TC 708 Petitioners

TC-708
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TC-708
7TH HPNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024
BEFORE,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JYOTIRBHUMI
NGO MUKAM AND ORS …………………….……………………………PETITIONER

V
REPUBLIC OF JYOTIRBHUMI…………………..………………………RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JYOTIRBHUMI

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................................7
ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................ 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................10
1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED

UNDER ARTICLES 25 TO 28 OF THE CONSTITUTION ………………………..……….10
[1.1] A COMPLETE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 25,

26, 27 and 28. ………………………………………………………………………...………10
[1.2] POWERS GIVEN TO THE STATE BY THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE

25(2) HAVE BEEN MISUSED ………………………………………………………………11
[1.3] CURTAILMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND IMPOSITION OF

AUTHORITARIAN MORALITY ON THE MINORITY…………………………….……..14
2. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT OF A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN JYOTIRBHUMI IS

INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF SECULARISM ENSHRINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF JYOTIRBHUMI ?................................................................................14
[2.1] REPEALING THE PERSONAL LAWS OF A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY IS

AGAINST SECULARISM AS THESE LAWS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ANY
RELIGION. ………………………………………………………………………………..…15
[2.2] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC LEADS TO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN

RELIGIOUS MATTERS………………………………………………………………….….17
2
3. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL

CODE OF JYOTIRBHUMI VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM WHICH IS
PART OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JYOTIRBHUMI?.............19
[3.1 ] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC AS AN ENCROACHMENT ON STATE POWERS...19
[3.2] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE.

………………………………………………………………………………………………...20
[3.3] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE RICH CULTURAL DIVERSITY

AND PLURALISTIC ETHOS OF OUR NATION…………………………………………. 22
PRAYER………………………………………...……………………………………………24
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
s Section
v Versus
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Ors Others
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Ed. Edition
& and
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
Art Article
HC High Court
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
HMA Hindu Marriage Act
SMA Special Marriage Act
Hon`ble Honourable
4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412
Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 252; 1996 SCC (1) 550
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556
Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 SCC 199
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569 : AIR 1995 SC
1531 : (1995) 2 KLT 45 : (199)
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 245 : AIR
1985 SC 945 : 1985 Cri LJ 875
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., (1977) 1 SCC 677
STATUTES
India Const. art. 25

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Special Marriage Act, 1954
The Uniform Civil Code of Uttrakhand, 2024 s 35
The Uniform Civil Code of Uttrakhand, 2024 s

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court of Jyotirbhumi holds jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Article
139A(1) of the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi, which empowers the Court to consolidate and
adjudicate upon cases of national importance pending before different High Courts.
Article 139A of the Constitution:
Transfer of certain cases
(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High
Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or an application made by the
Attorney-General or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial questions
of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the
High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself: Provided that the Supreme
Court may after determining the said questions of law return any case so withdrawn together
with a copy of its judgment on such questions to the High Court from which the case has been
withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case in
conformity with such judgment.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice,
transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other
High Court.
THE PETITIONERS HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF

THIS HON'BLE COURT.
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Parties
Republic of Jyotirbhumi: Represented by the Nationalist Party of Jyotirbhumi (NPJ), the

ruling political party at the central government level. -RESPONDENT
Mukam: A non-governmental organization dedicated to advocating for Muslim rights.

Mumtaz Personal Law Board: An organization representing interests related to personal laws
based on Sharia law. -PETITIONERS
Background:
The Republic of Jyotirbhumi, a diverse country with a rich history, gained independence from
British colonial rule in 1947. The issue of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has
been a topic of debate since the framing of the Constitution in the 1950s. The NPJ, in power
since 2014, had initially promised to implement the UCC at the national level but enacted it
only in the State of Gyan Pradesh in 2023. The enactment of the UCC triggered widespread
debate and protests across the country. In response, Mukam and the Mumtaz Personal Law
Board filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the UCC in the High Court
of Himavat Pradesh and similar petitions were filed in other states.
Facts and Proceedings before the Supreme Court:
Mukam filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Jyotirbhumi seeking the consolidation of all
UCC-related cases pending before different High Courts. The petition requested the Supreme
Court to list these cases for adjudication. Utilizing its authority under Article 139A(1) of the
Constitution of Jyotirbhumi, the Supreme Court consolidated the petitions pending before
various high courts. The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for April 19, 2024, to consider
the consolidated petitions and adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the UCC.
7
ISSUES RAISED
-ISSUE 1-
Whether the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the Republic of
Jyotirbhumi violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 to 28 of the
Constitution of Jyotirbhumi?
-ISSUE 2-
Whether the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Jyotirbhumi is inconsistent with
the principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi?
-ISSUE 3-
Whether the enactment and implementation of Uniform Civil Code of Jyotirbhumi
violates the principle of federalism which is part of Basic Structure of the Constitution
of Jyotirbhumi?
8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 25 TO 28 OF THE CONSTITUTION
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there has been [1.1] a complete
violation of fundamental rights under articles 25, 26. [1.2] Powers given to the state by the
constitution under article 25(2) have been misused [1.3] curtailment of religious freedom and
imposition of authoritarian morality on the minority.
2. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT OF A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN

JYOTIRBHUMI IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF
SECULARISM ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF JYOTIRBHUMI ?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that [2.1]Repealing the Personal Laws
of a Religious Community is against secularism as these laws are an integral part of any
religion. [2.2] Implementation of UCC leads to government intervention in religious matters.
3. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM

CIVIL CODE OF JYOTIRBHUMI VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF
FEDERALISM WHICH IS PART OF BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF JYOTIRBHUMI?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that The implementation of a UCC by
the central government could be seen as an encroachment on the legislative powers of the
state governments [3.1 ] Implemntation of ucc as an encroachment on state powers [3.2]
Implementation of ucc violates the basic structure doctrine . [3.3] Implementation of ucc
violates the rich cultural diversity and pluralistic ethos of our nation
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 25 TO 28 OF THE CONSTITUTION
1. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there has been [1.1] a
complete violation of fundamental rights under articles 25, 26. [1.2] Powers given to
the state by the constitution under article 25(2) have been misused [1.3] curtailment of
religious freedom and imposition of authoritarian morality on the minority.
1.1 Violation of fundamental rights under articles 25,26,27 and 28.
2. It is humbly submitted that the petition before this Hon’ble Court is a matter of public
interest, and there is a violation of basic fundamental rights granted by the
constitution.
3. India's Constitution provides four key articles protecting religious freedom. These
include Article 25, which guarantees the freedom to practice any religion subject to
public order, morality, and health. Article 26 ensures the freedom to manage religious
institutions, while Article 27 prohibits the use of public funds to promote or maintain
any religion. Finally, Article 28 protects the freedom of conscience by barring
religious instruction in State-maintained schools.
4. In the matter of Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner 1, the Hon`ble Supreme Court elucidated
a comprehensive definition of 'religion' pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution,
articulating that the term 'religion' encompasses not merely beliefs, faiths, doctrines,
and tenets that are quintessential to religion but also guarantees the liberty to
individuals and religious institutions to observe and disseminate their religious
practices without unwarranted intrusion. This expansive interpretation serves to affirm
1
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC
412
10
the constitutional safeguard provided to the freedom of religion, ensuring its practice
and propagation within the ambit of minimal regulatory interference.
2
5. The Supreme Court observed in Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh
that while a uniform law is desirable, its enactment in one go might be counter-
productive to the unity and integrity of the nation. Gradual progressive change should
be brought about.
1.2 Powers given to the state under articles 25(2) and 26 have been misused.
6. Under the provisions of Article 25 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees individuals

the liberty of conscience and the entitlement to freely profess, practice, and propagate
religion 4, and Article 26 5, which accords the right to manage religious affairs, it is
expressly delineated that such rights are not unfettered. Rather, they are circumscribed
by considerations of public order, morality, and health. Consequently, the exercise
of these rights is contingent upon the imposition of reasonable restrictions by the
State, aimed at safeguarding public order, moral values, and public health. This legal
framework empowers the State to enact regulations curtailing religious practices,
should they be adjudged necessary for the maintenance of public order, the upholding
of moral standards, or the protection of health.
7. The aforementioned framework, purportedly established to promulgate the Uniform

Civil Code (UCC), ostensibly aims to foster uniformity and codification of personal
laws, alongside the introduction of progressive legislation to ensure equality for all
citizens. However, aimed at creating uniformity and codification of personal laws, has
been utilized in a manner that is perceived as discriminatory towards Muslims.
Criminalizing the practice of Halala under the UCC, alongside the criminalization of
instant Triple Talaq through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Act of 2019 6, has resulted in Muslim men facing punitive measures not applicable to
2
Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 252; 1996 SCC (1) 550
3
4
5
6
11
men from other communities. This has led to discriminatory treatment towards
Muslim men by the state. A muslim man would be punished for desserting his wife but
no other man from another community would be punished for doing so.
8. Section 35 on custody of children is the same as that in the HMA 7 and SMA 8.
However, a sub-section 2 has been added, in which the court has been enjoined to
keep the best interest and the welfare of the child as a paramount consideration. A
condition has also been added to sub-section 2 that the custody of the minor child of
less than five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. It is important to note that
though the makers of the code could have made both the mother and father equal
guardians of the child, they didn’t do so despite this being a demand for a long time by
various women’s groups and others
9. Most provisions of the UCC 9 appear to be a duplication of those in the Hindu

Marriage Act (HMA) of 1955 and the Special Marriage Act (SMA), with some
exceptions. For instance, the conditions for entering into a marriage closely resemble
those outlined in the HMA and SMA. However, a retrogressive provision says that
parties are not allowed to marry within certain prohibited relationships unless the
custom or usage of one of them permits such a marriage. It further says that these
customs and usage will be subject to “public order and morality”. This leaves the
field open for the courts to interpret public policy and morality according to their way
of thinking and ideology.
10. The provisions for judicial separation and dissolution of marriage under the Hindu
Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act remain substantially equivalent, save for
an expanded criterion under the dissolution clauses. Specifically, the legislation
introduces an additional ground for dissolution predicated upon the conversion of one
spouse to a different religion, thereby granting the other spouse an entitlement to
petition for divorce. Regrettably, the legislation persists in upholding an anti-human
rights provision concerning the restitution of conjugal rights (section 21) 10. This
7
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8
The Special Marriage Act, 1954
9
10
12
provision, archaic and arguably unconstitutional within the context of English Law,
confers upon one party within the matrimonial bond the legal prerogative to solicit the
court for the reinstatement of matrimonial privileges towards the other party.
11. Under current legal frameworks, the distribution of property acquired during the
tenure of a marital union does not acknowledge the equitable contribution of women,
attributing ownership solely to the individual under whose name the property is
registered. 11 This practice disproportionately disenfranchises women and children
during the dissolution of a marriage, as women are frequently not the titular property
owners. A landmark ruling by the Madras High Court has recently underscored the
substantial and equal worth of domestic contributions by women, affirming their
entitlement to an equitable portion of marital assets upon separation. Despite this
progressive adjudication, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has adopted an ostensibly
neutral stance regarding marital property rights, which fails to substantively promote
gender equity and may be exploited by malevolent parties.
12. Apart from the unilateral right of divorce that is available to the Muslim man, divorce
in Muslim law can also be done through mutual consent. The wife under Muslim law
also has, unlike any woman in any other law, a right to ask for Khula (divorce) and to
be granted it. This has been pronounced to be an inalienable right of Muslim women
to ask for unilateral separation. Thus, parts of Muslim Personal Law, which benefitted
Muslim women, have also been done away with, which requires all persons to go
through a lengthy prolonged litigation for divorce only on the grounds based on the
fault of the other spouse stipulated in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage
Act. Muslim women have the right to seek unilateral separation through Khula.
However, this Act has abolished certain provisions in Muslim Personal Law which
benefited Muslim women. The Iddat practice has also been discontinued without
justification.
1.3 Imposition of morality
11
13
13. The procedure prescribed under section 381 12 of the act mandates the compulsory
registration of live-in relationships with the registrar. The registrar in the Code is
vested with very wide powers to summon the parties for verification and ask for
“necessary” additional information and evidence.
14. One can only imagine the misuse that this verification process can result in. The
provision is obviously unconstitutional and directly interferes with the rights of adult
human beings to choose their partners and live with whomever they want without any
scrutiny from the state.
15. a draconian proviso section 380(1) 13 to this section stipulates that registration can be
denied if the live-in .relationship is against “public policy” and “morality.” Thus the
registrar can, by moral policing, refuse to register a live-in-relationship if it is against
patriarchal norms which he espouses and bring a halt to inter-caste and inter-faith and
other relationships. Furthermore, it will be obligatory for the partners of the livein
relationship within the state and absurdly outside the state to register. The non-
registration section 387 14 within the month of the relationship will result in a
punishable offence for a term of imprisonment, which may extend to three month.
16. All these provisions make it impossible for a live-in relationship to exist. The act of
registration of a live-in-relationship is, thus, not an act which recognises live-in
relationships but an act which seeks to regulate how and with whom these
relationships can exist.
2. Whether the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Jyotirbhumi is inconsistent

with the principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi?
17. The initiation and establishment of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) could precipitate the
abrogation of distinct personal statutes pertinent to various religious congregations.
12
13
The Uniform Civil Code of Uttrakhand, 2024 s 380 (1)
14
14
This potential revocation is antithetical to the principles of secularism, as these

specific laws are integral to the operational doctrines of respective religions.
Secularism, fundamentally, mandates the impartiality of the state in matters of
religion, ensuring unimpeded liberty to individuals in the practice of their faith devoid
of state intervention.
18. The implementation of a UCC may be construed as an undue encroachment by the
state into the domain of religious affairs through the imposition of standardized legal
frameworks across heterogeneous religious demographics. Such a measure could
ostensibly curtail the sovereignty of religious entities in managing their internal affairs
in alignment with their doctrinal convictions, thereby infringing upon the tenet of
religious autonomy.
[2.1]Repealing the Personal Laws of a Religious Community is against secularism as

these laws are an integral part of any religion
19. In the landmark case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 15, the Supreme Court of
India rendered a seminal judgment concerning the interpretation and constitutional
validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 16. The
apex court, in its deliberation, focused on Section 3(1)(a) of the aforementioned Act,
which has been a subject of extensive legal scrutiny and interpretation.
The Court meticulously interpreted the provision, thereby elucidating that the
obligation of a Muslim husband to provide maintenance to his divorced wife is not
confined to the iddat period—a period following divorce that a Muslim woman must
observe before she can remarry. This interpretation effectively extended the husband's
duty to provide for his divorced wife beyond the traditional iddat period, thereby
ensuring a broader protective ambit for Muslim women post-divorce.
20. Further, the Court addressed the broader question regarding the necessity of different
personal laws for different religions. In its judgment, the Supreme Court
unequivocally upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, affirming the legislative competence to enact a personal
15
16
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 s3(1)(a)
15
law specifically designed to safeguard the rights of Muslim women. This affirmation
by the Court underscores the recognition of the pluralistic fabric of the Indian society,
which necessitates distinct personal laws that cater to the unique cultural and religious
sensibilities of its diverse populace. Thus, the decision in Danial Latifi v. Union of
India (2001) 17 represents a pivotal moment in the jurisprudence related to personal
laws in India, setting a precedent for the interpretation of laws in a manner that
harmonizes the protection of individual rights with the principles of religious
autonomy.
21. The landmark judgment in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 18 serves as an
illustrative case, wherein the Honorable Supreme Court of India held that a Muslim
husband is obligated to provide maintenance to his divorced wife beyond the iddat
period. The Court, in its wisdom, upheld the sanctity of Muslim Personal Law while
simultaneously recognizing the significance of personal laws in matrimonial disputes.
However, it diverged from the traditional interpretation of Muslim Personal Laws
concerning the provision of maintenance post-divorce, deeming the prevailing
practices as inequitable towards women.
22. Subsequent to this judgment, the nation witnessed widespread dissent and turmoil,
culminating in the legislative intervention through the enactment of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 19. This legislative measure was
aimed at addressing the concerns raised by various segments of the society post the
court's decision.
23. It is pertinent to note that the endeavor to repeal or modify the personal laws
governing religious communities is fraught with complexities. Such legislative
attempts often encounter resistance, as they touch upon the delicate fabric of religious
beliefs and practices. The case underscores the delicate balance that needs to be
maintained between the application of secular laws and the respect for religious
personal laws, especially in a pluralistic society like India. It highlights the challenges
17
18
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556
19
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
16
faced by the judiciary and the legislature in ensuring justice and equality within the
framework of India's diverse religious landscape.
[2.2]Implementation of UCC leads to government intervention in religious matters.
24. In the landmark decision of "Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 20,"
the Supreme Court of India expounded on the ambit of the fundamental right to
freedom of religion as enshrined under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. The
Court elucidated that this right encompasses not only the liberty to hold religious
beliefs as determined by an individual's own judgment or conscience but also the
freedom to manifest such beliefs through actions expressly prescribed or permitted by
his or her religion. Furthermore, it includes the right to disseminate one's religious
beliefs for the purpose of enlightening others, distinguishing clearly between the acts
of propagation and conversion.
25. The judgment underscores that the State's power to regulate this fundamental right is
circumscribed by the constitutional limitations aimed at safeguarding public order,
morality, and health, thereby preventing the State from imposing unwarranted
restrictions on the practice and propagation of religion. The Court posited that any
state intervention in religious matters, including the potential enactment of a Uniform
Civil Code (UCC), would constitute an infringement upon the essence of secularism,
as it would entail undue intrusion into the personal laws specific to different religions.
26. This ruling is pivotal in delineating the contours of religious freedom in India,
affirming that while individuals have the right to propagate their religion, the act of
conversion must not contravene the principles of public order, morality, and health,
thereby balancing the right to religious freedom with the overarching needs of a
secular polity.
20
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., (1977) 1 SCC 677
17
27. In the landmark case of Shirur Mutt 21, the Supreme Court of India elucidated the
protections afforded under Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution. It was determined
that religious denominations possess the inherent right to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion, thereby underlining the autonomy of religious groups in
conducting their religious activities without undue state interference. The judgment
emphasized that activities qualifying as religious practices or those undertaken in the
exercise of religion fall within this protected ambit. Consequently, the State's
intervention in religious matters is circumscribed, permissible only in instances
beyond the enumerated powers and, even then, must not contravene the essence of
religious freedom.
28. Further expanding on the constitutional protections relating to religious freedom, the
TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka 22 case highlighted the scope of Article
25(1). This provision safeguards the individual's right to profess, practice, and
propagate religion, subject to limitations grounded in public order, morality, and
health. The ruling clarified that state intervention in religious matters is justifiable only
when such practices adversely affect public order, morality, or health. Any state action
exceeding these bounds, or interfering unduly with religious matters, was deemed
contrary to the principle of secularism, a core element of the Indian Constitution, and
thus, actionable.
29. These judgments collectively underscore the intricate balance the Indian judiciary
seeks to maintain between protecting religious freedom and ensuring the welfare of
the public. They affirm that while religious groups have considerable autonomy in
managing their religious affairs, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health. Moreover,
any state action that unduly infringes upon these rights is not only violative of the
constitutional mandate of secularism but is also subject to legal scrutiny and potential
sanctions.
21
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC
412
22
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 SCC 199
18
3. Whether the enactment and implementation of Uniform Civil Code of Jyotirbhumi

violates the principle of federalism which is part of Basic Structure of the Constitution
of Jyotirbhumi?
30. The implementation of a UCC by the central government could be seen as an

encroachment on the legislative powers of the state governments. Matters related to
personal laws traditionally fall under the domain of state legislation, as per the federal
structure of the Constitution. Introducing a uniform code from the center might be
viewed as undermining the autonomy of the state government in this regard.
3.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC AS AN ENCROACHMENT ON STATE

POWERS
31. The proposition for instituting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the Central
Government poses a significant threat to the sovereignty and jurisdiction of State
Governments, potentially precipitating an erosion of their legislative prerogatives.
This apprehension stems from an anticipated centralization of legislative powers,
encroaching upon realms traditionally reserved for State discretion. This scenario
mirrors the judicial scrutiny observed in the landmark case of S. R. Bommai v. Union
of India (1994) 23, wherein the Supreme Court addressed the misuse of Article 356 of
the Indian Constitution.
32. Article 356 24 empowers the Central Government to dissolve State Governments under
specific circumstances, a provision that was critically examined in the aforementioned
case. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, underscored that the invocation of Article 356
should be confined to rare and extraordinary situations, safeguarding the principle of
federalism and the autonomy of State Governments. This judgement serves as a
pivotal reference point, highlighting the judiciary's stance on maintaining a balance
between central authority and state autonomy, thereby reinforcing the federal structure
enshrined in the Constitution. In essence, the introduction of a UCC by the Central
Government, without due consideration for the legislative domain of the States, could
23
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
24
19
potentially infringe upon the federal ethos of the nation, as underscored by the
Supreme Court's rationale in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India 25. This case underscores
the necessity for the Central Government to exercise its powers in a manner that
respects the autonomy of State Governments, thereby preserving the federal balance.
33. In the landmark judgment of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the
Honorable Supreme Court adjudicated upon the constitutionality of certain
amendments made to the Constitution, which were perceived to augment the powers
vested in the Central Government to the detriment of the autonomy of the State
Governments. The Apex Court, upon thorough examination, found that these
amendments were antithetical to the 'basic structure' doctrine, an intrinsic and
inviolable tenet of the Constitution, which encompasses the principle of federalism
among others. Consequently, the Court held that such amendments were ultra vires,
thereby nullifying their effect and reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution's
foundational principles.
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE

DOCTRINE .
34. The promulgation and execution of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would constitute
an infringement upon the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution, thereby
eroding the foundational principles of federalism, secularism, and cultural diversity
that are quintessential to the constitutional ethos. The Basic Structure Doctrine,
delineated by the Honorable Supreme Court of India through various seminal verdicts,
most notably in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 26, underpins the
constitutional architecture of India. This doctrine elucidates that the Parliament lacks
the authority to enact or modify any provision of the Constitution in a manner that
impairs its core essence, including the principle of federalism. Consequently, any
attempt to implement the UCC, which seeks to homogenize civil laws across diverse
cultural demographics, is antithetical to the Basic Structure Doctrine and, by
25
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
26
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461
20
extension, the constitutional guarantees of federalism, secularism, and the preservation

of cultural plurality.
35. Implementing a UCC would directly infringe upon the principle of federalism by
centralizing legislative authority and encroaching upon the powers of the states in
matters relating to personal laws. This would disrupt the delicate balance of power
between the center and the states, undermining the autonomy and sovereignty
guaranteed to the states under our federal structure.
36. The argument posits that, pursuant to Article 44 of the Constitution of India, there
exists a directive for the State to strive towards the establishment of a Uniform Civil
Code (UCC) across the entirety of the Indian territory. It is imperative to note that
Article 44 27 falls under the ambit of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which,
although not justiciable, serve as fundamental guidelines for the governance of the
country. The crux of the argument against a precipitous implementation of the UCC
lies in the potential violation of the intrinsic ethos of Article 44, should there be a
failure to adequately account for the heterogeneity inherent in the religious and
cultural practices prevalent among the myriad communities within India.
37. The discourse extends to the legislative competency regarding personal laws, which
are enumerated in the Concurrent List (List III) within the Seventh Schedule of the
Indian Constitution. This delineation confers concurrent legislative powers upon both
the Union and the State governments concerning matters enumerated therein. Thus,
any attempt to enforce a UCC devoid of the explicit consent or active participation of
state governments is argued to contravene their legislative prerogative and autonomy.
This contention underscores the necessity for a collaborative and consensual approach
towards the enactment of a UCC, ensuring that it does not transgress the constitutional
demarcation of legislative authority or the diverse socio-cultural fabric of the Indian
polity.
27
21
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE RICH CULTURAL

DIVERSITY AND PLURALISTIC ETHOS OF OUR NATION
38. India is renowned for its diversity, with a tapestry of cultures, religions, and traditions
woven together to form the unique identity of our nation. Our Constitution recognizes
and celebrates this diversity, enshrining principles of secularism and equality that
respect the rights and beliefs of all citizens. Many religious communities in India have
their own personal laws derived from religious texts and customary practices.
39. Enforcing a UCC could be seen as an infringement on the religious freedom and
autonomy of these communities, as it would replace their existing laws with a
common secular code. Enforcing a UCC without adequate consensus-building and
consultation with stakeholders could lead to social unrest and conflict, particularly in
regions with strong cultural identities and religious sensitivities. This could undermine
social cohesion and stability in the country.
40. The imposition of a unified legal framework, while ostensibly designed to streamline
and standardize the legal system, neglects the rich tapestry of cultural, religious, and
ethnic diversity that characterizes our nation. Such a monolithic approach to
legislation would not only fail to accommodate the myriad customs, traditions, and
belief systems that pervade our society but would also contravene the foundational
principle of pluralism that is integral to the national ethos. This principle underpins the
unique cultural mosaic that distinguishes India on the global stage.
41. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India, as evidenced in landmark judgments
such as Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) 28, underscores the imperative to
harmonize the pursuit of gender justice with the recognition and respect for cultural
diversity. In this case, the Court elucidated the tension between uniform civil code
aspirations and the preservation of diverse familial laws that cater to different religious
communities. It highlighted the importance of crafting legal solutions that are sensitive
to cultural nuances while advancing the cause of gender equality.
28
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569 : AIR 1995 SC 1531 : (1995) 2 KLT
45 : (199)
22
42. Similarly, the judgment in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 29 serves
as a seminal illustration of the complexities inherent in reconciling personal laws,
rooted in religious doctrine, with the constitutional mandate for gender equality. The
case illuminated the friction between Islamic Sharia laws pertaining to maintenance
and the secular legal framework advocating for the rights and protection of women,
thereby emphasizing the challenges of ensuring equitable justice within a pluralistic
society.These cases collectively underscore the necessity of a legal and judicial
approach that is attuned to the diversity of societal norms, and that seeks to balance
respect for cultural distinctions with the imperatives of justice and equality. This
entails a judicious consideration of the multifaceted societal fabric while legislating or
adjudicating, to uphold the pluralistic values that are quintessential to the Indian
identity.
43. The Supreme Court's ruling to grant maintenance to Shah Bano was later overturned
by the Parliament under pressure from certain religious groups, leading to concerns
about the disregard for cultural diversity and pluralistic ethos in favor of uniformity.
Another latest case is of Gujarat HC's ruling on the Right to Privacy and Triple Talaq
(2017) where The Gujarat High Court's ruling on the right to privacy vis-à-vis triple
talaq highlighted the complexities of imposing a uniform code on personal matters
deeply rooted in cultural and religious traditions. The judgment underscored the
importance of balancing individual rights with cultural diversity when considering the
imposition of a UCC.
29
. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 245 : AIR 1985 SC 945 :
1985 Cri LJ 875
23
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, may the Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold, adjudge, and declare that:
❖ That the Implementation of the Uniform Civil Code violates fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution.
❖ That the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Jyotirbhumi is inconsistent with the
principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi
❖ That the enactment and implementation of Uniform Civil Code of Jyotirbhumi violates the
principle of federalism which is part of Basic Structure of the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi
All of which is most respectfully submitted Counsel on the behalf of Petitioners
24

TC 708 Petitioners

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

TC 708 Petitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-708

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TC-708

7TH HPNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JYOTIRBHUMI

NGO MUKAM AND ORS …………………….……………………………PETITIONER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JYOTIRBHUMI

STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................................7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................10

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED

[1.1] A COMPLETE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 25,

[1.2] POWERS GIVEN TO THE STATE BY THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE

[1.3] CURTAILMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND IMPOSITION OF

2. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT OF A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN JYOTIRBHUMI IS

[2.1] REPEALING THE PERSONAL LAWS OF A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY IS

[2.2] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC LEADS TO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN

3. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL

[3.1 ] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC AS AN ENCROACHMENT ON STATE POWERS...19

[3.2] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE.

[3.3] IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE RICH CULTURAL DIVERSITY

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

AIR All India Reporter

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

SMA Special Marriage Act

Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740

TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 SCC 199

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., (1977) 1 SCC 677

India Const. art. 25

The Uniform Civil Code of Uttrakhand, 2024 s

Article 139A of the Constitution:

Transfer of certain cases

THE PETITIONERS HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF

Republic of Jyotirbhumi: Represented by the Nationalist Party of Jyotirbhumi (NPJ), the

Mukam: A non-governmental organization dedicated to advocating for Muslim rights.

Facts and Proceedings before the Supreme Court:

Whether the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the Republic of

Jyotirbhumi violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 to 28 of the

Whether the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Jyotirbhumi is inconsistent with

the principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of Jyotirbhumi?

Whether the enactment and implementation of Uniform Civil Code of Jyotirbhumi

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

2. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT OF A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN

3. WHETHER THE ENACTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

6. Under the provisions of Article 25 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees individuals

7. The aforementioned framework, purportedly established to promulgate the Uniform

9. Most provisions of the UCC 9 appear to be a duplication of those in the Hindu

1.3 Imposition of morality

2. Whether the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Jyotirbhumi is inconsistent

This potential revocation is antithetical to the principles of secularism, as these

[2.1]Repealing the Personal Laws of a Religious Community is against secularism as

[2.2]Implementation of UCC leads to government intervention in religious matters.

3. Whether the enactment and implementation of Uniform Civil Code of Jyotirbhumi

30. The implementation of a UCC by the central government could be seen as an

3.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC AS AN ENCROACHMENT ON STATE

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE

extension, the constitutional guarantees of federalism, secularism, and the preservation

3.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC VIOLATES THE RICH CULTURAL

All of which is most respectfully submitted Counsel on the behalf of Petitioners

You might also like