TEAM CODE: N13

VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2022-2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
W.P. (CIVILt) NO. 1 of 2021

SAMEERA PRAVEEN AHMED AND v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR

ORS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE. NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. INDIAN CASES 4
2. INTERNATIONAL CASES
3. STATUTES
4. JOURNALS
5. WEBSITES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS 5

ISSUES RAISED 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 7

ARUGMENTS ADVANCED 8

PRAYER 12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
3

LIST OF ABBRIEVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another
Art Article
Bom Bombay
Del Delhi
Hon’ble Honourable
HC High Court
No. Number
Ors Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court reporter
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
Vol Volume

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. INDIAN CASES
CASE TITLE CITATION PAGE NO.
1. Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. 1963 AIR 1295 9
2. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 AIR 1378 9
3. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 160 Delhi Law 9
Times 277
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr AIR 1978 SC 597 9
5. Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531 11

II. STATUES
S. NO TITLE OF LEGISLATION PAGE NO.

1. The Constitution of India Passim

2. The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 Passim

III. JOUNARLS
S. NO TITLE OF JOURNAL PAGE. NO
1. All India Reporter (AIR) Passim
2. Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Passim

IV. WEBSITES
S. NO TITLE PAGE NO.
1. www.indiankanoon.com Passim

2. www.livelaw.in Passim

3. www.manupatrafast.com Passim

4. www.lexisnexis.com Passim

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Article 2261 of the Constitution
of India.

The present memorial on behalf of the petitioner sets forth the facts, contentions and
arguments in the present case

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Sameera Praveen, who was born and raised as a Hindu married Shahul Ahmed the very day she
turned 18. She converted to Islam only during the marriage. The nikah was conducted at the house
of Mohammed Ahmed, a relative of Shahul Ahmed, officiated by the Maulvi and two male adult
witnesses (M. Said and M. Sunand). Mehr was given as per Mohammedan tradition and law,
followed by registration of the marriage. Neither Sameera nor the Maluvi furnished notices to the
appropriate authority as prescribed by the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 Thus, the
conversion is on the face of the matter clearly for the purpose of marriage and the conversion too
is hit by the provisions of the Act.

UTTARAKHAND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ACT, 2018

The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, is a state legislation that seeks to provide freedom
of religion by prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force,
undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage and for the
matters incidental thereto.

1
INDIAN CONST. art. 226.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ACT HAS CURTAILED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE PRIVACY OF THE PARTIES STANDS ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNDER

THE ACT?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DECLARED NULL

AND VOID?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE 1] WHETHER THE ACT HAS CURTAILED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

CHOICE?

Even in instances where the individual is being forced or coerced into making a choice or when
they are not fully aware such as in instances of misrepresentation, the Act ensures that the state
goes that extra step to ensure that the Constitutional right is upheld, not just by protecting it but
also by restricting it appropriately.

[ISSUE 2] WHETHER THE PRIVACY OF THE PARTIES STANDS ADVERSELY

AFFECTED UNDER THE ACT?

Even the fundamental right to privacy only extends to as much as the impugned aspect remains
solely the concern of an individual and the same cannot be unreasonably superimposed when the
impugned aspect is a matter of public order and public morale.

[ ISSUE 3] WHETHER THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE

DECLARED NULL AND VOID?

The only possible ground available to the trial court to nullify the marriage is not on account of the
marriage being void in the eyes of Muslim personal laws but merely by virtue of section 6 of the
Act. The Supreme Court has numerous times reminded us that the Fundamental Rights bestowed
by the Constitution of India are put on the paramount pedestal and the same came only be curtailed
by reasonable restrictions laid down by law and the restriction laid down by the Act are anything
but reasonable, hence the marriage cannot and should not have been declared as void.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[I] WHETHER THE ACT HAS CURTAILED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

CHOICE?

1.1 Right to Freedom of religion

1. Religion is a matter of belief or faith. The constitution of India recognizes the fact, how
important religion is in the life of people of India and hence, provides for the right to
freedom of religion under Articles 25 to Article 28. The Constitution of India envisages a
secular model and provides that every person has the right and freedom to choose and
practice his or her religion. In a number of cases, the Apex Court has held that secularism
is the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution reads as
follows; (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of
this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess, practice and propagate religion. It is pertinent to note that though the right to
choice of religion can definitely be interpreted as a part of life and hence as another right
under the right to life under article 21, the makers of the constitution had eruditely
dedicated a separate article to re-enforce the importance and significance of an individual’s
right to choose a religion of their choice and practise it, let alone profess and propagate it.
The Courts have continued to hold that it is the indivisible duty of the State to protect such
rights. It is in furtherance of the same that the act has been implemented. In order to protect
a right properly, abuse, misuse and the tarnishing of the right must be weeded out.
2. Practice and profession of a religion is no doubt a sacred right that is of great importance,
however once the same is hit by aspects of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation and so on the
same falls under the scope of public order and morality and must be restricted to that extent.
The Act does exactly that. The act does not restrict any person from choosing a religion of
their choice or practising it. In fact the Act only seeks to the same by virtue of reinforcement
of the right through the police and the appropriate authorities. Further with the diligence
and attention to detail rendered by the act, even in instances where the individual is being
forced or coerced into making a choice or when they are not fully aware such as in instances
of misrepresentation, the Act ensures that the state goes that extra step to ensure that the
Constitutional right is upheld, not just by protecting it but also by restricting it appropriately.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
9

[II] WHETHER THE PRIVACY OF THE PARTIES STANDS ADVERSELY

AFFECTED UNDER THE ACT?

1. As already discussed Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
The right to life enshrined in Article 21 has been liberally interpreted so as to mean
something more than mere survival and mere existence or animal existence. It therefore
includes all those aspects of life which makes a man’s life more meaningful, complete and
worth living and right to privacy is one such right. The first time this topic was ever raised
was in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP 2 where the Supreme Court held that
Regulation 236 of UP Police regulation was unconstitutional as it clashed with Article 21
of the Constitution. It was held by the Court that the right to privacy is a part of right to
protection of life and personal liberty. Here, the Court had equated privacy to personal
liberty.

2. In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 , Mathew, J. accepted the right to privacy as an

emanation from Art. 19(a), (d) and 21, but right to privacy is not absolute right. “Assuming
that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and
that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, the fundamental right must be subject
to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest”
3. Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.,4 in this case the Supreme Court 7 Judge
Bench said ‘personal liberty’ in article 21 covers a variety of rights & some have status of
fundamental rights and given additional protection u/a 19. Triple Test for any law
interfering with personal liberty: (1) It must prescribe a procedure; (2) the procedure must
withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred u/a 19 which may be
applicable in a given situation and (3) It must withstand test of Article 14. The law and
procedure authorising interference with personal liberty and right of privacy must also be
right just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
4. In Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi5, the Delhi HC gave the landmark decision on
consensual homosexuality. In this case S. 377 IPC and Articles 14, 19 & 21 were examined.
Right to privacy held to protect a “private space in which man may become and remain

2
1963 AIR 1295
3
1975 AIR 1378
4
AIR 1978 SC 597
5
160 Delhi Law Times 277

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
10

himself”. It was said individuals need a place of sanctuary where they can be free from
societal control- where individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting
on the world the image they want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect
the values of their peers rather than the realities of their nature.
5. Thus from the above judgements and from a perusal of the constitution and relevant texts
of jurisprudence, it is clear that even the fundamental right to privacy only extends to as
much as the impugned aspect remains solely the concern of an individual and the same
cannot be unreasonably superimposed when the impugned aspect is a matter of public order
and public morale.

[III] WHETHER THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT

BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID?

1. Marriages are considered to be a universal social institution and an integral part of mankind.
With the advent of civilization, it has been observed that the state has regulated all aspects
of human lives and marriage is no exception. In India, there is no single legal framework
governing the institution of marriage, specifically with the intent of upholding the tenets of
religious freedom and safeguarding the fundamental practices of various faiths and beliefs
that constitute the country. The legitimation of the nuptial bond of two people happens only
after attaining sanction from the existing laws prevailing in the country, which in general
parlance are referred to as matrimonial or marriage laws. A unique feature of the existing
matrimonial law in India is its vibrancy and diversity in consonance with the country’s
heterogeneous population.

2. However though marriages are primarily governed by personal laws, the same cannot take
an upper hand when there are special laws that address a particular aspect of the same,
especially when it is a punitive legislation. The courts alone have the authority to declare
the marriages void, hence the Courts have an inherent right to do so. Since the conversion
is done for the sole purpose of the marriage, the same will not stand sound in the eyes of
the law. Such namesake conversion often gives rise to immense abuse of personal laws. If

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
11

the parties wanted, they should’ve conducted the marriage as per the Special Marriages
Act. Clearly from the conduct of the parties, the conversion is but an eye wash and such
ridicule of the esteemed personal laws must not be tolerated. An integral aspect and
essential of almost every personal law, especially Muslim law, in as far as valid Muslim
marriages are concerned is that both parties must be Muslim. Such namesake conversion
is virtually the same as a party not being a Muslim at all.

3. In the Sarla Mudugal case6 the Supreme Court held that when there is a conversion for the
sole purpose of marriage, such marriage shall be declared void. Further, the trial court was
perfectly justified in jurisdiction of all sorts in declaring the marriage as void. The Act
bestows the power on the Court to do so and the same cannot be questioned arbitrarily.
Thus, the marriage can definitely be declared void. However it is up to a superior Court to
reverse the same if necessary; yet in as far as whether the marriage can be declared void,
yes, as per law, it absolutely can.

6
1995 AIR 1531

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 VITSOL ANNUAL INTRAMURALS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-2023
TEAM CODE: N13
12

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited. It is
most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to

1. Dismiss the suit(s) filed by the petitioner with costs.

AND/OR, pass any order or orders that the court may deem fit in and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: 07.02.2022 N13

Place: Supreme Court of India (Counsel for Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT