TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………….
2. TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………….
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………..
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………
5. ISSUE RAISED……………………………………………………………...
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………..
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
a) The Public Interest Litigation filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Aryavart is not maintainable……………………………………………………
b) The implementation of Uniform Civil Code is violative of the
Fundamental Rights and other Personal Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Aryavart ………………………………………………..
c) The Supreme Court of Aryavart cannot take suo moto cognizance which are not
provided for in the Petition and cannot exercise its plenary jurisdiction to make
laws…………………………………………………………………………..
d) The Supreme Court has no power to modify the laws of the Country as this
exceeds the power of the Supreme Court of Aryavart
8. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………….

1|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

ANR Another
& And
Hon’ble Honorable
In Re In the matter of
LGBTQIA+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual and
Others
NGO Non - Government Organization
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOA Union of Aryavart
UCC Uniform Civil Code
V/S Versus
WP Writ Petition

2|Page
TABLE OF CASES

1. The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305

2. Afsana vs. State Of U P And 3 Others February 5, 2021

3|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aryavart is a Sovereign Country in the Continent of Asiana consisting of 28 States and 8 Union
Territories and is by and large a conservative country. The Population of Aryavart is around 140 Crores
where Hinduism is the major religion and consists nearby 70% of the population who practice the religion
of Hinduism, 20% practice Islam and the remaining 10% practice other religions. The State of Kankan
which was a Portuguese colony is the only state in the country of Aryavart which has successfully
implemented Uniform Civil Code in Aryavart.
2. Mrinal, who is a Hindu trans-man is in a relationship with Akram, who is a Muslim trans-woman.
They both are the residents of Avanti State which does not have a Unifom Cvil Code. They both have
been in a relationship since 2010 at a time when same-sex relationships were considered a taboo and
unacceptable by the society. They were unable to openly proclaim their relationship because of the social
set up of the Country & the State.
3. The couple waited for a very long time to disclose their relationship in Public. In the year 2018, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Aryavart decriminalized homosexuality, which had infused a sense of
confidence among the LGBTQIA+ community in the Country. For a very long time the Couple was
facing harassment by the authorities though the harassment had stopped due to decriminalization of
homosexuality by the Hon'ble Supreme Court yet the homosexual couple still faced discrimination and
stigma in the society. They were treated poorly and in an unjust manner by the Society which was very
humiliating for the Couple as they had to hear all kinds of things which were hurting their dignity. There
was a constant fear among the Couple as to their security as people had many misconceptions about the
genders as the Society had been living long with the understanding that only two genders existed that of a
male and a female.
4. The couple then decided to open up regarding their relationship and decided to get married according to
their social customs and norms even though they belonged to the LGBTQIA+. Their wedding was
attended by their near and dear ones and was solemnized accourding to the customs and traditions
followed by both the religions.
5. Though, friends and family supported their marriage, they were unable to get their marriage officially
registered as the authorities rejected the registration of marriage on the ground that neither of them fell
under the definition of 'bride' and 'groom and moreover they belong to two different religions.
6. In the meantime, Mrinal and Akram (hereinafter called as the “Petitioners”) got pregnant and Mrinal gave
birth to a healthy baby boy. The problem got more complicated as the Petitioners were unable to register
the birth of their baby and get birth certificate issued for their son as the same required name of the father
and mother and in their case though Mrinal gave birth to the child, Mrinal was to be identified as a male

4|Page
 and therefore to be called the father. Moreover, since their marriage itself could not be registered, they
were unable to get birth certificate for their child. Their application for registration of marriage and
registration of the birth of their son was rejected by the authorities in the State of Avanti. The Couple was
facing unjust and unfairness against them as they were not considered ‘normal’ like other people because
of lack of a Uniform Civil Code to govern the personal laws, they were stuck in a limbo.
7. The Couple then decided to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Aryavart vide filing a PIL with plea
of issuance of birth certificate to their child and recognition of their marriage and consequently sought to
implement a Uniform Civil Code which recognizes both same sex marriage and inter religious marriage
and grants equal rights to all irrespective of sex and religion.
8. Meanwhile, an NGO-Samridhi working for the welfare of Muslim women has been fighting to implement
Unifom Civil Code across the Country. In order to provide access to justice and legal rights, the NGO had
filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to implement Uniform Civil Code throughout the Country of
ARYAVART before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was pending consideration by the Hon'ble
Suprenme Court and the main ground taken by the NGO was that the Muslim women are treated poorly
and they do not have legal weapons to claim maintenance, or file such claims before the Courts. Their
rights which are enjoyed by women of other community are being curtailed by their personal laws.
Hence, the NGO wants the inmplementation of Uniform Civil Code across the country of Aryavart
wherein women irrespective of religion will have equal rights.
9. The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board is opposing Implementation of Uniform Civil Code as they
claim that it infringes their personal right and the same is in violation of the rights granted under the
Constitution. Hence, the All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board has filed Impleading Petition in both the
Public Interest Litigations filed by the NGO and the Trans-couple along with violation of secular structure
of the Aryavart.
10. The Government of Aryavart whose ideology is based out of the majoritarian religion supported to
impose Uniform Civil Code and has also made it as their election agenda. However, the Government is
opposing a Uniform Code which recognizes LGBTQIA+ community stating that such marriages are not
recognized in any religions. The Government of Aryavart is opposing the PIL filed by the Trans-couple
on the ground of maintainability as they have an alternative remedy.
11. The Trans-Couple are opposing the Impleading Petition filed by All Indus Muslim Personal Law Board as
they find them not to be a necessary party to the proceedings. These cases have garnered huge media
attention and have become topic of debate. Public opinion is being sought by various media networks and
there are different views and opinions supporting and opposing both the sides.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART INVOLVING THE WRIT JURISDICTION
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.

6|Page
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

OR NOT AND IS IT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN A
COUNTRY LIKE ARYAVART?
2. WHETHER UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE'S' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND OTHER
PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUT1ON OF ARYAVART
AND IS IT THE STATES'S INTERFERENCE IN THE REALM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS
OF THE SUBJECTS?
3. CAN THE SUPREME COURT TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE OF PERSONAL LAWS
WHICH ARE NOT PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION AND EXERCISE ITS PLENARY
JURISDICTION TO MODIFY SUCH LAWS?
4. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS HAS LED
TO THE SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE EXECUTIVE WING
OF THE JUDICIARY?

7|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART.

a) Any aggrieved person can approach the Supreme Court of India under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental
rights.
b) The facts show that the trans-couple has been denied by the Authorities of
the State registration for their marriage on the grounds that they are not
termed as ‘Bride’ and ‘Groom’ in their personal laws and were also denied
registration of birth of their son mentioning that they are not termed as
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ as they have not registered their marriage with the
Authorities of the State. For the same reason, the trans-couple decided to
file PIL before this Court. The PIL shall not be maintainable as the issued
involved in this case is of personal matter and not public matter and it does
not harm the public in large. The PIL can only be filed when public
interest at large is affected and in this case no such harm to public is done.
c) One can also refer to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court itself.

2. IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE UCC. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC

IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE'S' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS
GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUT1ON OF ARYAVART
A Uniform Civil Code is a code that consolidates all laws applicable to all
the sections of the society irrespective of their religion and they shall be
treated equally according to a National Civil Code, which shall be
applicable to all uniformly. It covers areas like- Marriage, divorce,
maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession of the property. The
Country of Aryavart is a diverse country where, the population of the
citizens have people from different religions and have different customs,
caste, creed and languages therefore the consequence of which is they have
their own different personal laws for their religion. The implementation of
the UCC will though provide uniformity on the laws of marriage,
succession, divorce or maintenance but the enactment of the Code can lead

8|Page
 to ignorance of the customs, practices which are followed by the people
since decades. The UCC fails to recognize the sentiments of the Citizens of
Aryavart.

3. THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE OF

PERSONAL LAWS WHICH ARE NOT PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION AND CAN NOT
EXERCISE ITS PLENARY JURISDICTION TO MODIFY SUCH LAWS.
The word ‘suo motu’ means, “on its own”. The Supreme Court of
Aryavart has the power to suo motu take cognizance of the cases which are
not prayed for in the Petition. But in the cases where, if suo motu
cognizance is not taken which would affect the public or create barriers in
smooth functioning of the Courts. Here in this case, no damage or unjust is
suffered by any public. The Supreme Court cannot take cognizance where
personal interest is involved.

4. THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO MODIFY ANY LAWS

The three pillars of the Constitution are Parliament, Executive and

Judiciary. This is also called the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The
main functions of the three pillars are respectively as follows: to make or
enact laws, to execute the laws and to provide justice. None among the
three pillars can function in excess to their jurisdiction. If Parliament,
Executive or Judiciary function in excess to the powers provided to them
then it may create an imbalance and hamper the basic structure of the
Constitution, this when Doctrine of Plenary Powers can be enforced and
direct the Parliament or Executive or Judiciary to not exercise their powers
in excess to their jurisdiction. There the Supreme Court cannot modify or
enact the laws as their main function is to provide justice. The Parliament
has the right to enact the laws.

9|Page
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART.

ARTICLE 32 OF THE ARYAVART CONSTITUTION: WRIT JURISDICTION OF

SUPREME COURT-

If the fundamental rights of any citizen were violated by any other than, the person whose
fundamental rights were violated can file a petition directly to the Supreme Court to invoke the
writ jurisdiction of the Apex Court of Aryavart.

The Fundamental Rights in the Part III (Article 12 – 35) of the Constitution of Aryavart have
been granted to only those who are Citizens of Aryavart.

Any person can file a PIL with the Supreme Court for the betterment of the public. The matters
of PIL could include the breach of Fundamental Rights. In this case, mere rejection of non –
registration of the marriage and non - issuance of birth certificate cannot amount to breach of
Fundamental Rights the State Authorities have the strong ground that the trans – couple do not
fit under the category of ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ as per their own personal laws. The State
Authorities are merely discharging their functions in accordance of the law. Hence, no question
is raised about public harm. The PIL is filed BY the Petitioners on the ground of personal
interest and not for public good. The maintenance of this PIL and adjudging would waste the
precious time of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore the court is requested to quash the PIL.

The Supreme Court of Aryavart has issued the guidelines for filing of the PIL before this Court
and the case of the Petitioners do not fall under this list as provided by the Supreme Court:

No petition involving individual/ personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as
indicated hereinafter.

Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as
Public Interest Litigation:-

1. Bonded Labour matters.

10 | P a g e
2. Neglected Children.

3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and

complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).

4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-mature release) and seeking release
after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer, release on personal bond, speedy
trial as a fundamental right.

(5) Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in
police custody.

(6) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, brideburning, rape,
murder, kidnapping etc.

(7) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or by police from
persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward
classes.

(8) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs,

food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other
matters of public importance.

(9) Petitions from riot -victims.

(10) Family Pension.

The Supreme Court and High Courts in many cases have fined the parties for misuse of PIL in
personal gains; this is one such case of personal gain.

It is apt to refer to the case of The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305 wherein the
Apex Court considered the scope of 'Public Interest Litigation' wherein the Court elucidated the
concept of public interest and observed thus:

"The expression litigation means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a
Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the
expression PIL means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public

11 | P a g e
interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

The Court gave a warning against misuse of PIL for personal gains & held thus:

"While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their
command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has
also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its
process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious
intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other
oblique consideration."

"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the
tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a
person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating
any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".

It is worth mentioning that one such PIL has recently attracted the ire of the High Court. While
dismissing the said PIL, the Court had imposed hefty costs of Rs. 50000/- for abuse of the
process of law and for wastage of the precious time of the Court.

The High Court in PIL No. 255 of 2021 in the case of Afsana vs. State Of U P And 3 Others
decided recently on February 5, 2021 has held that the said Petition is not a genuine PIL but a
Petition for personal gains in the garb of PIL. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the PIL &
imposed exemplary costs. While dismissing the PIL, the Court held thus:

"This aspect further establishes the fact that the petitioner is personally interested in seeking
allotment of fair price shop. Thus, the present petition cannot be held to be a genuine public
interest litigation and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. We do so, petition stands
dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).

Hence, it can be observed that the case of the Petitioners is not included in the list, Therefore,
PIL is not maintainable in this case as it involves personal interest. This Hon’ble Court is

12 | P a g e
requested to penalize the Petitioners with a hefty fine as the PIL is filed for personal interest
and it has wasted precious time of the Supreme Court of Aryavart.

The Alternative Remedy which the Petitioners have instead of filing of PIL is they can follow
the due procedure of law prescribed under the Section 8 of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

In this case, the State Authorities of Avanti have rejected the registration of marriage of the
trans - couple as they contended that the couple does not fall in the definitions of ‘husband’ and
‘wife’ in their own personal laws and consequently they were denied birth certificate for their
baby as their marriage was not registered.

Sub – section 2 of Section 8 of the Special Marriage Act, prescribes the following:

If the Marriage Officer upholds the objection and refuses to solemnize the marriage, either
party to the intended marriage may, within a period of thirty days from the date of such refusal,
prefer an appeal to the district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Marriage
Officer has his office, and the decision of the district court on such appeal shall be final, and the
Marriage Officer shall act in conformity with the decision of the court.

The trans – couple instead of filing PIL could file an appeal with district court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the Marriage Officer has his office.

2. UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE'S' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND OTHER PERSONAL

RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUT1ON OF ARYAVART.

A Uniform Civil Code is a code that consolidates all laws applicable to all the sections of the
society irrespective of their religion and they shall be treated equally according to a National
Civil Code, which shall be applicable to all uniformly. It covers areas like- Marriage, divorce,
maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession of the property.

The Country of Aryavart is a diverse country where, the populations of the citizens has people
from different religions and have different customs, caste, creed and languages therefore the
consequence of which is they have their own different personal laws for their religion. The
implementation of the UCC will though provide uniformity on the laws of marriage,

13 | P a g e
succession, divorce or maintenance but the enactment of the Code can lead to ignorance of the
customs, practices which are followed by the people since decades. The UCC fails to recognize
the sentiments of the Citizens of Aryavart.

Aryavart has a long history of personal laws based on religious beliefs and customs. These
personal laws govern various aspects of individuals' lives, including marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and adoption, among others. Hindu personal laws were codified in the 1950s, while
other religious communities continue to follow their respective personal laws.

Disadvantages of UCC Implementation

Threat to Minority Rights: It is argued that it could undermine the rights of religious
minorities, as it might seek to impose a uniform set of laws on diverse religious communities.
Ayravart's cultural and religious diversity is a fundamental aspect of its identity, and some
argue that a UCC could erode this diversity and infringe upon the rights of minority
communities to practice their faith and follow their customs.

Cultural Sensitivity and Identity: Aryavart's social fabric is woven with diverse cultural
practices and traditions, which are often deeply intertwined with religion. Implementing a UCC
could be seen as a threat to cultural sensitivity and individual identity, as it might require
individuals to conform to a uniform legal framework that may not align with their cultural
practices and beliefs.

Implementation Challenges: Implementing a UCC in Aryavart would present significant

challenges due to the country's vast population and diversity. Resistance from religious and
political groups, lack of consensus on key issues, and potential logistical hurdles would make
the implementation process complex and time-consuming.

Potential for Social Unrest: Given the deep-rooted religious and cultural sensitivities in
Aryavart, the introduction of a UCC could potentially trigger social unrest and conflicts.

14 | P a g e
Opponents argue that attempts to impose a uniform set of laws could be perceived as an
encroachment on religious freedom and lead to polarization and communal tensions.

The implementation of UCC can be violative of the personal rights of the Citizens of Aryavart
as the UCC provides a set of uniform rules and every religion has their own custom, beliefs and
practices, it will only hurt the sentiments of the Citizens. The people will oppose such a change
and will not accept the UCC for a long time. This can lead to unrest and disturbance of peace in
the Country.

We live in a society where still huge importance is given to the customs and beliefs that have
been followed by the people since decades, Sentiments are connected with rituals and religious
practices where marriage is still considered pure and each tradition followed is considered as
god’s blessings to the couple and family. Uniformity can be a boon to the courts to try the cases
of personal laws, but the people of Aryavart will not accept such a change.

3. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE OF PERSONAL

LAWS WHICH ARE NOT PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION AND CANNOT EXERCISE
ITS PLENARY JURISDICTION TO MODIFY SUCH LAWS.

The word ‘suo motu’ means, “on its own”. The Supreme Court of Aryavart has the power to
suo motu take cognizance of the cases which are not prayed for in the Petition.

Suo moto discernment is an intrinsic power of the courts to start judicial procedures without
being appealed to by a bothered party. It gives the legal executive the position to engage in
issues of public interest, guaranteeing that essential freedoms and law and order are maintained.
The idea of suo moto discernment arose in the last part of the 1970s as a type of legal activism,
pointed toward making the equity framework more open to underestimated segments of society.

The Supreme Court practices suo moto insight under Article 32 of the Constitution, while the
High Courts practice this power under Article 226. With the assistance of this power, the courts
can give mandates, requests, or writs to uphold major privileges in any event, when neither a
proper appeal nor a public interest litigation (PIL) being recorded.

15 | P a g e
The Role of Supreme Court on when to take Suo Motu Cases:

At the point when the legal executive effectively takes part in deciphering and maintaining the
law to protect the privileges and interests of individuals, this is alluded to as legal activism. Suo
moto insight is a strong instrument that the legal executive has used to address social, financial,
and political difficulties. Judiciary has been at the very front of legal activism. Through suo
moto activities, the courts have frequently stepped in to fill holes in regulation and consider the
leader and administrative branches responsible.

Public Interest Litigation and Suo Moto Cognizance

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plays had a huge impact in growing the extent of legal activism.
PIL permits people or associations to document petitions for the public interest, regardless of
whether they are not straightforwardly impacted by the main thing. Suo moto cognizance is
firmly connected to PIL, as the courts can take up cases all alone when they see an infringement
of public interest or a danger to principal privileges. This blend of PIL and suo moto actions has
been instrumental in resolving major problems and guaranteeing equity for minimized segments
of society.

Courts can take suo moto cognizance in different circumstances, guaranteeing the assurance of
equity and the interests of general society. A portion of the cases where the courts practice this
power include:

Contempt of Court

One critical region where suo moto cognizance is taken is for contempt of court. Contempt of
court alludes to acts that hinder the conveyance of equity or challenge the pride of the court. If
the court becomes mindful of any such activities, it can start suo moto procedures against the
people liable for scornful way of behaving.

Resuming of Old Cases

At the point when new and significant proof becomes known in a shut case, the courts can
utilize suo moto cognizance to resume the matter. This allows for a fresh examination of the

16 | P a g e
evidence and the possibility of rectifying any miscarriage of justice.

Ordering Probes for New Cases

If the court becomes aware of injustice being done to individuals or a section of society, it can
take suo moto cognizance and direct relevant agencies or authorities to conduct investigations
and take necessary actions. This ensures that the rights of the affected individuals are protected,
and justice is served.

In this case there is no infringement of public interest or a danger to principal privileges,

therefore there is no question of suo motu cognizance of this case by the Supreme Court. The
Petitioners are requested to follow the due procedure of law given to them by the laws of the
land and not waste the precious time of this Court as while Suo moto cognizance has been
generally viewed as a positive improvement in the overall set of laws, it has likewise confronted
analysis and difficulties. Some contend that the expansive powers of Suo moto cognizance can
prompt legal excess or obstruction with the powers of the chief and administrative branches.
Others raise worries about the expected abuse of this power and the absence of clear rules for
its activity. Finding some kind of harmony between legal activism and regarding the partition of
abilities stays a test for the legal executive.

This is leading to scenario where the legislature has become the executive wing of the judiciary.
This is clearly breach of Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

4. THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PASS JUDGMENTS TO
PROVIDE JUSTICE TO THE CITIZENS OF ARYAVART BY MODIFYING THE LAWS
AS THIS LEADS TO BREACH OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is as follows:

The three pillars of the Constitution are Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. This is also called
the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The main functions of the three pillars are respectively
as follows: to make or enact laws, to execute the laws and to provide justice. None among the
three pillars can function in excess to their jurisdiction. If Parliament, Executive or Judiciary

17 | P a g e
function in excess to the powers provided to them then it may create an imbalance and hamper
the basic structure of the Constitution, this when Doctrine of Plenary Powers can be enforced
and direct the Parliament or Executive or Judiciary to not exercise their powers in excess to
their jurisdiction. There the Supreme Court cannot modify or enact the laws as their main
function is to provide justice. The Parliament has the right to enact the laws.

In a recent case, where a renowned political leader of a party in power had filed to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to implement the Uniform Civil Code in the Country and the Supreme Court
issued the Writ of Mandamus (a judicial remedy in the form of an order by a court to any
Government or subordinate courts) to the Legislature to enact the same.

In response to the Writ of Mandamus the Union Law Ministry told the Supreme Court that
parliament exercises the sovereign right to frame laws and no outside authority can issue it a
direction to enact a law, thus recommending that petitions seeking a uniform civil code (UCC)
should be dismissed as non-maintainable.

The ministry made these submissions in an affidavit that was filed in response to the petitions
filed by an advocate seeking a direction to the Union government to frame religion and gender-
neutral uniform laws for divorce, adoption, guardianship, succession, inheritance, maintenance,
marriage age and alimony.

“It is a settled position of law and has been held in the catena of judgments that under our
constitutional scheme, Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact laws and no outside
power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation,” the ministry
said.

It is respectfully submitted that a writ of Mandamus (a judicial remedy in the form of an order
by a court to any government or subordinate courts) cannot be issued to the legislature to enact
a particular legislation.

This is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of the people to decide and no direction
in this regard can be issued by the Court. It is for the legislature to enact or not to enact a piece
of legislation. Further, in the catena of judgments it has been held that Public Interest Litigation
should not be filed merely on the basis of any requests to them by any person.”

18 | P a g e
The Supreme Court had earlier sought a comprehensive response from the Union government
on a batch of petitions seeking a direction to the Government to frame religion and gender-
neutral laws for civil matters.

Five separate petitions have been filed through advocate, seeking such laws. The leader had
filed the PIL seeking “uniform grounds of divorce” for all citizens, in keeping with the spirit of
the constitution and international conventions. He had filed another PIL seeking “gender and
religion-neutral” uniform grounds of maintenance and alimony for all citizens in accordance
with the spirit of the Constitution and international conventions.

Some of the petitions said that though the Supreme Court or high court “cannot ask the
Government to implement Article 44 of the constitution”, it can direct the Union government to
constitute a committee to prepare a draft of UCC.

Article 44 of the Constitution is a directive principle requiring the state to endeavour to secure a
UCC for all citizens.

The law ministry said that the purpose behind Article 44 is to strengthen the object of “Secular
Democratic Republic” as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. “This provision is
provided to effect integration of Aryavart by bringing communities on the common platform on
matters which are at present governed by diverse personal laws. Thus, in view of the
importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, in-depth study of various personal laws is
required,” the affidavit said.

In the case mentioned above it can be clearly differentiated that the Supreme Court exceeded its
power by passing a judgment of UCC. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot amend or modify
such laws as it is the function of the Parliament.

19 | P a g e
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited the petitioner
most humbly and respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly adjudge and clearly
declare that:

a) THE WRIT PETITION WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PRESENTED

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

b) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PERSONAL RIGHTS

AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYAVART AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UCC SHALL NOT BE
FEASIBLE.

And may kindly pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the petitioner shall in duty bound for every
pray.

20 | P a g e