TEAM CODE: TC 20

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BIRISTAN

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BIRISTAN

RAMITANA SEN …petitioner

VS.

UNION OF INDIA …respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8. (A) WHETHER PIL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 9-11

(B) WHETHER SECTION 2 AND 3 OF THE ACT ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT? 12

(C) WHETHER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT IS

UNCONSTITUTUIONAL OR NOT? 13-17

(D) WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 18-21

9. PRAYER 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. & And
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. Anr. Another
4. Co. Company
5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
6. HC High Court
7. Hon’ble Honourable
8. ILR Indian Law Reporter
9. BPC Biristan Penal Code
10. Ltd. Limited
11. Ors. Others
12. PIL Public Interest Litigation
13. SC Supreme Court
14. r/w Read With
15. SCC Supreme Court Cases
16. Sec. Section
17. u/s Under Section
18. V / vs Versus
19. Vol. Volume
20. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. S.P.Gupta v. Union of India,1981 Supp. SCC 87

2. Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 568
3. Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (5) SCC 136
4. Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors., v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors, AIR 1999 SC 114
5. Ms Jorden Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra, AIR 1985 SC 935
6. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018)7 SCC 192
7. Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2522
8. Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531
9. John Vallamattom vs Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902
10. A.S. Narayanan vs State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1765
11. 7 Commissioner, H.R.E. vs L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1997 SC 2560
12. 8 Durgah Committee Ajmer vs Syed Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402
13. 9 N. Adityanath vs T.D. Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538
14. 10 AIR 2000 SC 2773
15. Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Administartion), AIR 1980 SC 763
16. C.f. Debi Soren v. State, AIR 1954 Pat 254 (Although the present case deals with hate
writing but the principle discussed in the case can be extrapolated to other
circumstances leading to similar consequences like hate speech).
17. See V. Venkatesan, A Test Case in Supreme Court, FRONTLINE, March 15-28,
2003, available at
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2006/stories/20030328002704100.htm (Last
visited on November 15, 2009)
18. Id.
19. 1952 AIR 196

BOOKS

1. Constitutional Law of India, Prof. Narender Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency, 8th
Edition.
2. Criminal Law, PSA Pillai’s, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

STATUTES REFERRED

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

LEGAL DATABASE

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.casemine.com
3. timesoindia.indiatimes.com
4. frontline.thehindu.com
5. legalservicesindia.com
6. shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
7. vakilsearch.com
8. www.livelaw.in
9. www.newsclick.in
10. www.lawyerservices.in
11. docs.manupatra.in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Biristan is a secular state with no state religion and home to world’s 4
major religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.
2. Faith of the Nine, a 300 yr old religion, practices endogamy. Thus, a
marriage solemnised btw a person belonging to Faith of the Nine and
some other religion was declared void. However, a person belonging to
this religion has the liberty to convert to some other religion but not to
convert back to it again.
3. Constitution of Biristan declares right to freedom of religion as a
fundamental right and state reform of religion has remained the core
principle.
4. In 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Miss SS Khara’s party won and enacted a
legislation – Reform of Marital Law Act, 2019.
5. Ramitana Sen, the leader of All India Protection of Minority Party (the
political wing of officially declared terrorist organisation – Minority
Tigers, which engages in activities like public assassination of Brahmin
priests, burning of hindu temples etc.), filed a PIL in SC to challenge the
constitutional validity of the same since it took away from its people, the
right to religion.
6. Ramitana Sen took to social media and posted her views. A few days
later, a group of people assembled in front of hindu temple in Zaheenabad
and murdered a priest in broad day light. Minority Tigers took no
responsibility of it, though it accepted its involvement in previous such
cases.
7. An FIR was registered against her u/s 153 A and B of the Biristan Penal
Code. She sought to quash the FIR by appealing to the HC, but was
rejected. Then, she appealed to the SC, contending that there wasn’t a
prima facies case against her.
8. The SC clubbed the appeal and PIL.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Biristan

1. Article 136

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?
The PIL filed by Ramitana Sen is not maintainable as the same has been filed by her with a
mala fide intention of creating unrest in the society by inciting two different classes of people
against each other by covering it under the veil of PIL. Her post on social media,
consequently, led to murder of priest in broad daylight; which was her actual motive.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER SECTION 2 AND 3 OF THE MARITAL REFORM ACT, 2018

ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

Thus, section 2 and 3 of the act are not unconstitutional as the application of section 494 of
the Biristan Penal Code has been done in the promotion of Directive Principles of State
Policy (Uniform Civil Code) as mentioned in the Constitution of Biristan, which has been a
very long standing demand ever since Biristan attained independence.

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER SECTION 4 OF THE MARITAL REFORM ACT, 2018 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

Section 4 of the act is not unconstitutional as the same is done in furtherance of the
promotion and abiding of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Uniform Civil Code) as
mentioned in the Constitution of Biristan, which has been a very long standing demand ever
since Biristan attained independence. The right to choose one’s life partner has also been
upheld as a fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, prohibiting
endogamy and application of the provision of Special Marriage Act 1954 to the people
belonging to ‘Faith of the Nine’ is justified.

ISSUE 4 : WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?
The appeal filed by Ramitana Sen to High Court under sec 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the
FIR against her is not maintainable as her post put on social media resulted in upheaval and
led to disharmony between two religious sects, resulting in the killing of priest in a temple in
Zaheenabad in broad day light, thus inviting charges against her under section 153 A and B
of the Biristan Penal Code.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?

The PIL filed by Ramitana Sen is not maintainable as the same has been filed by her with a
mala fide intention of creating unrest in the society by inciting two different classes of people
against each other by covering it under the veil of PIL. Her post on social media,
consequently, led to murder of priest in broad daylight; which was her actual motive.

In S.P.Gupta v. Union of India1, it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the
rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome
interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left
the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24) "But we must be careful to see that the
member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and
others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."

Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India2 in stronger
terms stated’’ If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any
interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country,
the door of the court will not be ajar for him."

In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope
of a petition styled as a public interest litigation, held as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1 1981 Supp. SCC 87

2 1981 (1) SCC 568

3 2005 (5) SCC 136

9
"5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the
petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this
court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about

(a) the credentials of the applicant;

(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;

(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved.

Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests;

(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching
the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail,
for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court
cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise
of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by
the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly
while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of
justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no
interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and Ors., v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors4., (AIR 1999 SC
114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of
so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely
are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the
said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being
annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case,
it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession.

_____________________________________________________________________

4 AIR 1999 SC 114

10
It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner
opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas
are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the
petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts
to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so
that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive
do not have the approval of the Courts.

11
ISSUE 2 : WHETHER SECTION 2 AND 3 OF THE ACT ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

The PIL filed by Ramitana Sen is not maintainable as the law entailed under the Reform of
Marital Act, 2019 only reiterates an already stated practice of monogamy among all the
people of Biristan in their respective religious orders. Thus, section 2 of the act stands
justified.

Section 3 of the act purports to cover all the people of Biristan under the ambit of section 494
of the Biristan Penal Code, irrespective of their religious or cultural identities; in furtherance
and promotion of the Uniform Civil Code.

Uniform Civil Code under article 44 says that : ‘’The State shall endeavour to secure for
the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India’’.

Though it would be difficult to bring the persons of different faiths and persuasions on a
common platform but, the Court held that ‘’a beginning has to be made if the Constitution
has to have any meaning’’5.

_____________________________________________________________

5 Ms Jorden Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra, AIR 1985 SC 935

12
ISSUE 3 : WHETHER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

Section 4 broadly entails two repercussions:-

(a) Application of Special Marriage Act 1954

(b) Withdrawing of endogamy
(a) Application of Special Marriage Act, 1954

The same cannot be termed as taking away from them their right to profess religion of
their choice since State reform of religion has remained the core principle on which
the State machinery works.

Persons belonging to the Faith of Nine religion possess immense economic clout and wealth
in Biristan and have known to use it to the detriment of the people who convert their way out
of the religion. Endogamy also takes away from the people practicing the Faith of Nine, the
right to choose a life partner of their own discretion which is a fundamental right guaranteed
to the people of Biristan under article 21 of the Constitution.

Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary when two adults agree to enter into
a wedlock. Rule of Law says that only formal institutions under law deal with such situations.
Khap panchayat or any panchayat of any nomenclature cannot create a dent in exercise of
human right, protected by rule of law. Rule of law as a concept is meant to have order in a
society. Elders of family or clan can never be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by some
notion of passion and eliminate life of young who have exercised their choice to get married
against wishes of their elders or contrary to customary practice of clan. Honour killing
guillotines individual liberty, freedom of choice and one’s own perception of choice. When
two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice
which is recognized under Arts. 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such a right has constitutional
sanction and thus needs protection and cannot succumb to class honour or group thinking
which has no legitimacy. Constitution and the laws of country do not countenance such an act
and, in fact, whole activity is illegal and punishable as offence under the criminal law6.

___________________________________________________________________________

6 Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018)7 SCC 192

13
The Supreme Court viewed the right to marry as a component of right to life under Art 21 of
Indian Constitution the court observed that:

“This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can
marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-
caste marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son
or daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot
harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste marriage”7.

Both the parents in the case were adults and so free to marry of their choice.’ There is no bar
to an inter-caste marriage under Hindu marriage Act or any other law’. Inter-caste marriages
are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste-system.

Some of the International Conventions to which India is also a State party are enumerated
hereunder in support of the above :-

Article 16 Universal Declaration of Human Right,1948

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women
in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a
basis of equality of men and women:

(a) The same right to enter into marriage;

(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free
and full consent;

___________________________________________________________________________

7 Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2522

14
(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; (d) The same
rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to
their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; (e) The same rights
to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have
access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights; (f)
The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, warship, trusteeship and
adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation;
in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount

(g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family
name, a profession and an occupation;

(h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management,
administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a
valuable consideration.

Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966:

(a) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.

(b) The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be
recognized.

(c) No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending
spouses.

(d) States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of
rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In
the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:

15
The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the
natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it
is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered
into with the free consent of the intending spouses.

The desirability of the Uniform Civil Code can hardly be doubted. But, it can concretize only
if social climate is properly built and the masses awakened top accept the change7.

(a) Withdrawing of endogamy

The law of Biristan had declared any marriage solemnised between an individual belonging
to the Faith of the Nine and a person belonging to any other religion to be void, and thereby
prohibited the individuals belonging to this religion from taking recourse to Special Marriage
Act 1954.

It is not rational on part of the petitioners to contend that the right to practice their religion
freely is being hindered by taking away from them endogamy.

Religious practices to which article 25 applies to refers, includes practices which are an
integral part of the religion itself9.

i.e., the beliefs and doctrines which are regarded by those who profess religion, to be
conducive to their spiritual well being10.

The integral or essential part of a religion is to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines
of that religion itself11. For muslims, calling Azan, performance of Hajj, are some of the
essential practices which are integral part of their religion.

___________________________________________________________________________

8 Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531

9 John Vallamattom vs Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902
10 A.S. Narayanan vs State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1765
11 7 Commissioner, H.R.E. vs L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1997 SC 2560

16
Article 25 protects those rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship, which
are considered by a religion, to be its integral and essential part. Therefore, practices, which
though religious, have sprung from merely superstitious beliefs, may in that case, be
extraneous and unnecessary accretions to the religious belief12.

The same shall be decided by the Court and the findings of the Court will depend upon the
evidence adduced before it as to the conscience of the community and tenets of the religion13.

For example, the SC in Church of Gospell (Full Gospel) in India vs K.K.R.M.C. Welfare
Association14 held that the use of loudspeakers for calling the Azan was not an integral part
of Muslim religion, and therefore, the barring of the use of loudspeaker did not offend the
right of the petitioner under article 25.

Thus, it is fit to reach to the conclusion that the PIL filed by Ramitana Sen is liable to be
quashed.

________________________________________________________________

12 Durgah Committee Ajmer vs Syed Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402

13 N. Adityanath vs T.D. Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538

14 AIR 2000 SC 2773

17
ISSUE 4 : WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY RAMITANA SEN IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?

The appeal filed by Ramitana Sen to High Court under sec 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the
FIR against her is not maintainable as her post put on social media resulted in upheaval and
disharmony between two religious sects, resulting in the killing of priest in a temple in
Zaheenabad in broad day light, thus inviting charges against her under section 153 A and B
of the Biristan Penal Code.

Section 153 A and B of the Biristan Penal Code reads as follows :-

153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of
birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony.—

(1) Whoever—

s(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or

otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or
is likely to disturb the public tranquillity,

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the
participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or
is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious,
racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with

18
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed
in place of worship, etc.—

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or
in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.

153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration.—

(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or

otherwise,—

(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of
their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or

(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by
reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste
or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India, or

(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any
class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is
likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members
and other persons, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1), in any place of worship or
in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.

In Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Administartion)15, the accused had published an article
in newspaper that militant minorities thrive on communalism and specifically referred to

___________________________________________________________________________
15 AIR 1980 SC 763

19
muslims as ‘violent community’, apart from other aspersions to the muslim community. The
author had also criticised the naming of roads in Delhi after Moghul Emperors, who were
lustful perverts, rapists and murderers. The SC after considering all the evidence, held that
the article, in guise of political thesis or historical truth, actually promoted feelings of enmity,
hatred and ill-will between hindus and muslims. Therefore, the Court held the conviction of
the accused by trial court for offence u/s 153 A to be proper.

When a matter is charged as being within the mischief of §153A, it must be looked upon as a
whole, and the class of people at whom the speech is directed and also the state of feelings
between the different classes or communities at the relevant time, must be taken into
account.16 On September 4, 2002, VHP President, Ashok Singhal made the following
statement:17

“People say that I praise Gujarat. Yes, I do. Gujarat has been a successful experiment.
Godhra happened on February 27 and the next day, 50 lakh Hindus were on the streets.
We were successful in our experiment of raising Hindu consciousness, which will be
repeated all over the country now.”

This speech was made in the immediate after math of the 2002 Godhra carnage, when it was
still a sensitive issue and people’s emotions were very volatile. It had the potential to create
another Godhra episode. By lauding the riots in Gujarat, which caused the death of thousands
of Muslims, he encouraged the further destruction of Muslim lives and property, thereby
blatantly violating § 153A.18

__________________________________________________________________________________________

16 C.f. Debi Soren v. State, AIR 1954 Pat 254 (Although the present case deals with hate writing but the principle
discussed in the case can be extrapolated to other circumstances leading to similar consequences like hate speech).

17 See V. Venkatesan, A Test Case in Supreme Court, FRONTLINE, March 15-28, 2003, available at
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2006/stories/20030328002704100.htm (Last visited on November 15, 2009)

18 Id.

20
In - 'State of Madras v. V. G. Bow19, his Lordship Patanjali Sastri, C. J. said:

It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or
general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of
the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions
imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the
disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into
the judicial verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of
what is reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social
philosophy and the scale of values of the judges participating in the decision should play an
important part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can
only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint and the sobering reflection
that the Constitution is meant not only for the people of their way of thinking but for all, and
that the majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in authorising the imposition
of the restrictions considered them to be reasonable.

___________________________________________________________________________
19 1952 AIR 196

21
 PRAYER

In light of the above stated facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
may the Hon’ble Court of Biristan be pleased to hold that :-

1. The PIL filed be quashed alongwith exemplary costs.

2. The constitutional validity of the Marital Reform Act, 2018 be upheld and brought in
force.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of CrPC be quashed and she be sentenced to
imprisonment as per the provisions of Biristan Penal Code.

And/Or

Pass an order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.

For this, the petitioner shall forever humbly pray

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

22