STATEMENT OF FACTS (for both sides)

Prerequisite contextual information

Zendia is a South Asian country which is secular in character, but houses within its territory
several religious groups. These groups include 79.8% Hindus, 14.2% Muslims, 2.3%
Christians amongst many others. The affairs of marriage, adoption, guardianship are
governed by religious customs and societal values. There has been an active, vehement
opposition of same-sex marriage by several religious leaders, however advancements have
been achieved in promoting greater inclusivity and rights for the LGBTQ community. In
2018, a discriminatory provision criminalizing consensual homosexual sex by declaring it as
“unnatural sexual intercourse” was rendered unconstitutional by the Apex Court of Zendia.
However, this case did not discuss the civil rights of the community.

Case of Hishesh and Hitesh

Hishesh and Hitesh, residing in the Central part of Zendia, are two individuals who have been
in a relationship for half a decade. During the pandemic, they were both hit with the COVID-
19 virus, although Hitesh bore the harsher brunt, and Hishesh had to take care of both of
them, while simultaneously looking for oxygen. This adversity accelerated their conversation
regarding marriage and they decided to get married in July 2023. For this purpose, they
submitted a notice to the marriage officer of the Bhojpal District of Madhya Zendia,
according to the specifications mentioned under § 5 of the SMA, 1954. Subsequently, the
marriage officer published the notice of their marriage under §6(2) of the same act. After
getting to know about this notice, their parents filed objections against it, relying heavily on
§4(c) of the act. Due to this objection, the marriage officer refused to register their marriage,
and subsequently, Hitesh and Hishesh filed a writ petition challenging the provisions of SMA
as being discriminatory on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation.

Case of Spoorti and Devika

Spoorti and Devika, a couple for over a decade, got married in Copenhagen, Denmark in
2019, after which they returned to Zendia. After having a stable relationship of over four
years, they decided to adopt a child. With this intent, they filed an application for the
adoption of a male child but were denied on the ground that their relationship wasn’t
recognized as a “marital” one in the eyes of the Zendian law. For this, §5(2)A and §5(3) of
the Zendian Adoption Regulations, 2022 were cited against them. Thereafter, they filed a writ
petition challenging the provisions of ZAR,2022 as being discriminatory on the grounds of
sex and sexual orientation.

Case of Harsh and Vidur

Harsh and Vidur, who have been in a relationship for over three years, come across
challenges and obstacles in their day-to-day life functioning as a homosexual couple. Harsh
wanted to nominate Vidur for his insurance policy but it was denied in the view of the fact
that Vidur was not considered a family member of Harsh in the eyes of law. Moreover, when
the signature of a family member was needed for Harsh to undergo a surgery, Vidur’s
signature was denied on the same ground, that Vidur was not a ‘family member’ of Harsh as
same-sex partnership was not recognized by the Zendian law. In light of the hardships faced
by them in their financial and medical decisions, the couple filed a writ petition seeking
recognition either as a ‘civil-union’ or right of marriage.
Jurisdiction (petitioner’s side)

The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zendia has been invoked under Article 32
of the Constitution of Zendia, which reads as follows:

“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 clause ( 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”

The petitioners humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zendia.

(for respondent just change it from “the petitioners humbly submit” to “the respondents
humbly submit”)

(also add the citation of article 32 in bluebook style)

Prayer (for the petitioner)

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED AND IMPLORED BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZENDIA THAT IT MAY BE GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO

ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:

1. Excluding same-sex couples from the ambit of marriage under the Special Marriage
Act, and the rights and benefits conferred upon married couples by law, violate Article
14, 15 and 21.
2. Zendian Adoption Regulations, 2022 are violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 as they
exclude same-sex couples from their ambit and do not permit such couples to adopt.
3. Hardships faced by the same-sex couples in day to day financial, medical and other
basic streams make out a case for recognition of their relationship as a ‘civil-union’ if
not marriage.

AND/OR PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTIONS THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
AND PROPER IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE,

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

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

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Prayer (respondent)

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED AND IMPLORED BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZENDIA THAT IT MAY BE GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO

ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:

1. Excluding same-sex couples from the ambit of marriage under the Special Marriage
Act, and the rights and benefits conferred upon married couples by law, does not
violate Article 14, 15 and 21.
2. Zendian Adoption Regulations, 2022 are not violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 as
they exclude same-sex couples from their ambit and do not permit such couples to
adopt.
3. Hardships faced by the same-sex couples in day to day financial, medical and other
basic streams do not make out a case for recognition of their relationship as a ‘civil-
union’ if not marriage.

AND/OR PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTIONS THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
AND PROPER IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE,

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

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

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS