Moot Memorial For The Petitioner PDF 5

 100% (2) · 7K views · 28 pages
Moot Memorial For The Petitioner

Uploaded by Kaarkuzhali Ekambaram on Jul 22, 2021 AI-enhanced title
Author - Kaarkuzhali E - 3rd year B.A.LL.B Sabari -3rd year B.A.LL.B Pradeepa -3rd year B.A.LL.B From Chennai
,Dr.Ambedkar govt law clg pudhupakkam Full description
     
Save 100% 0% Embed Share Print
Download now 19 of 28  Search document 
th
5 IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2021
TC 125_P
th
5 IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2021
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ____2021
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA]
WRIT PETITION NO.____ 2021
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA]
IN THE MATTER OF :
VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCES AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY ---PETITIONER
VS
STATE OF UPPAM PRADESH ---RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
AD Download to read ad-free.
th
INDEX
S.N0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PG.NO
I ABBREVATIONS 03
II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04
1. CASES REFERRED 05
2. ONLINE SOURCES 06
3. BOOKS REFERRED 06
4. STATUTES REFERRED 06
III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 07
IV STATEMENT OF FACTS 08
V ISSUES INVOLVED 10
A. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH UNLAWFUL

CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2020 IS VALID?
B. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED

BEFORE THE HON‟BLE COURT U/A 136 IS MAINTAINABLE?
C. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH UNLAWFUL

CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2020 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
VI SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 11
VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13
VIII PRAYER 28
2
th
ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION
AIR All India Report
Art. Article
u/a Under Article
Hon‟ble Honourable
Ors. Others
S.No Serial Number
S/d Signed
SCC Supreme Court Case
SC Supreme Court
V. Versus
No. Number
& And
W.P. Writ Petition
HC High Court
UP Uppam Pradesh
SLP Special Leave Petition
BOP Burden Of Proof
FIR First Information Report
UOI Union Of India
3
th
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S.NO NAME OF THE CASES CITATION
1. DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1987 AIR 579
2. Krishnakumar Singh vs. State of Bihar 2017(2) SCJ 136
3. Nadeem vs. State of UP W.P.-16302 OF 2020
4. Simran Sagar vs. GNCT Delhi W.P.(Crl.)NO.2118/2020

HABEUS CORPUS NO-
5. Smt. Safiya sultana vs. State of Lucknow 16907 OF 2020
6. Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M. Case AIR 2018 SC 357
7. K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs. UOI AIR 2015 SC 3081
8. Nihal Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 26
9. Sadhu Singh vs. Pepsu AIR 1954 SC 271
10. Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC)
11. C.C.E vs. Standard Motor Products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298
12. Janshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees (2004) 3 SCC 214 (SC)
13. Sir Churila Mehta&Sons,Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning & AIR 1962 SC 1314
Manufacturing Co. Ltd
14. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR801
15. Kathi Ranning Rawat vs. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123
16. Achyut Adhicary vs. West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 1039
4
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
Start Free Trial
Cancel Anytime.

th
 Sec 9 states that the conversion has to be displayed publicly on the district magistrate
office. This public display of once conversion has the potential to make a private affair a
public ceremony. Moreover, there are chances being targeted by fringe elements who do
not even shy away from lynching or beheading people in the name of Religion
 Lucknow bench of Allahabad HC in the recent case of SMT.Safiya Sultana vs. State of
UP8 stating that laws should change with time and circumstances, made issue of public
notice under the special marriage act 19549 as directory. Thus, the court mandated that it
shall be optional for the parties to publish the notice. The provision for publishing notice
of marriage act was held to be intrusive of the rights of liberty and privacy. UP ordinance
has also a similar procedure, in fact a more advanced procedure.
 Sec 12 – wherein the burden of proof as to whether a religious conversion was not
effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by
marriage lies on the person who has caused the conversion and where such conversion
has been facilitated by any person, on such conversion.
 Traditionally, in due process of model of criminal law it is the prosecution who has to
prove the case and an „accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty‟. Now in
case of this ordinance the Bop is shifted on the accused against the established criminal
jurisprudence. Being cognizable and non-bailable and even relatives can file an FIR
thereby subjecting the converted person to unnecessary harassments.
[I.C] ORDINANCE VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
 It is contended that the ordinance impinges upon the fundamental right to choice and
right to change of faith guaranteed under article 21 and right to equality and equal
protection before law under art 14 of the constitution.
8
HABEAS CORPUS No. – 16907 of 2020
9
The Special Marriage Act, 1954(Act No. 43 of 1954).
16
Start Free Trial
Cancel Anytime.
th
10
 The SC in case of Shafin jahan v. Ashokan K.M.case held that, the right to marry a
person of one‟s choice is integral to art 21 of the constitution. This right cannot be taken
away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and
reasonable.
 Further, in case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India11 the Apex while
stated that the right to choose a life partner was a facet of right to privacy.
Conclusion: Hence, the counsel for the petitioner submits that, the laws were against public
policy and society at large. Therefore, the UP prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion
ordinance 2020, is morally and constitutionally invalid.
10
AIR 2018 SC 357
11
AIR 2015 SC 3081
17
th
II. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEOFRE THE HON‟BLE COURT
UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTANABLE?
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the present SLP filed by the
Petitioner is maintainable in the SC [hereinafter as SC] under Art 136 of the constitution
of Amphissa.
 If the SC does not intervene, it will result in gross injustice and that, miscarriage of
justice has already been occurred, by the judgement of District Magistrate who issued
12
non-bailable warrant against Daniel and his family with complete disregard of
fundamental right of protection against arrest and detention.
 Article 136 of the constitution elucidates that special leave to appeal by the SC -
This, SLP is maintainable as, firstly the appellant has „LOCUS STANDI‟ to approach the
Honourable SC. Secondly, the matter involves substantial question of law of general public
importance. Thirdly, grave injustice has been done.
[II.1] THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE SC
 It is humbly submitted before this Honourable court that the appellant has locus standi to
approach SC in the present case. Art-136 of the constitution is couched in the widest
phraseology.13
 This court jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. It is pertinent to note that the
scope of art 134providing appeals to the SC in criminal matters is limited whereas art
136Is very broad based and confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or
matter”. Therefore, criminal appeals may be brought to the SC under art 136 when these
14
are not covered by art 134.
12
Moot proposition para14
13
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC26
14
Sadhu singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954SC 271
18
th
[II.2] THE MATTER INVOLVES QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC

IMPORTANCE
 The jurisdiction conferred under art 136 on the SC is corrective one & not a restrictive
one and can be invoked when a question of law of general public importance arises, by
filing Special Leave Petition.
 A duty is enjoyed upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
judgements, it is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated &
failure by the SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
15
perpetuated.
 Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that
16
there is injustice. The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow
17
injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities.
 In the instant matter, the right to privacy and right to religion & right to protection against
arrest and detention is violated by the state which is a matter of general public importance
and therefore, calls for intervention by the SC.
[II.3] THE MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND GROSS

INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
 It is humbly submitted by the petitioner before this Hon‟ble Court that, the matter
involves substantial question of law as it concerns the violation of fundamental right of
privacy, right of liberty, right of dignity & right of protection against arrest and detention
of the people and gross injustice has been done which has hastily and arbitrarily declared
through the ordinance brought by uppam Pradesh as vaild.
15
Pawan kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, constitutional law of India
th
(4 Ed. Vol. I2010)
16
C.C.E. V. Standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298, see also H.M. Seervai, constitutional law of India
(4th E.d. Vol.II2010)
17
Janshed hormusji wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3SCC 214(SC)
19
th
[II.3.1]SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED.
 It is humbly submitted that the requirement to obtain prior permission to marry someone
from a different faith was unacceptable, and publicly displaying once conversion is
obnoxious that it makes a private affair a public ceremony. Moreover, making the offence
cognizable and non-bailable leads to unnecessary harasments. In the instant case, the
court has erred in deciding a very substantial question of law, related to right of life of the
people.
 Whether a matter involves question of law, depends on whether it is of general
importance as it directly and substantially affects the rights of parties, or it has already
18
been decided by the court. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of
19
each case whether a substantial question of law is involved in the case.
 It is submitted that, the present case involves a matter of general public importance as it
directly affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of people.
[II.3.2] GROSS INJUSICE HAS BEEN DONE
 The ordinance bought by the state and judgement of the District Magistrate is bad in the
eyes of law as it did not recognize the right to privacy & dignity of the people which is an
intrinsic part of right to life as fundamental right rather as a common law right. Grave
miscarriage of justice has occurred because of its serious and flagrant violation of law has
been committed by the state and Magistrate for which interference of the SC is required.
 The requirement of permission to marry a person of different religion and making the
private affair a public display and declaring the offence cognizable and non bailable
constitute grave violation of right of dignity, liberty and protection from arrest &
detention and right to privacy of people, and grave injustice done by the Magistrate by
denying bail to Daniel‟s family and arrest them without warrant as valid.
18
Sir Churilal Mehta and Sons, ltd v. Century spinning and manufacturing co. ltd, AIR 1962 SC 1314
19
Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995)214 ITR 801.
20
th
[II.3.3] FINDING OF FACTS MAY GIVE RISE TO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF

LAW.
 The SC is not preluded from going into the questions of facts under art 136, if it
considers it is necessary to do so.20 Art 136 uses the words „ in any cause or
matter‟. This gives widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter.21
 In the instant case, the ordinance reached the conclusion that right to get
converted , right to publishing the private affairs of a person, right to get marrying
to person of different faith cannot be held to be fundamental right as matter of
love jihad has been involved. Thus, from the above grounds, it is humbly
submitted that the petition is maintainable before the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa.
Conclusion : Hence the counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that the special petition filed
by the petitioner is maintainable and the counsel request the court to accept the SLP of the
petitioner.
20
Kathi Ranning Rawat V. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123, See also, Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal
AIR1963 SC 1039
21
Pritam singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169
21
th
III. WHETHER THE UP ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF

THE PEOPLE PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA?
[III.1] THE LAW BROUGHT BY THE GOVT. ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the Uppam Pradesh prohibition of
unlawful conversion ordinance 2020, enacted by the government of Lunnow are
unconstitutional as though the law was passed by the legislature of the state, they are in
violation of part III of the constitution of Amphissa, which guarantees the people certain
fundamental rights and therefore, they are void, being in contravention with Art.13(2) of
the constitution.
[III.1] THE ACT WAS BROUGHT BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
 It is most humbly submitted that the govt. of Lunnow which comes within the definition
22
of state under Art 12 formulated a ordinance named Uppam Pradesh prohibition of
23
unlawful conversion of religion which later converted into a legislative enactment.
 It is humbly submitted that the term ‘law’ includes any ordinances, order, bye-laws, rule,
regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India, the force of
law.24 Therefore, it is clear that not only law made by legislature but also an order or
notification or ordinance which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred
by part III of the constitution would be void.25 In this particular case, at first instance, the
govt. formed a ordinance later it was enacted as statute to be known as “The Uppam
Pradesh prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion act 2020”26. Hence, the law
clearly falls within the ambit of art 13(3)(a) of the constitution.
22
Art 12, The Constitution of India, 1950.
23
Moot proposition, para 7
24
Art. 13(3)(a), The Constitution of India, 1950.
25
Union of India V. Col. L.S.N. Murthy, (2012) 1 SCC 718
26
Moot proposition para 7
22
th
[III.2] THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the Right to privacy has been
recognized as a „basic inalienable right of an individual‟ and Uppam Pradesh
prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion act 2020 brought by the respondent is
in violation of art 14, 19, 21 and 25 of the constitution of India.
 Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by
them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, the state has clearly
derogated from its obligation to protect and safeguard the citizens of this country.
 The main objective of art 13 is to secure the paramountacy of the constitution
27
especially with regards to fundamental rights. The state is prohibited from making
any law which takes away or abridges rights conferred by part III of the
28
constitution. If the state makes such a law then, it would be „still born law‟ and void
29
to the extent of such contravention.
 Though post-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void from
their very inception yet a declaration by the court of their validity will be necessary.30
Therefore, the up ordinance 2020, enacted by the govt. is void, and a declaration of
the same by the SC is necessary.
[III.2.1] VIOLATION OF FUNDMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE PEOPLE
 Right to privacy has been held to be constitutionally protected fundamental right.31

Right to privacy is vested within right to life and personal liberty under Art 21 of the
constitution.32
27
Renu V. District and Session Judge,Tis Hazari, AIR 2014 SC 2175
28
Art. 13(2), The Constitution of India, 1950
29
Deep Chand V. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648.
30
Md.Ishaq v. State, AIR 1961 AII 532.
31
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 SCC 148
32
Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295
23
th
 A citizen under this right has the right to protect and safeguard the liberty of his own,
his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among the
33
matters.
 Art 21 protects the dignity of human life, one‟s personal autonomy, one‟s right to
privacy, etc. Right to dignity has been recognized to be an essential part of the right to
life. Here, in the present case, publishing one‟s private information ( i.e )conversion of
religion is very intimate and integral to one‟s personality and hence making it
mandatory to provide basic and intimate information is unconstitutional and violative
of fundamental right to privacy.
 The Hon‟ble court in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy vs. Union of India34 case on the right
to privacy, which said; “ the autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decision
on vital matters of concern to life”.
[III.2.2] GROUNDS
 The Uppam Pradesh ordinance violates the constitutional guarantee of equality

because making religious conversions the sole ground for terming the marriage as
void or for imposing the onerous requirements that parties in an inter-faith marriage
have to comply with – such as giving prior notice of declaration – is discrimination on
the ground of religion.
 Our Equality guarantees in the constitution demand that all persons have equal
protection of the law under art 14. This goes together with the guarantee of non-
discrimination u/a 15 which mandates that the state shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Imposing such restrictions on marriage only on the ground of religion amounts to
discrimination and a violation of the fundamental right to equality.
33
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1964) 1 SCR 332.
34
AIR 2015 SC 3081.
24
th
35
 The SC in the case of Shafin Jahan V. Ashokan K.M. case held that ; the right to marry a
person of one‟s choice is integral to Art 21 of the constitution. The constitution
guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which
is substantively and procedural fair, just and reasonable. 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.
 Allahabad HC judgement in Salamat Ansari V. state of UP36 case wherein the court
stated that : If the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together
peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even state can have objection to
relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.
Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of
his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would
constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes
right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined
in Art 21 of constitution of Amphissa.
 In the Lucknow bench of Allahabad HC in the recent case of Smt. Safiya Sultana v. State
37
of UP stating that laws should change with time and circumstances made issue of public
notice under the special marriage act, 1954 as directory. Thus, the court mandated that it
shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to
marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice and follow the procedure of
objections. Thus, the provision of publishing notice marriage under the special marriage
act, 1954 was held to be intrusive of rights of liberty and privacy. The UP ordinance has
also a similar procedure.
35
AIR 2018 SC 357
36
W.P. No. 11367 Of 2020
37
HABEUS CORPUS No. – 16907 of 2020
25
th
 In Karnataka HC judgement on 27 November 2020, the court recognized the

fundamental right of an individual who has attained majority to marry a person their
choice. Personal relationships between people cannot be limited or encroached upon due
38
to caste or religion
39
 Recently, the Calcutta HC in Palash Sarkar V. The State of West Bengal noted that an
individual who has attained majority has the right to marry a person of their own choice
and convert to another religion.
 In Hadiya case,40 the SC had recognized the Right to convert as intrinsic to liberty : “ the
constitution guarantees individuals to take decisions on matters central to their pursuit of
happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of
constitutional liberty”. The current ordinance violates that freedom to discover one‟s
faith.
 The notice under Sec 8 requires those intending to convert to provide such intrusive
details as names of parents, address, occupation, monthly income, marital status, caste
and even the names of their dependents. The intended date of conversion, place of
conversion and name and address of the priest conducting the conversion must also
notice can be used to indulge in violence and threaten the person intending to convert.
 The Himachal Pradesh HC had warned against similar potential violence : “ a person‟s
belief or religion is something very personal to him. The state has no right to ask a person
to disclose what is his personal belief.41
 In case of a person changing his religion and notice being issued to the so called
prejudicially affected parties, chances of the convertee being subjected to physical and
psychological torture cannot be ruled out.
38
Mr. Wajeed Khan H B v. The Commisioner of Police , W.P.H.C.NO.92 OF 2020
39
W.P. 9404 (W) 2006
40
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017
41
Evangelical fellowship of India v. State of H.P CWP NO. 438 OF 2011
26
Start Free Trial
Cancel Anytime.
th
 The intrusive notice requirement can become a tool for violence against any person hoping to
change their faith. The right to privacy and right to choose one’s faith would be at risk of being
violated.
 The right to choice has been recognized as an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity
under the constitution. The SC has, in a vast range of cases held that the right to choose
one‟s life partner is a fundamental right of two consenting adults.
 The right of an individual to live with a person of their choice irrespective of religion
professed by them, is also intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty.
42
 In Lata singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ,apex court made clear that marrying a person
of one‟s choice cannot be counted as an offence.
 Turning its back to the constitution, the ordinance makes assertion of choice effectively
impossible.
 The true danger with this new so-called “love jihad” law lies not in its explicit textual
basis, which seems fairly innocuous prime facie. Instead , its threat lies in its ambiguity.
The prohibition of unlawful religious conversion, ordinance 2020 carries the potential to
be misused in an unconstitutional form.
 Therefore, the state cannot shy away from its responsibility to safeguard and protect the
life and liberty of each of its citizens. Thus, it is for the state functionaries to evolve
methods and strategies to safeguard every citizen‟s right as guaranteed under Art 14 &15.
 It is duty and responsibility of the state to safeguard and protect each individual from any
infringement on their fundamental right guaranteed under Art 25 of the constitution.
 Each such act of infringement that is in violation of Art 25 of a person illustrates the
failure of the state to safeguard the right guaranteed under the said article.
Conclusion : Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for directions to protect and safeguard
fundamental rights under article 14,15,21,25 of the constitution. Since the petitioner has no
alternate efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble court under Article 32 of the
constitution of Amphissa for the reliefs prayed for herein.
42
Writ Petition (Crl.) 208of 2004
27
th
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Where in light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed that this
Hon‟ble SC may be pleased to hold that:
1. The Uppam Pradesh prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion Act, 2020 is

unconstitutional and not valid.
2. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable.
3. Issue a direction to restore the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
And pass any other Order, Di rection, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best I nterests of
Justice, F airness, E quity and Good Conscience.
F or This Act of K indness, the petitioner shall F orever pray.
S/d.
(Counsel for the petitioner)
28
Share this document

    
You might also like
Document 26 pages
Padma Shri Dr. N.N. Jain National Virtual Moot Court Competition 2021
Shaurya Perlekar
No ratings yet
Document 43 pages
Petitioner Memorial (LLDC - 019)

Rohan Verma
No ratings yet
Document 71 pages
N HE On'Ble: EAM ODE

Rohan Verma
No ratings yet
Magazines Podcasts Sheet music
Document 18 pages
Petitioner Covid-19 Moot

Barsha Paul
No ratings yet
Document 20 pages
Asgar Khan Advocate National Online Moot Court Competition-2020

Kanooni Salah
0% (1)
Document 30 pages
Team Code: NLC 137: Shivam Saraf 1 Virtual Moot Court Competition 2020 Nlc137
SPECIAL MOOT
No ratings yet
Document 30 pages
Memorial - TC 10 - Petitioner (6011)

Nithi Sps
100% (2)
Document 26 pages
Moot Court Competition 2021: Padma Shri Dr. N.N. Jain National Virtual
Shaurya Perlekar
No ratings yet
Document 21 pages
STAMMLER Respondent's Memorial PDF

Abhijat Singh
No ratings yet
Document 24 pages
TC - 041 - Respondent Memorial

The Legal Lens
No ratings yet
Document 21 pages
(Final) T-31 MEMORIAL PETITIONER - 1 PDF

Siddu Halashetti
No ratings yet
Document 30 pages
Upon Submission To The Hon'Ble Chief Justice of Republic of Amphissa and His
Companion Justices of Supreme Court of Republic of Amphissa
Nikita Dubey
No ratings yet
Show more
About Support Legal Social Get our free

apps
About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms Instagram
Everand: Ebooks & Accessibility Privacy Twitter

Audiobooks
Purchase help Copyright Facebook
SlideShare
AdChoices Cookie Pinterest
Press Preferences
Join our team! Do not sell or

share my personal
Contact us
information
Invite friends
Scribd for
enterprise
Documents
Language: English 
This document is...
Copyright © 2024 Scribd Inc.
 Useful  Not useful

Moot Memorial For The Petitioner PDF 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial For The Petitioner PDF 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial For The Petitioner PDF 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 100% (2) · 7K views · 28 pages

Moot Memorial For The Petitioner

Download now 19 of 28  Search document 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ____2021

[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA]

WRIT PETITION NO.____ 2021

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA]

VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCES AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY ---PETITIONER

STATE OF UPPAM PRADESH ---RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

AD Download to read ad-free.

S.N0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PG.NO

III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 07

A. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH UNLAWFUL

B. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED

C. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH UNLAWFUL

VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13

AD Download to read ad-free.

AIR All India Report

u/a Under Article

S.No Serial Number

SCC Supreme Court Case

W.P. Writ Petition

SLP Special Leave Petition

BOP Burden Of Proof

FIR First Information Report

UOI Union Of India

AD Download to read ad-free.

S.NO NAME OF THE CASES CITATION

1. DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1987 AIR 579

2. Krishnakumar Singh vs. State of Bihar 2017(2) SCJ 136

3. Nadeem vs. State of UP W.P.-16302 OF 2020

4. Simran Sagar vs. GNCT Delhi W.P.(Crl.)NO.2118/2020

6. Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M. Case AIR 2018 SC 357

7. K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs. UOI AIR 2015 SC 3081

8. Nihal Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 26

9. Sadhu Singh vs. Pepsu AIR 1954 SC 271

14. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR801

16. Achyut Adhicary vs. West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 1039

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Start Free Trial

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

AD Download to read ad-free.

[I.C] ORDINANCE VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Trusted by over 1 million members

Start Free Trial

AD Download to read ad-free.