TEAM CODE: JM10

MODERN LAW COLLEGE’S 16TH SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL

ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW’S JUSTITIA 2023

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. OF 2023
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDY, 1950)

IN THE MATTER OF

NIVIRA & DIYA ................................................................................... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDY ................................................................................ RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 1

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Content Page. No.

1. List of Abbreviations 4

2. Index of Authorities 5

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6

4. Statement of Facts 7

Statement of Issues

I. Whether the provisions namely Section 5 of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 4 of
Special Marriage Act, 1954 and other
marriage laws, in so far as they deny the
5. right of marriage to the LGBTQIA+ are 8
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Indy?

II Whether the right to marry and have family is a

universally recognized human right of all
human beings including LGBTQIA+,
therefore can the same be claimed as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indy?

III Whether denial of the right to adopt a child and

right to get a child through surrogacy, to the
LGBTQIA+ couples is violative of gender
justice and gender equality principle running
through the Constitution of Indy?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 2

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

IV Whether the LGBTQIA+ couples have the right

to get their union recognized as a marriage
under law by way of grant of certificate to that
effect; and thereby entitled to enjoy all the
concomitant rights as enjoyed by the couples
of opposite sexes?

6. Summary of Arguments 9

7. Arguments Advanced 11

8. Prayer 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 3

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

1 Hon. Honorable

2 Art Article

3 HMA Hindu Marriage Act

4 SMA Special Marriage Act

5 i.e., That is
Assisted Reproductive
6 ART Technology (Regulation) Act

7 & And
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
8 JJ Act
Children) Act 2015

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 4

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (Page No 12)

• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (Page No 13)
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (Page No 13)
• Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors (Page No 16)
• Lata Singh v. state of UP (Page No 17)

BOOKS REFERRED

• M.P Jain, Constitution of India

• V.N Shukla’s Constitution Of India
• Paras Diwan, Family Law
• Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law

STATUTES REFERRED

• Constitution of India, 1950

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Special Marriage Act, 1954
• Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

CYBER SOURCES

• www.scconline.com
• www.manupatra.com
• AIROnline.in
• Casemine.com
• Barandbench.com

JOURNALS REFERRED
• All India Reporter
• Supreme Court Cases
• Supreme Court Weekly
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 5
 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS THE

JURISDICTION ON THIS MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The present Public Litigation (PIL) Petition by way of writ petition has been referred
before this Hon. Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India Praying that this Hon.
Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ.

The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto & certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
part.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 6

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. Indy is a country, with a written Constitution identical to the Constitution of India

1950, where Nivira & Diya both independent women identified as Lesbian were in a
relationship since 2014. Their families also accepted their relationship & were satisfied.
They both resided in a city Bangore of Kanataka, State of Indy.

2. In 2019, Nivira & Diya both decided to have Wedding-cum-commitment ceremony

but same sex marriage is not recognized under Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage
Act.

3. In 2021, they decided to have a child by surrogacy but as per Surrogacy (Regulation)
Act 2021, only a couple (Male and Female) is allowed to have a child by means of
surrogacy.

4. Later in 2021, they tried to adopt a child under Adoption Regulations but were not
able to, thus, Diya with the consent and support of Nivira singly adopted a boy named
Karya who was 2 years old at the time of adoption i.e., 06-09-2021.

5. Nivira & Diya were not granted the status of couple and parent thus they faced
issues to avail health insurance, declare each other as nominee for life insurance,
Mutual Funds, PPF, Pension Scheme, or any other financial instruments. In every
application form they were forced to mention their marital status as ‘Single’.

6. In 2022, Nivira bought a house in her name and Diya cohabitate with her in the new
house. Legally Diya did not have any proof of residence so she was denied the purchase
of her dream car. In Nov 2022, Diya got transferred to Hydebad in Telgana a state of
Indy. Nivira also tried to get herself transferred to Hydebad to stay with her partner but
on grounds of non – recognition of their marriage it was not allowed.

7. Nivira & Diya filed a public litigation (PIL) petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indy.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 7

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Whether the provisions namely Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
Section 4 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 & other marriage laws, in so far
as they deny the right of marriage to the LGBTQIA+ are violative of
Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of Indy?
II. Whether the right to marry & have family is a universally recognized
human right of all human beings including LGBTQIA+, therefore can the
same be claimed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indy?
III. Whether denial of the right to adopt a child and right to get a child through
surrogacy, to the LGBTQIA+ couples is violative of gender justice and
gender equality principle running through the Constitution of Indy?
IV. Whether the LGBTQIA+ couples have the right to get their union
recognized as a marriage under law by way of grant of certificate to that
effect; and thereby entitled to enjoy all the concomitant rights as enjoyed
by the couples of opposite sexes?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 8

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the provisions namely Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 4 of
Special Marriage Act, 1954 and other marriage laws, in so far as they deny the right of
marriage to the LGBTQIA+ are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
Indy?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, the word ‘couple’ as per HMA means
male and female only. Also, the petitioners are not within the degrees of prohibited
relationships, though their marriage was not recognized under HMA or SMA. The counsel
states that non-recognition of same sex marriage is an act of discrimination. Counsel submits
to this Hon. Court that Art 14 and Art 21 are violated by means of denying liberty to choose,
right to union, to choose a partner.

II. Whether the right to marry and have a family is a universally recognized human rights all
human beings including LGBTQIA+, therefore can the same be claimed as a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indy?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, Art. 16 of declaration of Human Rights
universally recognizes Right to Marry. Art. 21 deals with right to life and personal liberty
which also includes right to marry. There are various cases that discusses about Art. 21 and
Right to Marry.

III. Whether denial of the right to adopt a child and right to get a child through surrogacy, to
the LGBTQIA+ couples is violative of gender justice and gender equality principle
running through the Constitution of Indy?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, as per Sec 57 (2) Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 consent of both the couple is required to adopt a child
and as per Sec 2(1)(h) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 the word couple means a Man and
Women of 21 and 18 year of age respectively. Counsel States that both the act inly focuses on
male and female gender which is violative of gender equality and causing gender injustice in
the society.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 9

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

IV. Whether the LGBTQIA+ couples have the right to get their union recognized as a
marriage under law by way of grant of certificate to that effect; and thereby entitled to
enjoy all the concomitant rights as enjoyed by the couples of opposite sexes?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, LGBTQIA+ couple marriage is not
recognized under any law and this is inequality and injustice towards the gender. Various
Laws such as HMA, SMA do not mention any provision/s regarding LGBTQIA+ marriages
and thus creating a biased view and considering only Male and Female eligible for marriage.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 10

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I
Whether the provisions namely Section 5 of HMA, 1955 and Section 4 of SMA, 1954 and other
marriage laws, in so far as they deny the right of marriage to the LGBTQIA+ are violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indy?

A. Sec 5 of HMA, 1955 violates Art 14:

Hindu Marriage was enacted in 1955 to provide for recognition of marriages within the fold of
Hindu Community. The conditions for the Solemnization of marriage under this Act is laid out
under Sec 5 which reads as
—A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are
fulfilled, namely: —
(i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; 1
(ii) At the time of the marriage, neither party—
a. Is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of
mind; or 5
b. Though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental
disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children; or
c. Has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity 1 ***;]
(iii) The bridegroom has completed the age of 21 [twenty-one years] and the bride, the
age of 18 [eighteen years] at the time of the marriage;
(iv) The parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom
or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(v) The parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing
each of them permits of a marriage between the two

1) If we focus on clause (iii) there seems an assumption that the parties to marriage are
opposite sex couples. For example, the usage of words such as bride and bridegroom.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 11

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

2) Further, clause (iv) of the aforementioned section lays out that parties should not be in the
degree of prohibited relationships unless a custom or usage permits between the two. Here
the word two again refers to bride and bridegroom which again is one male and female.

3) Though the HMA, solemnizes the marriages between two Hindus, the HMA violates
principles of equality before law and anti-discrimination in failing to ensure that the option
to solemnize same sex marriage is part of the scheme of the act.

4) The petitioners are both above 21 years, not married to any other person and are not within
the degrees of prohibited relationships. The petitioners satisfy all the requirements of being
eligible to marry under the HMA and are only being prevented from getting recognized as a
married couple under this act because they are not opposite sex couple.

In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India1, it was held that

“Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens to the full range of
constitutional rights including the liberties”
“Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship
without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law”
Post this decision, (Johar Supra) constitutional courts across the country have protected the
LGBT couples who approach them for protection on the same footing as they protect inter-
faith and inter-caste couples.

5) Marriage is one of the key ways in which society accepts, respects and validates a couple,
and crucially, this is a social status which is bestowed by law. Marriage is a social institution
created by and highly regulated by law. By excluding same sex couples altogether from the
realm of the Hindu marriage act places a burden on them which is constitutionally
impermissible.
6) Equality is not achieved with the decriminalization of homosexuality alone but must extend
to all spheres of life, including the home, marriage and other social institutions, the
workplace, public places etc.

1
AIR 2018 SC 4321

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 12

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023
7) Equality is edifice on which entire non-discrimination jurisprudence rests. Respect for
individual choice is very essence of liberty under the law and thus, non-recognition of
marriage of LGBTQIA+ under both these acts is irrational, indefensible and manifestly
arbitrary.

8) The petitioners submit that the non-recognition of the same sex marriage under this
particular act is an act of discrimination which strikes at the root of dignity and self-
fulfillment of LGBTQIA+ couples.

B. Sec 5 HMA, 1955 violates Art 21:

1) Self-determination of gender in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union

of India2 It was held that -
“self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression
and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under the Article 21.”

2) At the heart of personal liberty lies the freedom to choose who we are, to love whom we
will and to live a life that is true to our most authentic selves, not only without the fear of
persecution but in full hearted joy and as equal citizens of this country. Freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is protected by the liberty
guaranteed under Art 21.

3) In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India3, it was held that –

“Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is protected by the liberty
guaranteed under article 21. And thus, choice of marital partner.”

4) This Hon. court has time and again held that an adult citizen has a right to make their
own choice as to whom to marry. The right to choose a marital partner under the article
21 of the Constitution of India extends with equal force to same sex couples.

5) Therefore, in denying the recognition to same sex couples by the HMA violates the Art
21 of the Constitution as the liberty to choose one’s marital partner is intrinsic to the right
to a dignified life, liberty and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

2
Writ Petition (Civil) 604 of 2013
3
AIR 2018, 7 SCC 192, No. 231 of 2010

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 13

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

C. Sec 4 of SMA violates Art 14:

1) The SMA was enacted in 1954 was enacted for the purpose of solemnization of
marriage outside the fold of personal laws. The SMA assumes that the parties to the
marriage are an opposite sex couple.
Section 4 of SMA mentions as:
Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages. ―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 the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: ―
(a) neither party has a spouse living;
(b) neither party―
(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind
(ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental
disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen
years;
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship: Provided that where a
custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such
marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of
prohibited relationship;
(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are
citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends].

[Explanation. ―In this section, “custom”, in relation to a person belonging to any tribe,
community, group or family, means any rule which the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf as applicable to members of that
tribe, community, group or family:

Provided that no such notification shall be issued in relation to the members of any tribe,
community, group or family, unless the State Government is satisfied—
(i) that such rule has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time
among those members;
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 14
 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023
(ii) that such rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy.
(iii) that such rule, if applicable only to a family, has not been discontinued by the
family.]
2) The usage of words male and female in the clause (c) of sec 4 of the SMA and also
schedule 1 of the SMA lays out the degree of prohibited relationships which again
assumes that the spouses are opposite sex couples.
3) Therefore, while seeking to legislate the solemnization of all marriages outside the sphere
of personal laws, the SMA violates the principles of equality before law in failing to
ensure that the option to solemnize the same sex marriage is a part of the scheme of the
act.
4) The law must remain cognizant of the fact that changes in society have ushered in
significant changes in family structure. The familial relationships must be protected by
law including queer relationships.
5) Unconventional families, which include same-sex couples, must be able to enjoy all legal
and societal benefits that their more traditional counterparts do. A typical and
unconventional manifestations of love and family by same-sex couples are equally
deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under
various legislations. The black letter of law must not be relied upon to disadvantage
couples and families who are different from traditional ones.
6) The petitioners are both above the age of 21 years, are not married to any other person
and are not within the degrees of prohibited relationships mentioned in schedule I of the
SMA. The petitioners satisfy all the requirement of being eligible to marry under the
SMA and are only being prevented from getting married to each other because they are
not opposite sex couples.
7) The exclusion of same sex couples from the ambit of SMA, 1954, violates Art 14.

D. Sec 4 of SMA violates Art 21:

1) The sexual orientation is an essential component of identity and dignity which are
embedded in right to life.
2) Sexual Autonomy and freedom to choose one’s partner is an intrinsic part of the sense of
selfhood of any human being. It is an intimate and fundamental life decision which can
determine a person’s self-worth and self-respect. The decision to marry or not to marry is
one of life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 15

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023
3) The liberty to choose one’s marital partner is intrinsic to the right to a dignified life,
liberty and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The dignity of an individual, the
equality between human beings, and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of
the Indian Constitution.
4) The Hon’ble Court in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. V. Union of India
and Ors4. has recognized that
“Autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern
to life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality. In the ability to make decisions
on matters close to one’s life. family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are
all integral to the dignity of the individual.”
5) The law protects and recognizes companionship through the institution of marriage.
Companionship provides the understanding and assurance of care for the other and is one
of the cornerstones of life.
6) The right to union, to choose a partner to love, not only by marriage but by
companionship in every sense, be it sexual, mental and emotional, even between same
sex can be interpreted as a right guaranteed under Art 21
7) The constitution recognizes the liberty and autonomy which are inherent in each
individual, including the ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s
personhood and identity.
8) Therefore, a statute which inhibits LGBTQIA+ persons from entering and nurturing
enduring relationships with a partner of their choice violates Art 21.

4
(2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 16

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

ISSUE II

Whether the right to marry and have a family is a universally recognized human rights all
human beings including LGBTQIA+, therefore can the same be claimed as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indy?
Article 16 of declaration of human rights clearly suggests that right to marry is universally recognized
human right, though marriage is regulated through statutory enactments its recognition as a
fundamental right has developed through judicial decision of India’s Supreme Court. Such declaration
of law is binding upon all courts by the virtue of Art 141 of the Indian Constitution.

1) In Lata Singh v. state of UP5 the Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was major, she
was entitled to marry whoever she wanted. The court expressly recognized the petitioner’s
right to choose a partner of her choice.
2) In 2014, in a suo moto cognizance this hon. court in no uncertain terms held that an inherent
aspect of Art 21 of the constitution would be the freedom of choice in marriage.
3) Thus, Art 21 which deals with the right to life and personal liberty, is an all-encompassing
provision which includes within its fold the inherent right to marry.
4) In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Ors6, the court opined that
“Privacy represents the core of human personality and recognizes the ability of each
individual to make choices and to take decisions governing matters intimate and personal”.
5) In the same case, it was also held that
“Privacy includes as its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctities of family
life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes, the right
to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes the ability of
individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life
are intrinsic to privacy”
6) Thus, the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Art 21 of the Indian
constitution. Intrinsic to the liberty which the constitution guarantees as a fundamental right
is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of
happiness.

5
Writ Petition (Crl.) 208 of 2004
6
(2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 17

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

ISSUE III

Whether denial of the right to adopt a child and right to get a child through surrogacy, to
the LGBTQIA+ couples is violative of gender justice and gender equality principle running
through the Constitution of Indy?

1) Under the JJ Act 2015 and the rules thereunder, in as much as unmarried couples and /or
couples in a live-in cannot adopt children as a couple.

2) Sec 57 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 mentions as:
In case of a couple, the consent of both the spouses for the adoption shall be required.

While providing the eligibility for prospective adoptive parents, states that in case of a couple the
consent of both the spouses for the adoption shall be required in the absence of marriage certificate
the legality of the petitioner’s marriage is not clear and hence they are rendered as single in eyes of
law.

3) Same sex couples also cannot have children through surrogacy as per Surrogacy (Regulation)
Act 2021 as per the Act it only allows married couples to have children through surrogacy in
as much under section 2(1)(h) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021. As per the Act the
word ‘Couple’ is defined as a legally married Indian Man and Women Above the age of 21
year and 18 years respectively.

4) In addition to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 same sex couples also cannot have
children by opting for ART in as much as 2(1)(e) of the ART Regulation 2021. As per the
ART 2021 Act it defines ‘commissioning couple’ as an infertile married couple who
approach an ART clinic or ART bank for obtaining the services authorized of the said clinic
or bank.

5) Both the JJ Act 2015 and Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 render the petitioner’s right by
constricting their options.

6) The ideas and objectives enshrined in our benevolent constitution can only be achieved when
each and every individual is empowered and enabled to participate in social main stream and
in journey towards achieving equality of opportunity in all walks of life, equal freedom and
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 18
 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023
rights and above all equitable justice. This can be achieved only by inclusion of all and
exclusion of none from the mainstream.

7) It is a vital personal right falling within a private protective sphere and realm of individual
choice and autonomy such a progressive proclivity is rooted in constitutional structure is in
extricable part of human nature.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 19

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

ISSUE IV

Whether the LGBTQIA+ couples have the right to get their union recognized as a marriage
under law by way of grant of certificate to that effect; and thereby entitled to enjoy all the
concomitant rights as enjoyed by the couples of opposite sexes?

1) Marriage is a profound relationship that is adorned with legal and social recognition, rewarded with
privileges and secured by obligation. The institution of marriage is a bundle of rights that named
couples enjoy. These rights range from rights around succession, maintenance, joint ownership of
assets and those around health decisions.
Also the institution of marriage protects family life and consequently protects the right to reside in
shares household irrespective of the ownership, the right to maintenance and alimony.
There is immediate need to legally recognize non-traditional manifestation of familiar relationships.
This legal recognition is necessary to enable individuals in non-traditional family structure to avail
the benefits of various beneficial legislations.

2) The right to company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations
with the partner.

3) During covid-19 pandemic the couple decided to avail health insurance for their family. The
petitioners were denied the same as they do not fall under the ambit of married couples/spouses. It
is so sad that the petitioners failed in securing the health insurance for their own as they lacked the
documents which could prove their union.
In these circumstances they were forced to give their marital status as single to get their health
secured.

4) In another situation of February 2022, the couple bought a house in the name of Nivira. On
purchasing car by Diya, she was asked to provide the proof of residence to RTA the house was not
in her name and she could not procure her proof of residence and ultimately drooped the idea of
purchasing the car.

5) The petitioners could not avail the benefit of spousal transfer due to non-presence of their marriage
certificate.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 20

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

6) LGBTQIA+ couples are no difference than the conventional married couples. They too have their
choices validate and get recognition in the eyes of law.
The marriage certificate in that case becomes a document of paramount importance. As it stands
today, the marriage certificate is granted under Sec 13 of SMA, which fails in recognizing the
marriage of the LGBTQIA+ community and therefore the petitioners.

LGBTQIA+ couples are denied the concomitant rights which are otherwise of opposite sexes. The
petitioners submit that this is injustice of highest degree that is meted out the LGBTQIA+
community at large.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 21

 OSMANIA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
JUSTITIA 2023

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Honorable Court that it may be pleased to:

1. TO RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE OF LGBTQIA+ COMMUNITY

AND MAKE THEM ENTILED TO ENJOY ALL CONCOMITANT
RIGHTS ENJOYED BY COUPLES OF OPPOSITE SEXES.

2. TO PROVIDE RIGHT TO ADOPT A CHILD AND PROVIDE RIGHT TO

GET A CHILD THROUGH SURROGACY TO LGBTQIA+ COUPLES.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interests of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray

S/d-

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 22