Law Addicts 1 National Virtual Moot Court Competition 20 - 23 AUGUST, 2020. Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Adisthan CASE NO. - /2020

TEAM CODE: 28
LAW ADDICTS 1ST NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

20TH -23RD AUGUST, 2020.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ADISTHAN

24TH- NO.
CASE 26TH___/2020
JULY 2020
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ADISTHAN, 1950
LAW ADDICTS & OTHERS ... PETITIONER

Versus
UNION OF ADISTHAN & OTHERS ... RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ADISTHAN
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS – UNION OF ADISTHAN & OTHERS

LAW ADDICTS 1ST NATIONAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 12
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MANITAINABLE. ............................................................................................................... 12
1.1 No infringement of Fundamental rights ........................................................................ 12
1.2 Prohibition of Gay marriage does not infringe fundamental rights ............................. 14
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE GAY MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIAL

MARRIAGE ACT 1954 OR ANY OTHER MARRIAGE LAWS PREVAILING IN THE
TERRITORY OF ADISTHAN. .......................................................................................... 16
2.1 MARRIAGE IS FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN ......................................................... 16
2.1.1 The length of relationships ...................................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Monogamy vs. Promiscuity ..................................................................................... 17
2.1.3 The commitment to the relationship ....................................................................... 17
2.1.4 Health risks .............................................................................................................. 18
2.1.5 Rates of intimate partner violence. ......................................................................... 18
2.2 UNDERMINING RELIGION ....................................................................................... 18
2.3 THE HUMAN RIGHTS’ ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 20
2.4 ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS ...................................................................................... 22
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ADISTHAN IS

ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION. ........................................................................... 24
Page 1 of 29
WRITTEN SUBMISSION for THE RESPONDENTS
3.1 LGBTQI community: Equally protected under law of land ........................................ 24
3.2 Sex vs. Sexual Orientation ............................................................................................. 25
3.3 Gay marriage: Immoral and unlawful expression ........................................................ 26
3.4 Non-contravention of personal liberty .......................................................................... 27
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 29
Page 2 of 29
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Full Form

& And
i.e. That is
Ors. Others
Hon’ble Honourable
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
U.S. United States
Art. Article
Sec Section
Vs/v. Versus
AIR All India Report
SCR Supreme Court Weekly Reports
BOM LR Bombay Law Report
SCC Supreme Court Cases
LGBTQI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Queer, Inter-sex
SC Supreme Court
UNHRC United Nation Human Rights Council
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
NGO Non-governmental Organization
Anr. Another
SMA Special Marriage Act
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
NALSA National Legal Service Authority
PIL Public Interest Litigation
ICCCPR International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
Page 3 of 29
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDIAN CASES
1. Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P 1962 AIR 1621…………………..………………………12
2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 AIR 130…………………..………………………..12
3. Madhu Limaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi 1975 AIR 1505…………………..………….12
4. Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P (2003) 10 SCC 78…………………..……….12
5. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v R. Veeraswamy (1999) 3 SCC 414…………………...12
6. Indra Sawhney and ors vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. AIR 1993 SC 477………...13
7. M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore 1963 AIR 649……………………………13
8. D. P. Joshi vs The State of Madhya Bharat 1955 AIR 334…………………..………….13
9. K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another vs State of Karnataka JT 1988 (4) SC 773…………...13
10. Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union of India & Ors [2003] INSC 551……………………13
11. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1…………………..……………..13
12. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225……………………………..14
13. A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27………………………………..14
14. T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2003 SC 355……….14
15. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554…………………..………..14
16. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568……..14
17. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India 1986 AIR 515…………………..……..14
18. K. A. Abbas v. Union of India 1971 AIR 481…………………..………………………14
19. Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India 1973 AIR 106…………………..…………14
20. Manish Singh vs State Govt Of Nct And Ors. AIR 2006 Delhi 37…………………..…15
21. Dev Kishan and Ors. Lrs. Of Kishan vs Ram Kishan And Ors RLW2003 (2) Raj 1250..15
22. Chandra Sreenivasa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao AIR 1952 Mad 579…...15
23. Emperor vs Fulabhai Bhulabhai Joshi on 27 June, 1940 (1940) 42 BOMLR 857………15
24. Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma vs State & Another 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 432 (Delhi)
(DB)………………………………………………………………………………………15
25. Itwari v Asghari AIR 1960 All 684…………………..…………………………………..15
26. Javed v. The State of Haryana AIR 2003, SC 3057…………………..………………….15
27. Khursheed Ahmed Khan v. State Of U.P. & Ors 2015 Latest Caselaw 94 SC…………..15
Page 4 of 29
28. Tikait v. Basant, ILR 28 Cal. 758…………………..……………………………………18
29. Shivonandh v. Bhagawanthumma, AIR (1962) Mad. 400…………………..……………18
30. Dhanjit Vadra v. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Del. 146 at 151…………………..…………..18
31. Purushottamdas v. Purushottamdas, 21 Bom 23…………………..……………………...18
32. Muthusami v. Masilamani 33 Mad 342…………………..………………………………18
33. Shoharat Singh v. Jafri Begum (1915) 17 BOMLR 13…………………..……………….19
34. Yusuf v. Sowramma AIR 1971 Ker 261…………………..……………………………..19
35. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC (Cri)
221…………………..……………………………………………………………………22
36. Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others (2014) 1 SCC
1…………………..………………………………………………………………………24
37. Special Courts Bill AIR 1979 SC 478………………..………………………………….24
38. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: AIR 1978 SC 597…………………………………….27
39. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1979 SCR (1) 392…………………..………………27
40. Shakti Vahini vs Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192…………………..…………………..27
INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. Joslin v New Zealand (2002) 10 IHRR 40…………………..…………………………...21
STATUTES
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Special Marriage Act, 1954
4. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
6. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
INTERNATIONAL STATUTES
1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
Page 5 of 29
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the violation
of fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution. The respondent maintains that no
violation of rights has taken place. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need not entertain its jurisdiction
in this writ petition.
The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the petition filed before this
Honourable Court.
Page 6 of 29
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Ross and Mr. Mike, who are childhood friends and even graduated together from the Govt.
Medical College (GMC), Srinispur, a modernized state Union of Adisthan, a democratic country
which decriminalized homosexuality on 06/09/2018 and a member of United Nations Human
Rights Council (UNHRC), were secretly in a relationship from 2015. However, they never told
this to anyone as they feared societal ostracization.
2. Post the Apex Court’s decision in 2018, they deliberated and finally decided to get married as per
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 despite facing opposition from their families. On
25-11-2019, they submitted a notice as per the specifications given under Section 5 of the SMA,
1954 to the marriage officer, Vasanthpuram district, Srinispur. The marriage officer in pursuance
of his obligation under section 6(2) of the SMA, 1954, published the notice submitted by Mr. Mike
and Ross on 05-12-2019.
3. Mr. Hilton, father of Mr. Ross filed an objection on 18-12-2019 stating that gay marriage is not
permissible under the SMA, 1954 as per to Section 4(c) of the Act and it is against contemporary
social morality. Mr. Hilton submitted several reasons for supporting this contention namely:
a. If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, it would give rise to an imminent danger of the
children of same-sex couples turning out to be lesbian couples. Moreover, children will be
denied of either a mother or father. The roles of both the parents are inevitable and essential
to the proper growth and well-being of a child.
b. He argued that, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriages serve is
to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society.
c. Moreover, the predicament of this Western culture is that, it fosters an anti-natalist mindset
that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic
strains on the larger society. Gay marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm
long associated with marriage.
4. On the basis of this objection, the Marriage Officer of Vasanthpuram refused to solemnize their
marriage and the decision was communicated to Mr. Mike and Mr. Ross on 15-01-2020. Mr. Mike
and Mr. Ross vehemently opposed the decision of the marriage officer and were of the opinion that
the practice of prohibiting gay marriage grossly infringed with their personal liberties and their
right to life at large. With the Supreme Court unanimously declaring a part of Sec. 377 to be
Page 7 of 29
unconstitutional, they were convinced that an obstruction to gay marriages explicitly defeats the
sole objective behind decriminalizing homosexuality.
5. On 23-01-2020, Mr. Mike & Mr. Ross approached an NGO named LAW ADDICTS, who then
filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of Adisthan under Article 32 of the
Constitution challenging the validity of the decision of the Marriage Officer and seeking the
intervention of the Court for preventing the discrimination on the basis of sex and prayed the
following:
a. A declaration may be made to the effect that any discrimination based on sexual orientation
is the violation of Art 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
b. Direction must be issued to the Union Government to introduce necessary amendments to
the Special Marriage Act for the solemnization of the Marriage of transgender people and
same sex marriages.
6. The Apex Court decided to hear the petition on 09/08/2020 and issued notice to Union of Adisthan
and State of Srinispur and both submitted that the petitions may be dismissed.
Page 8 of 29
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE.

TERRITORY OF ADISTHAN.

ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION.
Page 9 of 29
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MANITAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before the honourable Bench that the plea filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable as there is no violation of their fundamental right and so they cannot approach the
Supreme Court for the same. Their fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 15, 19 and 21 are
not infringed as they have not been discriminated on the grounds mentioned in Art. 15 as the term
‘sex’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are two different terms and the latter does not come within the ambit
of the term ‘sex’. Their freedom of speech and expression is also not infringed as these rights come
with reasonable restrictions and gay marriages is against the decency and the morality of the
society. Right life and personal liberty have not been infringed in any manner, as the people belong
to LGBT community have guaranteed the right to stay with their partners (irrespective of genders)
and express their love to each other. They can live together show their love to each other but cannot
marry each other because it is against the custom and morals of the society.

It is humbly submitted to the honourable bench that gay marriage neither permissible under special
marriage act 1954 nor any other marriage laws prevailing in the territory of Adisthan. It is nowhere
in the entire act has been mention that two adults of same gender can marry each other therefore it
is not legally permitted in the country.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and to change that would go against natural law and
risk undermining both the institution of marriage and the family’s role in holding society together.
Legalization denies marriage’s central role as a step towards procreation.
Gay marriage runs fundamentally counter to many people’s religious views. To legalize it would
offend deeply held beliefs and further erode the key role religion plays as a moral bedrock in
society. Christian, Jewish and Islamic leaders have all spoken out against gay marriage and point
out that it runs counter to sacred writings.
Page 10 of 29
The question of human rights is at the core of the same-sex-marriage debate. Proponents argue that
gay marriage is a human right, citing Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). However, Article 16 not only provides no support for gay marriage but in fact implies
that creating such a law could be a violation of a human right.
It makes no sense to talk about equal rights in this context. If that were the case, polygamous or
incestuous marriages would have to be legalized too. There are always limits to rights. Legalization
would be another step towards the mainstreaming of homosexuality in society. Nobody is stopping
gay people from loving each other or staying in relationships, but that does not mean they can
marry.
Therefore, contention of Mr. Hilton against their marriage are in consonance with the law and order
of the country and the Marriage Officer of Vasanthpuram has all the rights to refused the
solemnization of their marriage.

The counsel would like to submit that there is no violation of fundamental rights of petitioner
guaranteed under Article 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the constitution. The equal protection of laws
guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character. It does not mean
that the same laws should apply to all persons. Thus, what Article 14 forbids is class legislation
but it does not forbid reasonable classification. Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution provides
that, "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them. There is no violation of this article as well. No discrimination
has been taken place on any grounds provided under the article. The term sex and sexual orientation
are distinguished of each other and has far different meanings and scope. Freedom of speech and
expression enables a person to express his opinions freely with certain reasonable restrictions. It is
an indispensable right in a democracy and is guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution of India. But reasonable restrictions are made keeping the public decency,
morality and public order. The article 21 of the constitution also comes with certain restrictions
and hence there is no violation of fundamental right of Article 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the constitution.
Page 11 of 29
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MANITAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the plea filed in the supreme Court is not
maintainable as there is no contravention of any fundamental right.
1.1 No infringement of Fundamental rights

Fundamental rights are essential for intellectual, moral and spiritual development of citizens of
India. These rights apply universally to all citizens, irrespective of race, birthplace, religion, caste
or gender. The Indian Penal Code and other laws prescribe punishments for the violation of these
rights, subject to the discretion of the judiciary. In case of their violations, the Supreme Court of
India can be approached directly for ultimate justice as per Article 32. In the present case before
the bench there is no violation of Fundamental right, therefore they do have the right to approach
the supreme court.1
In the present case petitioners filed PIL to protect the LGBT community against the discrimination
on the basis of sex. However, it is pertinent to note the term "sex" in general refers to the biological
differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. Therefore,
there is no discrimination on the basis of sex as there is no discrimination between male and female
in the present case. Same sex marriages are not recognized by law and not violating Fundamental
rights as well, as marriage is union of two opposite gender i.e., male and female.
Furthermore, there is no violation of Fundamental Rights under Art. 14, 15, and 19. Right to
Equality, right to non-discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth,
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression as claimed by the respondents.
Article 142 states that "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 marriage between two
consenting adults of same gender is against beliefs, customs as well as law of land. Procreation is
1
Smt Ujjam Bai vs State of U.P. 1962 AIR 1621
2
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 AIR 130
Madhu Limaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi 1975 AIR 1505
Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P (2003) 10 SCC 78
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v R. Veeraswamy (1999) 3 SCC 414
Page 12 of 29
the main purpose of marriage which would not be possible if two human beings of same gender
get marry. It is propelled by holy books of every religion that marriage is a union of man and
woman. Based on ancient writings, a woman is considered half of her husband and thus completes
him. While a man is also considered incomplete without a woman. In Hindu religion marriage
considered as holy sacrament which takes its root from the marriage of god shiva and goddess
Parvati. Their marriage is considered as unification of purusha and prakriti which is considered as
the sole purpose of all marriages in Hindus. This unification of purusha and prakriti wouldn't be
possible in cases of same sex marriages and therefore they are prohibited in the Adisthan.
Therefore, there is no violation of article 14 as the action taken against Respondents is subject to
reasonable restrictions.
Article 153 (1) of the Indian Constitution provides that, "The State shall not discriminate against
any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. There is no
violation this article as well. No discrimination has been taken place on any grounds provided
under the article. The term sex and sexual orientation are distinguished of each other and has far
different meanings and scope.
“Sex” is the term we use to refer to a person’s sexual anatomy (his or her sexual body parts). If a
doctor were to say that a girl is female in terms of her sex chromosomes, her sex organs, and
hormonal make-up, the doctor is referring to the girl’s sex (her body).
Sexual orientation” is the term we use to refer to a person’s sexual (erotic) feelings. So, when we
talk about a person being homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, or gay, straight, or bisexual, we
are talking about that person’s sexual orientation.
Supreme court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India4, ruled that Sex as it occurs in
Article 15, is not merely restricted to the biological attributes of an individual, but also includes
their "sexual identity and character". It can't be considered as binding law as sex and sexual
orientation are two different concepts as contented above and judiciary doesn't have the authority
3
Indra Sawhney and ors vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. AIR 1993 SC 477
M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore 1963 AIR 649
D. P. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Bharat 1955 AIR 334
K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another vs State Of Karnataka JT 1988 (4) SC 773
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on[2003] INSC 551
4
(2018) 10 SCC 1
Page 13 of 29
to amend constitution. Sexual orientation is independent of term sex and therefore its addition in
article 15 would require constitution amendment. Moreover article 15 being fundamental right,
forms the basic structure of the constitution, which cannot be amended as held in the case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala5.
Therefore, it is clear from the above explanation that sex and sexual orientation are two different
concepts. Sexual orientation does not encompass under the term sex. Therefore, there is no
discrimination has been taken place on any of the grounds provided under the article.
1.2 Prohibition of Gay marriage does not infringe fundamental rights

Same sex marriage is not legally recognized in our country as it doesn't make sense in any manner.
It does not fulfill the primary purpose of marriage i.e. procreation. Marriages in our country is
considered as sacrament. Moreover same-sex couples have guaranteed the right to live with the
partner of their choice in SC ruling of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 6case, but the same
sex marriages cannot be allowed as they are against the societal norms and our religion as well as
culture which we are cherishing since the ancient times. Therefore, no violation of Article 197(1)(a)
of the Constitution that deals with freedom of speech and expression have taken place as the act of
Mr. Mike and Mr. Ross is not in consonance with public decency and mortality. Hence their act is
subject to reasonable restrictions provided under subclause (a) of clause (1) of the said article.
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the
State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
5
(1973) 4 SCC 225
6
(2018) 10 SCC 1
7
A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2003 SC 355;
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554
People’s Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India 1986 AIR 515
K. A. Abbas v. Union of India 1971 AIR 481
Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India 1973 AIR 106
Page 14 of 29
Nonetheless there is no contravention of article 21 as claimed by the petitioners. Right life and
personal liberty have not been infringed in any manner. As the people belong to LGBT community
have guaranteed the right to stay with their partners (irrespective of genders) and express their love
to each other. These rights are also available to Mr. Mike and Mr. Ross. They can live together
show their love to each other but cannot marry each other because it is against the custom and
morals of the society. Religion also doesn't give the permission for the same. Every Fundamental
right comes with a reasonable restriction and preserving the custom and beliefs of the people
satisfies the test of reasonableness. Therefore, there is no violation of right to marry as marriage is
a unification of two humans of opposite gender. Likewise, petitioners also have the right to marry
but with opposite genders not with the person of same gender. If same sex marriage as allowed it
will lead to flooding of petition before the apex court demanding legalization of different marriages
such as child marriage8 as many tribes and communities of the Adisthan follow this practice.
Similarly demand for the legalization on bigamy, polygamy 9, polyandry would also raise.
Therefore, apex court should not take this appeal into consideration as there is no transgression
right to life and personal liberty in the present case.
At last counsel would like to humbly submit that it is clear from the above contention that there is
no infringement of Fundamental Rights of petitioners and therefore they do not have locus standi
before the apex court. Hence plea filled in the supreme court is not maintainable.
8
Manish Singh vs State Govt Of Nct And Ors. AIR 2006 Delhi 37
Dev Kishan And Ors. Lrs. Of Kishan ... vs Ram Kishan And Ors RLW2003 (2) Raj 1250
Chandra Sreenivasa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao AIR 1952 Mad 579
Emperor vs Fulabhai Bhulabhai Joshi on 27 June, 1940 (1940) 42 BOMLR 857
Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma vs State & Another on 11 August, 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 432 (Delhi) (DB)
9
Itwari v Asghari AIR 1960 All 684
Javed v. The State of Haryana AIR 2003, SC 3057
Khursheed Ahmed Khan v. State Of U.P. & Ors 2015 Latest Caselaw 94 SC
Page 15 of 29

It is humbly submitted to the honourable bench that gay marriage neither permissible under special marriage
act 1954 nor any other marriage laws prevailing in the territory of Adisthan. It is nowhere in the entire act
has been mention that two adults of same gender can marry each other therefore it is not legally permitted
in the country.
2.1 MARRIAGE IS FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and to change that would go against natural law and risk
undermining both the institution of marriage and the family’s role in holding society together. Legalization
denies marriage’s central role as a step towards procreation. There are civil partnerships available for gays,
but marriage is a step too far. The changes in the law will remove the terms “mother and father” from the
civil code weakening the rights of heterosexual families.
When we check the research evidence, we find that there are data to demonstrate that committed
homosexual relationships are considerably different from heterosexual married couples in several
fundamental respects and to legalize gay marriage would be detrimental to our country10.
2.1.1 The length of relationships
A USA Census Bureau study from 2002 found that 70.7% of women married to a man between
1970 and 1974 made it to their tenth anniversary and 57.7% remained married for 20 years or more,
whereas in case of homosexuals relationships , it found that of those involved in a current relationship‘,
only 15% described their relationship as longer than 12 years or more. Only 5% lasted more than 20
years.11 While this does not predict absolutely the longevity of a homosexual relationship, it is an indicator
of the fact that short-term relationships are typical of homosexual relationships.
10
This information is based on research of the Family Research Council 2012. Comparing the lifestyles of
homosexual couples to married couples. Available at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02#edn1 (Accessed 12
March 2012)
11
Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields 2002. "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996"
Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (February 2002), p. 5, available at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2012).
Page 16 of 29
2.1.2 Monogamy vs. Promiscuity
One study in Amsterdam among a homosexual population found that currently, 86% of new HIV infections
occur within steady partnerships.12 It was reported in The Journal of Sex Research that most homosexuals
have between 100 and 500 sexual partners in a lifetime. This research found that 10.2% reported between
501 and 1,000 sex partners, and 15.7% said they had more than 1000 sex partners in their lifetime. 13
A study from 2004 by Chicago sociologist, Edward Laumann, discovered that the typical gay city
inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in transactional relationships, or short-term commitments of less
than six months.14 In the Netherlands, in a study of homosexual men, published in the journal AIDS, it was
found that the duration of steady partnerships was approximately 1.5 years 15
2.1.3 The commitment to the relationship
There was a Canadian study of homosexual men who stated that they had been in committed relationships
for more than a year. This research indicated that only 25% who were interviewed claimed to be in a
monogamous relationship. The study ‘s author, Barry Adam, stated that gay culture allows men to explore
different forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals 16
Similar results have been found in earlier research. As for heterosexual relationships, see the statistics above
where approximately 80% of married men and women had not violated their marriage vows or sexual
faithfulness.
12
Xiridou M, Geskus R, De Wit J, Coutinho R, Kretzschmar M 2003. The contribution of steady and casual
partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, May 2. AIDS 17(7), 1029-
1038. Abstract available from NCIB PubMed at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12700453 (Accessed 12
March 2012).
13
Van de Ven, Paul; Rodden, Pamela; Crawford, June and Kippax, Susan. 1997, A comparative demographic and
sexual profile of older homosexually active men, Journal of Sex Research, vol. 34, p. 354.
14
Brune, Adrian 2004. City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says, Washington Blade, February 27, p.
12.
15
Xiridou, Maria, et al 2003. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection
among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, vol 17 (7), p. 1031, available at:
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2003/05020/Sexual_risk_behaviour_relates_to_the _virological.12.aspx
(Accessed 12 March 2012).
16
Lee, Ryan 2003. Gay couples likely to try non-monogamy, study shows. Washington Blade August 22, p. 18.
Also available at: http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2003/WB030811.html (Accessed 12 March 2012). 13 2003
Page 17 of 29
2.1.4 Health risks
According to the journal, AIDS, 1993 research found that men who were involved in relationships that
engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without steady
partners and were linked with a range of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. 17
A 1999 study of twins examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide and was published in
the Archives of General Psychiatry. It found that homosexuals were at a higher risk for overall mental
health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than the heterosexual twins to have attempted suicide. This
higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.18
2.1.5 Rates of intimate partner violence.
The National Violence against Women Survey from July 2000, sponsored by the National Institute of
Justice in the USA, found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence
than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7
percent of the opposite sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a
marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1
percent and 7.4 percent.19
2.2 UNDERMINING RELIGION

Gay marriage runs fundamentally counter to many people’s religious views. To legalize it would offend
deeply held beliefs and further erode the key role religion plays as a moral bedrock in society. Christian,
Jewish and Islamic leaders have all spoken out against gay marriage and point out that it runs counter to
sacred writings.
Marriages under Hindu marriage act 1955 are considered as holy sacrament.20 The concept of marriage is
to establish a relationship between husband and wife. The marriage is a sacred tie and last of ten sacraments
that can never be broken. Also, it is a relationship that is established by birth to birth between man and
17
4 Coxon, A P M et al. 1993. Sex role separation in diaries of homosexual men, AIDS, July, vol 7 no 6, 877-882
18
Herrell, R et al. 1999. Sexual orientation and suicidality: A co-twin study in adult men, Archives of General
Psychiatry 56,867-874. An abstract of this study is available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530625
(Accessed 12 March 2012).
19
Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence 2000. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice
Programs, July, p. 30, available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2012).
20
Tikait v. Basant, ILR 28 Cal. 758
Shivonandh v. Bhagawanthumma, AIR (1962) Mad. 400
Dhanjit Vadra v. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Del. 146 at 151
Purushottamdas v. Purushottamdas, 21 Bom 23
Muthusami v. Masilamani 33 Mad 342
Page 18 of 29
woman. Also, it is not only considered as sacred but it is also a holy union. The main objective of marriage
is to enable a woman and a man to perform their religious duties. Along with this, they also have to beget
progeny. Based on ancient writings, a woman is considered half of her husband and thus completes him.
While a man is also considered incomplete without a woman. Therefore, same sex marriages should not be
allowed in the country it would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the people.
Marriages under Islam marriage is nothing a civil contract between a man and a woman 21 13 in which the
man provides the woman with financial support in return for exclusive sexual access. It’s a contract that
makes sex and reproduction legal in the eyes of God and legitimate in the eyes of society. Since marriage
is a contract premised on vaginal intercourse and financial obligation between a man and a woman, same-
sex couples could not have engaged in one. They could construct an arrangement for inheritance and shared
property that mimicked marriage, but it would not be marriage.
The Quran deals explicitly with Sodomy (Liwat, named after Lot and his people). The holy book recounts
the story of Sodom several times, condemning its people’s overall immorality, and specifically criticizing
its men for “going to men out of desire instead of to women.” Sodomy, understood as anal sex, was thus
prohibited by the consensus of Muslim scholars (Muhammad’s condemnation of anal sex with wives added
hetero anal sex to this as well). Muslim scholars set the punishment for anal sex between men as anywhere
from a relatively light one at the judge’s discretion (since Sodomy could not result in illegitimate children),
to the same punishment as fornication (based on analogy to hetero-sex), to execution (based on a command
from Muhammad of disputed authenticity).
Because sexual contact between women does not involve penetration with a penis, it never received the
same legal categorization as Liwat. Called Sihaq (‘grinding’), it was prohibited under the general rule
against sexual contact outside marriage.
Christians also completely oppose gay marriage, as there are many passages in the Bible which view it as
wrong:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is
detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”22
"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is not made for the
righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who
21
Shoharat Singh v. Jafri Begum (1915) 17 BOMLR 13
Yusuf v. Sowramma AIR 1971 Ker 261
22
Leviticus 20:13
Page 19 of 29
kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality,
for slave traders and liars, for perjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”23
It is clear from the assertion given under the religion books and scriptures that marriage is a union of man
and woman. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for
marriage. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage which
would not be possible if same sex marriages are allowed.
2.3 THE HUMAN RIGHTS’ ARGUMENT

The question of human rights is at the core of the same-sex-marriage debate. Proponents argue that gay
marriage is a human right, citing Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
However, Article 16 not only provides no support for gay marriage but in fact implies that creating such a
law could be a violation of a human right.
Article 16 states:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to
marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society
and the State.
Likewise, worded Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The text of Article 16 arguably refers only to a union between opposite sexes, “men and women without
any limitation due to race, nationality or religion”; not “men and men”, or “any human with any other
human” or “men and women without any limitation due to sex or gender”. The omission of a reference to
sex or gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination leaves little doubt that “marriage” is intended to
mean that of a man with a woman, to the exclusion of all others. This is consistent with the further provision
about “founding a family”, the most direct interpretation of which is that of parents having children with
one another: something that same-sex couples are biologically precluded from achieving. Point 3 of Article
16 provides further insight about the intended meaning of “family”: a natural and fundamental unit of
society. It makes little sense to regard same-sex union as a “fundamental unit of society” since same-sex
partners cannot create life with one another, while it makes total sense for opposite-sex couples to be
23
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Page 20 of 29
considered as such: humanity depends on the union of opposite sexes for procreation, even if it does not
always result in procreation.
This interpretation reflects the standing precedent established by the Human Rights Committee in Joslin v
New Zealand. 24
Moreover Article 26 of ICCPR states “equality before the law", plays a very important role in the contention.
"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of
the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
Although discrimination on the basis of the sexual composition of a family is not explicitly prohibited under
Article 26, it is alleged that the relevant prohibition is implied by the reference to “other status”. I do not
think this argument succeeds, as there are obviously good reasons to discriminate in the relevant context on
some grounds—for example, against incestuous family composition, even if the related couple consists of
opposite sexes. The principle of equality before the law evidently prohibits only unjust or arbitrary
discrimination, which in turn begs the question whether the contested kind of discrimination is objectively
unjust or arbitrary. More generally, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of some status does not
preclude cases of justifiable discrimination on the basis of some other status. In the present case it is also
important to differentiate between discrimination on the basis of “sexual composition of a family” and
“sexual orientation of partners”: sexual orientation of partners does not preclude access to legal marriage
between a man and a woman and is generally of no concern or interest to the state.
In that sense, marriage equality already exists: every man can marry a woman and every woman can marry
a man, irrespective of sexual orientation, provided that they are not relatives. The same-sex-marriage debate
is therefore not just about individual rights but, primarily, about changing the meaning of marriage: whether
to decouple the legal protection afforded to marriage from the sexual norm of procreation.
The natural, fundamental social unit consisting of a man and a woman is singled out in Article 16 as entitled
to protection by society and the state. By equivocating between same-sex union and the union of opposite
sexes under the common rubric of “marriage” we may be undermining the very sense of “natural family”
as the vehicle of procreation, deprioritizing its life-giving function in favour of other values. The sexual
24
(2002) 10 IHRR 40
Page 21 of 29
norm, the fundamental condition of human existence, thus stands to be legally effaced in favour of
normalizing all possible sexual combinations.
On this interpretation, legalizing gay marriage under the same statutory provisions as the marriage of
opposite sexes would amount to a violation of a human right stipulated in Article 16, namely, that the natural
family consisting of a man and a woman, the fundamental unit of society and the only combination of sexual
beings capable of producing offspring, must be given special protection by society and the state. Some may
object that the supposed threat to traditional family posed by gay marriage is too vague, but even if that is
the case the accusation cannot be simply ignored.
2.4 ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS

It makes no sense to talk about equal rights in this context. If that were the case, polygamous or incestuous
marriages would have to be legalized too. There are always limits to rights. Legalization would be another
step towards the mainstreaming of homosexuality in society. Nobody is stopping gay people from loving
each other or staying in relationships, but that does not mean they can marry.
Although, the Supreme Court decided in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India25,
which requires Central and State governments to amend laws to provide ‘right to marry’ for transgender
persons, among other rights, but remain silent upon the same sex marriage.
Further, all statutory laws relating to solemnization and registration of marriages in India, whether codified
or customary laws relating to Hindus, Muslim, Parsi or Christians or the civil marriage law, only legally
recognize heterosexual marriages. The laws provide for marriage between ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, ‘man and
‘woman’ or ‘bride’ and ‘bride-groom not between mam and man or woman and woman.
Appellant Mr. Mike and Mr. Ross both are male hence they cannot marry each other as per the lex loci.
Both of the wanted to solemnize their marriage as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,
1954 (SMA,1954). On 25-11-2019, they submitted a notice as per the specifications given under
Section 5 of the SMA, 1954 to the marriage officer, Vasanthpuram district, Srinispur. However
section 4(c) of the very act does not allow them to get marry as the section clearly says that
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the
solemnization of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this
Act, if at the time of the marriage if the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and
25
(2014) 5 SCC 438
Page 22 of 29
the female the age of eighteen years." It can be clearly inferred from the sec that the act is drafted
for the marriage of man and woman and not for the people of same sex.
Therefore, contention of Mr. Hilton against their marriage are in consonance with the law and order of the
country and the Marriage Officer of Vasanthpuram has all the rights to refused the solemnization of their
marriage.
Page 23 of 29

The counsel would like to humbly submit that the prohibition of gay marriage in Adisthan is intra
vires the Constitution and there is no violation of fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under
Article 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the constitution.
3.1 LGBTQI community: Equally protected under law of land

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and states that, “The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” The equal
protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in
character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. It does not attainment
or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of different classes of persons often
require separate treatment. From the very nature of society there should be different laws in
different places and the legitimate controls the policy and enacts laws in the best interest of the
safety and security of the state. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount
to inequality. So, a reasonable classification is only not permitted but is necessary if society is to
progress. Thus, what Article 14 forbids is class-legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification. The classification however must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be
based on some real and substantial bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any
reasonable basis. But where equals and unequal are treated differently. Article 14 does not apply.
Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges
on a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the
same relation to the privilege granted that between whom and the persons not so favored no
reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the
exclusion of the other from such privilege. The Supreme Court, in the judgment given in Suresh
Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others26 quotes from Special Courts Bill27,
26
(2014) 1 SCC 1
27
AIR 1979 SC 478
Page 24 of 29
which set out the scope of Article 14, including the principle that legislation need not treat all
people exactly the same, but that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed" (emphasis added). Further, the State had “the power
of determining who should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a
law enacted on a particular subject" provided that such classification was not "arbitrary" but:
"Rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are
to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities
or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation".
Therefore, relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into the
consideration of the reasonable classification of Article 14. It is humbly submitted that there is no
violation of Article 14.
3.2 Sex vs. Sexual Orientation

Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that, "The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them There is no
violation of this article as well. No discrimination has been taken place on any grounds provided
under the article. The term sex and sexual orientation are distinguished of each other and has far
different meanings and scope. ‘Sex’ is the term we use to refer to a person's sexual anatomy (his
or her sexual body parts). If a doctor were to say that a girl is female in terms of her sex
chromosomes, her sex organs, and hormonal make-up, the doctor is referring to the girl's sex (her
body) "Sexual orientation is the term we use to refer to a person's sexual (erotic) feelings. So, when
we talk about a person being homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, or gay, straight, or bisexual,
we are talking about that person's sexual orientation.
Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India28, ruled that Sex as it occurs
in Article 15, is not merely restricted to the biological attributes of an individual, but also includes
their sexual identity and character It cannot be considered as binding law as sex and sexual
orientation are two different concepts as contented above and judiciary does not have the authority
to amend constitution. Sexual orientation is independent of term sex and therefore its addition in
article 15 would require constitution amendment.
28
(2018) 10 SCC 1
Page 25 of 29
The Constitution of India provides for the amendment by way of Amendment Acts in a formal
manner. For the purpose of amendment, the various Articles of the Constitution are divided into
three categories. The first category is out of the purview of Article 368 whereas the other two are
a part and parcel of the said Article.
Moreover Article 15 being fundamental right forms the basic structure of the constitution, which
cannot be amended as held in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala29 The basic
structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle, most notably propounded by Justice Hans Raj
Khanna, that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed
through amendments by the parliament. The part III of the constitution comes under the preview
of basic structure of the constitution and it cannot be amended. Therefore, it is humbly submitted
before the Hon'ble court that there has not been any infringement of the Article 15.
3.3 Gay marriage: Immoral and unlawful expression

Article 19(1) (a) states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. In
this view, NALSA vs Union of India30 summary case which has to emphasize that the said decision
spells out that the right under Article 19(1)(a) includes one's right to expression of his/her self-
identified gender which can be expressed through words, action, behavior or any other form as
already been adapted by the nation and People belong to LGBT community have given the rights
to express their love for the person of their choice irrespective of gender
However, marriage in our country is considered as holy sacrament through which man and woman
unite and complete each other. People associate marriages with religion. Every religion whether it
is Hinduism, Islam or Christianity specifically clearly states that marriage is a union of a man and
a woman. As per the religious point of view man is incomplete without woman and woman is
incomplete without man. Both of them complete each other through the union of marriage.
Therefore, gay marriages should not be legalize as it will deeply hurt the religious sentiments of
the people in the society which would a contravention of article 25 which says Freedom of
conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (1) Subject to public order,
morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
29
(1973) 4 SCC 225
30
(2014) 5 SCC 438
Page 26 of 29
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion And Article
26(b) of the constitution of Adisthan which says Freedom to manage religious affairs. Subject to
public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have
the right (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
Therefore Article 19(1)(a) does not includes the right to express their choice of life partner of same
gender. Gay marriage is not safeguarded by law because they are against the individual’s religious
beliefs, morality and decency of the society and hence there is transgression of article 19 as the
gay marriages are subject to reasonable restrictions provided under sub clause (1) of the very article
3.4 Non-contravention of personal liberty

Last but not the least Article 21 of the constitution which states "No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." of petitioners has not
been transgressed. The scope of right to life further widened in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs
Union of India31. People belong to LGBT community have also guaranteed this right which has
not been taken away from them in any manner whatsoever.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration32, the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval the above
observations and held that the “right to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy
all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to
protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It
includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.
De facto petitioner claimed that restrictions imposed on their marriage by Mr. Hilton and marriage
office is violated of their right to personal liberty as there right to marry is being infringed.
However, it is pertinent note that Right to marry is not a fundamental right. The infamous case of
Shakti Vahini vs Union of India 33gives an individual the right to marry the life partner of their
choice but it doesn't provide legal protection to gay marriages in any manner whatsoever. Marriage
is a Sacrament which is associated with religious belief of the people. As per every religion
31
AIR 1978 SC 597
32
1979 SCR (1) 392
33
(2018) 7 SCC 192
Page 27 of 29
marriage is a union of man and woman. By the way marriage man and woman completes each
other. Marriage is not meant between the two people of same gender.
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India34 homosexuality had been decriminalized by
the apex court and people belong to LGBT had guaranteed the right to freely express their feeling
and love for a person of their choice irrespective of gender. They were given equal protection under
laws and all forms of discrimination against them were abolished after the landmark judgment.
They have the right to live with each other but they don't have right to marry as it is meant for man
and woman only which is associated with religion. Legalization of gay marriage in Adisthan
violation of article right to religion which is also a fundamental right.
Mr. Mike and Mr. Rose both of them being a male can marry any female human being of their
choice which is their right under article 21 but they cannot marry each other as law in Adisthan
strictly prohibits gay marriage also does not comes under right to life and personal liberty.
Moreover, every fundamental right comes with a reasonable restriction and in the instant case as
well gay marriages are subject to it. Therefore, restrictions on the marriage of petitioner is not a
violation of their fundamental right as it is against the custom and morals of the society and lex
loci.
34
(2018) 10 SCC 1
Page 28 of 29
PRAYER
IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED IT IS

HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON’BLE BENCH MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE, HOLD AND
DECLARE -
I. THAT, THE WRIT FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OF LAW.
II. THAT, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 15, 19 AND
21 OF THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
III. THAT, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE NO LEGAL RECOGNITION UNDER SPECIAL

MARRIAGE ACT 1954 OR ANY OTHER MARRIAGE LAW OF ADISTHAN AND
RESPONDENTS HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO RESTRICT THE MARRIAGE OF
PETITIONERS
IV. THAT, PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IS, INTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF ADISTHAN AS WELL AS CUSTOMS AND MORALS OF THE
SOCIETY.
PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE BENCH
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
All of which is most humbly prayed
Date: --/--/2020 Sd/-

On behalf of
Union of Adisthan
Counsel for the Respondents
Page 29 of 29

Law Addicts 1 National Virtual Moot Court Competition 20 - 23 AUGUST, 2020. Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Adisthan CASE NO. - /2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Law Addicts 1 National Virtual Moot Court Competition 20 - 23 AUGUST, 2020. Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Adisthan CASE NO. - /2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 28

LAW ADDICTS 1ST NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ADISTHAN

JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ADISTHAN, 1950

LAW ADDICTS & OTHERS ... PETITIONER

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS – UNION OF ADISTHAN & OTHERS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................6

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

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 12

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

1.1 No infringement of Fundamental rights ........................................................................ 12

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE GAY MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIAL

2.1 MARRIAGE IS FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN ......................................................... 16

2.1.1 The length of relationships ...................................................................................... 16

2.1.2 Monogamy vs. Promiscuity ..................................................................................... 17

2.1.3 The commitment to the relationship ....................................................................... 17

2.1.4 Health risks .............................................................................................................. 18

2.1.5 Rates of intimate partner violence. ......................................................................... 18

2.2 UNDERMINING RELIGION ....................................................................................... 18

2.3 THE HUMAN RIGHTS’ ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 20

2.4 ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS ...................................................................................... 22

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ADISTHAN IS

3.2 Sex vs. Sexual Orientation ............................................................................................. 25

3.3 Gay marriage: Immoral and unlawful expression ........................................................ 26

3.4 Non-contravention of personal liberty .......................................................................... 27

Abbreviations Full Form

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE GAY MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIAL

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ADISTHAN IS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MANITAINABLE.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE GAY MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIAL

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ADISTHAN IS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MANITAINABLE.

1.1 No infringement of Fundamental rights

1.2 Prohibition of Gay marriage does not infringe fundamental rights

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE GAY MARRIAGE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIAL

2.1 MARRIAGE IS FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN

2.1.1 The length of relationships

2.1.3 The commitment to the relationship

2.1.5 Rates of intimate partner violence.

2.2 UNDERMINING RELIGION

2.3 THE HUMAN RIGHTS’ ARGUMENT

2.4 ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IN ADISTHAN IS

3.1 LGBTQI community: Equally protected under law of land

3.2 Sex vs. Sexual Orientation

3.3 Gay marriage: Immoral and unlawful expression

3.4 Non-contravention of personal liberty

IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED IT IS

I. THAT, THE WRIT FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OF LAW.

III. THAT, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE NO LEGAL RECOGNITION UNDER SPECIAL

IV. THAT, PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGE IS, INTRA VIRES THE

All of which is most humbly prayed

Date: --/--/2020 Sd/-

You might also like