the individual’s liberty. It is the
basic obligation to change our practices according to the current scenario. Law needs to correct
the misconceptions in the society.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that decriminalizing adultery enhances the
value of the human rights and morals in the society and does not inflicts public morals.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 17

ISSUE – 3

WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

The section 497 I.P.C is quietly unconstitutional and violates the fundamental rights of the both
parties being involved in the adultery. According to the section 497 of Indian penal code, 1860,

Sec 497 of I.P.C, 1860, reads as;

“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.”

Section 198(2) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reads as;

(2) For the purposes of sub- section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be
deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or section 498 of the said
Code: Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on
his behalf at the time when such offence was com- mitted may, with the leave of the Court, make
a complaint on his behalf.

In the punishment for the adultery the male will only be punished according to the Indian penal
code. It clearly violates the fundamental rights of the person granted under the provisions of the
article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian constitution

 Article 14 of the Indian Constitution reads as;

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.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 18

In the punishment for the adultery the man is not treating with equality before the law. It violates
the basic fundamental right of the person guaranteed under the article 14 of the Indian
constitution; And, in the matter of I.P.C 497 the men is not treating with the equality before the
law. Article 14 of the constitution of India is a facet of equality and status and opportunity
spoken of in the preamble to the constitution.

In the case of Ammini E.J and Etc V. Union of Inida And Ors., AIR 1995 Ker 252, the court
concluded that the divorce on the grounds of adultery simpliciter is violative of Article 14, 15
and 21 of the Indian constitution. The aforesaid provision is also discriminatory and therefore
violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian constitution. As has been held by us herein
above, in treating a women as chattel for the purposes of this provision, it is clear that such
provision discriminates against women on grounds of sex only, and must be struck down on this
ground as well, Section198 of Cr.P.C, 1973 is also a bluntly discriminatory provision, in that it is
the husband alone or somebody on his behalf who can file a complaint against another man for
this offense consequently, section 198 of Cr.P.C., has also to be held constitutionally infirm.

 Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution reads as;

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

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them.

While in the punishment for the adultery the state does discriminate the person involved in the
adultery on the grounds of gender thus; the wife not being punished, under section 497 of Indian
penal code. It discriminates the male who involved in the adultery by punishing him and not
including her. Punishing the man under section 497 I.P.C it violates his basic fundamental right
guaranteed under article 15 of the Indian constitution.

In the case of Joseph shine v. union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39,

Chief Justice Deepak Mishra said, “Husband is not the master of wife”. He observed that “any
system treating a woman with indignity invites the wrath of the Constitution that is why adultery
is no longer a crime.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 19

Justice R.F. Nariman said, “Ancient notions of man being perpetrator and woman being victim
no longer hold good”. Under adultery law, only a man is convicted but woman is not convicted,
clearly it goes against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, also against Article 15 of the
Constitution of India which says no discrimination on ground of sex so it is discrimination
against man.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said, “Control sexuality of woman hits the autonomy and dignity of
woman”. When husband and wife marry, wife has not given up on her sexual freedom on her
sexuality, she can also explore sexuality outside the marriage as well, since at the time of
marriage or even afterwards the wife does not lose her freedom, her control over her sexuality,
and section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deprives a woman over her sexuality of her
sexual freedom it goes against the concept of privacy and dignity under article 21 of the
Constitution of India. . Section 497 IPC along with section 198(2) CRPC is unconstitutional in
every aspect and it violates the article 19 and 21 of the individuals.

 The Article 19 of the Indian constitution reads as;

Everyone as right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.

Marriage could not restrict the right to sex of women. The husband did not have sole right on the
women. It violates the fundamental rights of the women guaranteed under article 19.

 Article 21 of the Indian constitution states that,

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law’’.

Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and
instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally
protected interest in itself. Adultery is described as heinous crime according to the I.P.C. in
which the both parties constitutionally guaranteed rights are being violated.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 20

In the case of Joseph Shine V. union of India , (2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898, the court
upheld that the freedom under article 21 can be fulfilled only where the individuals is entitled to
decide upon his or her preferences.

The dignity of individual which is spoken of in the preamble to the constitution of India, is a
facet of article 21 of the constitution. A statutory provision belonging to the hoary past which
demeans or degrades the status of a woman obviously falls foul of modern constitutional doctrine
are must be struck down on this ground also,

Section 497 I.P.C along with the order 198(2) CRPC violates the article 21 of the individual
parties involved in the practice. Right to privacy and reputation is constitutionally granted to
every individual. Practice of adultery is classified as sin in the personal laws. Women’s right to
sex won’t be compelled after the marriage. She have right to sex with anyone (not a minor) with
mutual consent together. But, sec 497 I.P.C is being violative to the both article 21 of the women
and article 14, 15 and 21 of the men. By punishing him under SEC497 I.P.C and leaving her as
an abettor.

In recent judgement in Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr V. Union of India and Ors.,
( 2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161, it was held in the honorable court that, human dignity is
an integral part of the constitution. Reflections of dignity are found in the guarantee against
Arbitrariness (article14), the lamps of the freedom (article19) and in the right to life and personal
liberty (article19) and in the right to life and personal liberty (article 21).”

In the case of Joseph Shine V. Union of India, the court overruled the judgement of Sowmithri
Vishnu V. Union of India, & Anr. AIR 1985 SC 1618, And Revathi V. Union of India, 1988
AIR 835, 1988 SCR (3) 73, Which upheld the constitutional validity of section 198 CRPC must,
for similar reasons, be held to be no longer good law. And declared that SEC 497 I.P.C, 1860
and section 198 of the CRPC, 1973 are violative of Article 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Indian
constitution.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that sec 497 of I.P.C read with sec 198(2) of
Cr.P.C., violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution i.e., the fundamental rights and the
basic human rights as well. Hence, the respondents humbly submit that the decriminalization of
adultery is constitutional.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 21

ISSUE – 4

WHETHER THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ADULTERY VIOLATES THE

RELIGIOIUS PERSONAL LAWS?

The imperial government introduced personal laws to govern the affairs in relation with
religious personal laws, is defined as a law that applies to a certain class or a group of people or a
particular person, based on the religions, faith and culture. Personal laws derive their power from
religion; which falls under the ambit of the Article 25-28 of the Indian constitution. These
articles provide protection to the personal laws.

Personal law is the law by which an individual is governed in respect of various personal
matters such as principles relating to marriage, divorce, maintenance, adaptation, inheritance,
guardianship, succession and all. India is a diversified country with many religions, castes.
People in India follows different cultures to govern all these people without interfering into their
personal religious affairs. Personal laws are developed in the colonial era. Since time
immemorial it is considered to be a sin not only on the religious or legal ground but on the
spiritual ground as well. Personal laws don’t deal with criminal punishments.

Ancient religious scriptures deal with offences and punishments for such offences, but during
colonial era all such practices were ceased and imperial government bought some laws such ad
Indian penal code, 1860. These codified laws deal with the punishments for offences. The then
state decided that punishment should be same for everyone who commits offence irrespective of
their religion. Even though the preservation of personal laws is essential for the plurality and
diversity of India, they cannot override the constitutional provisions as the constitution is
supreme law of the country. Adultery is a serious offence in almost every religion and
punishment for adultery prescribed in all the personal laws will violate the right to life of person
which was constitutionally granted right of every individual.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 22

In the case of John Vallamattom And Ors. V. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of
1997, the court declared that section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 violates the
provisions of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution and held it as
unconstitutional.

 The personal laws mere not only subject matter of state policy but the courts must have to
do interfere when its concerns to the fundamental rights granted by the constitution.

In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC); the dispute between
Part III of the Constitution and the Religious Personal Laws was raised again. It was seen by
many as a golden opportunity for resolving the conflict between the religious Personal Laws and
Constitutional Rights. Although the Court held that triple talaq was unconstitutional by
examining it in accordance with Part III of the Constitution and that the Narasu Appa Mali
judgement needed reconsideration, the Supreme and Fundamental dispute in law was left
completely unresolved.

 In Islam, there is remedy for the offense of adultery i.e., Abu Hurairah reports that the
messenger of Allah said; “when a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck
the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”
(al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawd, An- Nisai and others)

Similarly, adultery should not be considered as punishable offence the scriptures or provisions
which conferring punishments like death penalty violating basic human rights. Even though
Islamic laws condemning the adultery, there is also a remedy for adultery.

 Personal laws are intervening with the constitutional rights of the individuals. Whatever
intervenes the constitutional rights whether it is the subject policy of state matter, the
court should intervene in between and protect the basic fundamental rights granted by the
constitution.

In the case of Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil, 1996 AIR
1697, JT 1996 (3) 98, the court held that, the basic structure permeates equality of status and
opportunity. Personal laws are not derived from the Constitution but from the religious
scriptures. The laws thus derived must be consistent with the Constitution least they became void

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 23

under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution if they violates fundamental rights. Right to equality
is a fundamental right that removes the preexisting fallibilities.

So, it is humbly submitted before this honorable court that personal laws being the guard for the
religious rituals doesn’t deal with the punishments of the criminal offences and hence
decriminalizing of adultery will not inflict the personal laws.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 24

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS PRESENTED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED &

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS HEREBY MOST HUMBLY
SUBMITS THAT THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MAY BE PLEASED
TO :

1. DISMISS, the review petition filed by the Petitioners.

2. DECLARE, Sec 497 of I.P.C., read with Sec 198(2) of Cr.P.C., is unconstitutional as it
infringes the fundamental rights that safeguards the citizens of India.
3. UPHELD, the judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India of striking down of Sec
497 of I.P.C., read with Sec 198(2) of Cr.P.C.

THE COURT BEING SATISFIED MAY IN LIKE MANNER MAKE ANY SUCH DEMAND
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THIS HONORABLE
COURT MAY REGARD FIT IN THE LIGHT OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER MIGHT AS
COMPELLED BOUND EVER.

HUMBLE PRAY.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 25

(Counsel Appearing for Respondents)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS