PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

HUMAN RIGHTS
MOOT COURT
TEAM-1
1. AKSHITHA CHOULA- 20191BAL0013
2. HEMAN GURUNG- 20191BAL0026
3. JOYSREE DAS- 20191BAL0030
4. K.A. NITHIN KISHORE- 20191BAL0032
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT

RAVI

(PETITIONER)

v.

MEENA

(RESPONDENT)

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
As the recent world has seen a lot of progress in the development of women, the amount
of ignorance towards men has also increased. Similarly, Mr. Ravi, a 35-year-old man is being
subjected to abuse both physically and emotionally by his wife, Meena. There are instances when
Meena had hit him by throwing objects at him and also threatened him with violence. As a result,
Ravi couldn’t leave the relationship even after desiring so and therefore seeks legal protection from
domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) but
couldn’t be successful as the law only protects women and not men, thereby violating his human
rights.
 ISSUES
1. Whether Ravi’s human right is violated due to Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act?
2. Whether Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can be declared
unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature?
 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE-1
1. Whether Ravi’s human right is violated due to Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that human rights are those rights which
are inculcated within us right from our birth and it is inculcated not within men or women, rather
it is vested within men and women. In many south Asian countries such as India, gender roles are
very rigid. This rigidity gives rise to gender biases and stereotypical notions. Men who face
domestic violence at the hands of their wives can’t see the practical exercise of their human rights
because women are the only one protected and are immune to the provisions related to gender
violence that is given in the penal provisions.

Discrimination based on sex is prohibited under almost every human rights treaty, including the
ICCPR which under their common Article 31 provide for the rights to equality between men and
women in the enjoyment of all rights but when we look into reality, we can see the presence of
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women but not men.

Article 1 of UDHR says “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood”2. Because of the biased laws in the India which favour women, there are a plethora
of false cases where women falsely alleged a man for rape, domestic violence and other offences.

If we look into The Domestic Violence Act3, we can clearly see that The Act covers all women
who may be mother, sister, wife, widow or partners living in a shared household. It doesn’t include
any father, brother, husband or a widower. Mr. Ravi also couldn’t seek protection against his wife
because even after providing so many benefits in the form of gender specific legislations, Indian
laws consider women so weak that it is always impossible for them to commit violence against
men and that’s why whenever we hear the term “domestic violence” we immediately apprehend

1 (Aug. 2, 2011), https://treaties.un.org/doc/treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20am/ch_iv_04.pdf.

2 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.
3 Naseem, (Nov. 15, 2019),

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15436/1/protection_of_women_from_domestic_violence_ac
t%2C_2005.pdf.
that the aggravator is the man in the household. That’s why there is no protest, no candle march
nothing against these gender disparities.

The society doesn’t consider it significant to have laws protecting men too and because of which
the legislators too don’t consider it important to bring out gender neutral laws in the country for
equal protection of Human Rights of both men and women.
 ISSUE-2
2. Whether Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can be declared
unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature?

It is humbly submitted by the counsel that Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is
discriminatory in nature and is therefore eligible to be declared unconstitutional due to its
discriminatory nature.

Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 4, 2005 defines domestic violence as any action which
constitutes:

• Threats to life, health, and safety, whether physical or mental, including sexual abuse,
physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse, or
• Harassment in any form, including injuries, harms to the aggrieved person by coercing her
or any other person in connection with any unlawful demand for dowry or other property
or valuable security, or
• otherwise injuring or causing havoc

The point to be emphasized here is the fact that the actions which amount to domestic violence is
practically not only possible for men to do it. Threats to life, health, injuries, causing injury etc.
can definitely be done by women too. In the present matter, Meena has abused him physically and
emotionally, hit him and caused injuries and also threatened him with violence. If this was done
by Ravi to Meena, the law would have immediately given protection under numerous legislations
but just because of the gender being different, the tables turned around.

Even according to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 18605, only a man can be held liable for
cruelty to his wife. There is no subsection or provisions given in the statute that will make a woman
liable for domestic violence.

In India, Domestic violence laws only protect women and not men. It gives a false presumption
that men can only be the perpetrator and not the victim. Domestic Violence against men is

4 Naseem, (Nov. 15, 2019),

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15436/1/protection_of_women_from_domestic_violence_ac
t%2C_2005.pdf.
5 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2263/1/A1860-45.pdf
gradually increasing day by day. Hence, special provisions and amendments are required to make
gender-neutral laws that will help the victims in getting remedy and punishment for the culprit
irrespective of gender. Specific laws and amendments are needed to protect both of the spouses
from domestic violence that is still prevalent in our society.

As per Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 6 says that all are equal before the
law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to
equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any
incitement to such discrimination but when it comes to protection from domestic violence, equal
protection of law is completely absent here.

Moreover, Article 15 of The Indian Constitution7 puts an obligation The State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any
of them. Therefore, this law is to be rightly declared unconstitutional.

Furthermore, after the enactment of this act, Men's organizations such as the Save Indian Family
Foundation8 have opposed the law, arguing that it might be misused by women during disputes.

6 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.
7 Law & Justice2.pmd, (Jan. 7, 2009),
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf.
8 https://www.saveindianfamily.org/
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble court maybe pleased to adjudge and declare that :

The law only protects one specific gender i.e. women and not men, thereby violating human rights
of the petitioner here.

Due to its discriminatory nature on the basis of gender, this law is thereby contended to be
unconstitutional and arbitrary.

The Petitioner additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may pass any order as it deems fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

And for this the Petitioner shall duty bound, ever pray

Respectfully submitted by,

Counsel for the Petitioner

 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE-1
1. Whether Ravi’s human right is violated due to Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the gender specific laws in India have
been drafted for certain reasons. This reasonable classification provides that gender-specific
provisions of the PWDVA can be justified as a reasonable classification based on social realities
and historical disadvantages faced by women. The law recognizes that women have historically
been disproportionately affected by domestic violence, and therefore, it aims to address their
specific vulnerabilities and protect their rights. In the case law Joseph Shine v. Union of India9, the
Supreme Court emphasized that laws are enacted to address existing social realities and to uplift
marginalized sections of society. The Court recognized that gender-specific legislation may be
justified to combat the historical disadvantages faced by women and to address the prevalence of
violence against women.

It can thus be noted that PWDVA's gender-specific provisions are based on the social reality
of women being disproportionately affected by domestic violence, and they aim to rectify historical
disadvantages faced by women.

The legislature has the discretion to enact laws that address specific social problems and
protect certain groups that are more vulnerable. The PWDVA is a legislative response to the
widespread issue of violence against women, and it is within the legislature's authority to determine
the scope and provisions of the law.

In the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra10, the Supreme Court recognized the legislative
competence of Parliament to enact laws and held that the Court should not interfere with legislative
discretion unless the law violates constitutional provisions. Constitutionality of the gender-specific
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA)must be recognized.

9 (2018) 10 SCC 472

10 (1954) SCR 1077
These provisions are based on reasonable classification, legislative discretion, and the intention to
rectify historical disadvantages faced by women. It is to be noted that acknowledging the PWDVA
does not discriminate against men. the law does not exclude men as victims of domestic violence
but rather focuses on providing specific legal remedies to protect women, who are
disproportionately affected by this issue.
 ISSUE-2
2. Whether Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can be declared
unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature?
It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the petitioner Ravi argues that the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) is unconstitutional because it only recognizes
women as victims of domestic violence and does not provide any legal remedies for men in
domestic violence situations.

The counsel pleads that the Domestic Violence Act is not unconstitutional in this case
because it does not discriminate against men. The PWDVA is designed to protect women from
domestic violence and is not intended to exclude men as victims, nor does it explicitly do so. The
PWDVA does not address the issue of gender discrimination, nor does it create a classification of
people based on gender. In fact, the PWDVA was created to provide legal remedies to help protect
women from domestic violence, a problem which disproportionately affects women.

Furthermore, the PWDVA is in line with the Indian Constitution and its commitment to
protecting the rights of women. Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution states that “Nothing in this
article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women 11.” The Act was
developed with the fundamental rights provided by Articles 14, 15, and 21. Article 21 provides the
right to life and liberty in a negative sense, indicating that it may not be taken away unless through
a legal system that is supposed to be fair, just, and reasonable as a consequence of court
judgements. The right to life has been considered to include the right to live without violence
which was held by the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi
Administrator12. This provision allows the state to make special provisions for women, such as the
PWDVA, to protect them from domestic violence. This argument is substantiated with precedent

11Law & Justice2.pmd, (Jan. 7, 2009),

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf
12
1981 AIR 746
given by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan13, which stated
that sexual harassment of women at the workplace is a form of gender discrimination and thus
unconstitutional. This judgement was based on the fact that women are disproportionately affected
by sexual harassment, thus requiring special provisions to be put in place to protect them.

In the Light of the above arguments the counsel pleads before this Honourable Court that
the PWDVA is not unconstitutional in this case as it does not discriminate against men. Moreover,
Renuka Chowdhury, the Indian Minister for Women and Child Development, agreed in a
Hindustan Times article that "an equal gender law would be ideal. But there is simply too much
physical evidence to prove that it is mainly the woman who suffers at the hands of man".

13
(1997) 6 SCC 241
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble court maybe pleased to adjudge and declare that :

The PWDVA doesn’t discriminate against men and therefore is not violating the petitioner’s human
rights.

The law should not be declared as unconstitutional because it complies with the constitutional
provisions and is not arbitrary in nature.

The Respondent additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may pass any order as it deems fit in
the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

And for this the Respondent shall duty bound, ever pray

Respectfully submitted by,

Counsel for the Respondent.