Moot court competition memorial, Papers of Law

Download Moot court competition memorial and more Papers Law in PDF only on Docsity! TEAM CODE: MUKHTAR JAGARLAMUDI CHANDRAMOULI COLLEGE OF LAW 2 ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH ORDER XLVII, RULE 1 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013) IN THE MATTER OF: REVIEW PETITION (Crl.) No. ___ / 2023 CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS AND ANR. ……………………….........PETITIONERS VERSUS SOWMITHRI ……………………………………………………...…….......RESPONDENT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT MOST RESPECTFYLLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT TEAM CODE: MUKHTAR J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVATIONS …………….……………….…….……….…………………4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………...…….…………….…………...……....6 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………….….………………….....8 STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………...……...............9 ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………..…………….…...10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………..………………..11 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………….……...……..…………….…..13 ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY ‘CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’ ASSOCIATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?............................13 1.1. THE PETITIONER LACKS REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI 1.2. THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD IN JUDGMENT 1.3. FINALITY OF JUDGEMENT MUST BE RESPECTED 1.4. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE ALLEGED UNDER REVIEW JURISDICTION ISSUE 2: WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? ...................................................................................17 2.1. PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IS A COLLECTIVE DUTY OF BOTH THE PARTNERS 2.2. CRIMINALIZING ADULTERY IS NOT A DETERRENT 2.3. NOTION OF MARITAL SERVITUDE ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC CLASSIFYING MEN AND WOMEN IN DIFFERENT PEDESTALS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT?................................................................................21 3.1. THE SECTION 497 OF IPC FAILS THE TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION 3.2. SECTION 497 OF IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION ISSUE 4: WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT?.......................................................................24 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 5 17 SC Supreme Court 18 SCC Supreme Court Cases 19 SCR Supreme Court Reporter 20 Sec Section 21 UOI Union of India 22 u/s Under section 23 Vol Volume 24 Vs. Versus J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 6 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES 1. State of Kerala vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai, [1993] 2 Kerala Series 752 2. Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 (114) Bom LR 3549 3. Satvir Singh vs. Baldeva (1996) 8 SCC 593 4. Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 653 5. State of Karnataka vs. T. R. Dhannanjaya (1995) 6 SCC 254 6. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, Special civil Application No. 1247 of 2002 7. Income Tax officer Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore vs. Sri Mahesh Suryanarayanan Lingam , Bangalore, MA 172/ BANG/ 2018 8. Mr. Arani Mukhopadhyay vs Employees Provident Fund, W. P. No. 15262 (W) of 2018 9. Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others, 1999 (9) SCC 596 10. Mr. Arani Mukhopadhyay vs Employees Provident Fund, W. P. No. 15262 (W) of 2018 11. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500: (1975) 1 SCC 674 12. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. UOI, AIR 1980 SC 2041 13. Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, W.P(Crl) NO. 194 OF 2017 14. S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr , Crl. Appeal no. 913 of 2010 15. James Sibongo vs. Lister Lutombi Chaka and Anr , Case No. SA77-14) (19.08.2016) 16. Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Kalindri Vihar, Agra, C.M.H.C.W.P. Appeal No. 16876 of 2001 17. John Vallamattom v.UOI, Writ Petition (Civil) 242 Of 1997 18. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279 19. D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India, 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 20. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P(C) No. 118 of 2016 21. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321; W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016 22. Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory and Board of Trustees , 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516 23. Port of Bombay vs. Nadkarn, W. P. No.3958 (W) of 2010 24. W. Kalyani v. State, Crl. appeal NO. 2232 OF 2011 25. Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K .M. & Ors, Crl Appeal No. 366 OF 2018 26. Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663 27. R.M.D.C. vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 7 STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES 1. The Constitution of India, 1950 2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 4. The Supreme court rules, 2013 BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES 1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Ed, 2010) 2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (14th Ed, 2009) 3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (12th Ed, 2016) 4. B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, (4th Ed, 2017) 5. 5. S.N. Misra, The Code Of Criminal Procedure Code, (23rd Ed, 2020) 6. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 1 st Ed,2011) LEGAL DATABASE 1. http://www.indiakanoon.com 2. http://www.scconline.com 3. http://www.casemine.com 4. https://www.scconline.com/ J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 10 ISSUES RAISED ISSUE 1 WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY ‘CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’ ASSOCIATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? ISSUE 2 WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? ISSUE 3 WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC CLASSIFYING MEN AND WOMEN IN DIFFERENT PEDESTALS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT? ISSUE 4 WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT? ISSUE 5 WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC SHOULD BE RECASTED REMOVING ANOMALIES OR NOT? J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS 1. WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY ‘CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’ ASSOCIATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Review Petition filed by Consortium of Religions is not maintainable under Art. 137 of the Constitution of India since the petitioner lacks requisite locus standi. 2. WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that decriminalizing adultery does neither destroy the sanctity of marriage nor violates the freedom of religion. Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a collective duty of both the partners and the woman should not hold sole liability. 3. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC CLASSIFYING MEN AND WOMEN IN DIFFERENT PEDESTALS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the section 497 of IPC classifying men and women in different pedestals is violative of article 14 and 15 of the Indian constitution. All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed. 4. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that section 497 of IPC violates the implicit rights to live with dignity, reputation and privacy as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 12 5. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC SHOULD BE RECASTED REMOVING ANOMALIES OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that there is no necessity to recast the section 497 of IPC irrespective of removing the anomalies. Because, adultery is not a crime, but a civil wrong. Thus, it has been rightly struck down by this court as unconstitutional in its entirety. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 15 [¶9.] Similarly, with regard to the present case, it is explicit from the fact sheet that the Hon'ble SC has already delivered the judgment in the best possible view concerning the best interest of social justice. Because, it acknowledged the 162 year old law as unlawful as it antagonized the dignity of women and violated the articles 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution. Therefore, this case cannot be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. [¶10.] Moreover, in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others 7 , it was held that, "a review cannot be claimed for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it." However, it is humbly submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble SC did not suffer from any such error as it was clearly pertaining to the provisions of law and natural justice. Hence, the present review petition is not maintainable as there is no such error apparent on the face of record. 1.3. FINALITY OF JUDGEMENT MUST BE RESPECTED [¶11.] The principle “Interest republicae ut sit finis litium” 8 elucidates that it is for the public good that there must be an end of litigation after a long hierarchy of appeal. Certainty and continuity are essential ingredients of rule of law. Certainty in the law would be considerably eroded and suffer a serious setback if the highest court of the land readily overrule the views expressed by it in earlier cases even though those views had held the field for a number of years. 9 [¶12.] A departure from the principle of finality can only be justified in circumstances of a substantial and compelling character makes it necessary to do so. A judgment is not reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in the earlier decision.” 10 7 Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others, 1999 (9) SCC 596 8 Mr. Arani Mukhopadhyay vs Employees Provident Fund, W. P. No. 15262 (W) of 2018 9 Dhruv Tiwari & Anand Vardhan Narayan, “Re-coloring the colored walls of the constitution: a futile judicial exercise of creating the curative petition”, IJLPP 2.2E. 10 Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500: (1975) 1 SCC 674; Avtar Singh Sekhon v. UOI, AIR 1980 SC 2041 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 16 [¶13.] Thus, permitting the parties to review the concluded judgments of this court by filing repeated interlocutory applications without any error apparent is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice. 1.4. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE ALLEGED UNDER REVIEW JURISDICTION [¶14.] The review petitioner has alleged that decriminalizing adultery and striking out section 497 IPC results in violating the freedom of religion. But this is not a proper ground for initiating a review petition since they are considered to be a third party. Even if the Petitioner feels aggrieved they should have a Public Interest Litigation or any other petition for challenging the Constitutionality of Section 497 of IPC for arguing to greater public interest. But they cannot interfere with the judgment given in the case of Sowmithri vs Union of lndia by a Review petition. [¶15.] Hence, it is humbly submitted that the review petition filed by Consortium of Religions association is not maintainable since the petitioner lacks requisite locus standi and also the judgment was given on merits without any error apparent on the face of record. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 17 2. WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? [¶16.] It is humbly submitted that decriminalizing adultery does neither destroy the sanctity of marriage nor violates the freedom of religion. 2.1. PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IS A COLLECTIVE DUTY OF BOTH THE PARTNERS [¶17.] By inclusion of the offense of adultery under the chapter titled ‘offenses related to marriage’, it hints at the aspect that the sanctity of marriage is not the one to be preserved by one spouse but it is a collective duty of both of them. But the language of the section discriminates between husband and wife as partners to marriage as ‘husband of another woman’ that is a female partner in adultery is not liable for committing the wrong. [¶18.] Section 497 seeks to control a woman and her sexuality, making her solely liable for preserving “sanctity of marriage”, while making husband immune from it. Section 497 propagates sex stereotyping based on male and female sex and behavior. The main partner of an “adulterous woman” is liable for prosecution because he has “seduced” the wife of another man. This perpetuates gender disparities and propagates stereotypes that a woman’s virtue is determined by her sexual conduct. [¶19.] It is acknowledged that adultery is treated as a delinquent act according to many religions. That is the reason why ‘adultery’ still exists to be a ground for divorce in India. However, the same cannot be brought into a criminal perspect because; the section 497 itself has loopholes that affect religious beliefs. The reasons are as follows. [¶20.] Firstly, while it has been said that the ostensible object of Section 497 is to protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage, however, the Section 497 does not penalize a husband if he has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, or a widow or even a Transgender. Though the sanctity of marriage is broken in such a situation, the law (Section 497) does not recognize it. Secondly, if the husband “consents”, then intercourse of a man with that husband’s wife is not Adultery. This too is inimical to the sanctity of marriage. In the case of Joseph Shine vs. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 20 [¶26.] In the case of Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Kalindri Vihar, Agra 14 , the court had observed: “A woman who is a major has a right to go anywhere and live with anyone she likes without getting married. This may be regarded immoral by society but it is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.” [¶27.] Thus, Sec. 497 disregards the sexual autonomy which every woman possesses as a necessary condition of her existence. Implicit in seeking to privilege the fidelity of women in a marriage is the assumption that a woman contracts away her sexual agency when entering a marriage. Such a notion has no place in the constitutional order. 14 Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Kalindri Vihar, Agra, C.M.H.C.W.P. Appeal No. 16876 of 2001 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 21 3. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC CLASSIFYING MEN AND WOMEN IN DIFFERENT PEDESTALS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION OR NOT? [¶28.] It is humbly submitted that the section 497 of IPC classifying men and women in different pedestals is violative of article 14 and 15 of the Indian constitution. Art. 14 guarantees equality and equal protection before law. It strikes at arbitrary state action, both administrative and legislative. All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed. 15 3.1. THE SECTION 497 OF IPC FAILS THE TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION [¶29.] In India, In India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the twin test for reasonable classification 16 and held that for the classification to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled: i. Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and ii. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. [¶30.] Section 497 of IPC makes an irrational classification between man and women and unjustifiably denies women the right which is given to men under the following grounds (1) Section 497 confers upon the husband the right to prosecute the person who has committed adultery with her wife but, it does not confer any right upon the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery. 15 John Vallamattom v.UOI, Writ Petition (Civil) 242 Of 1997 16 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279; D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India, 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 22 (2) Section 497 of Indian Penal Code does not take in cases where the husband has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, with the result that husbands have, as it were, a free license under the law to have extra-marital relationship with unmarried women. [¶31.] Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary in nature since it confers upon the husband the right to deal with the wife on his own terms, which at times could even be disproportionate and excessive. In the case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors. 17 , the court observed that “The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would violate Article 14.” [¶32.] The provision protects one of the women saying she is the victim to the crime as it is committed upon her but doesn’t provide for any safeguard to a woman who has faced the repercussion of such a crime being committed by her husband. It makes the provision illogical and cannot be justified by saying that it is made to protect women, as it does not really offer women any protection. It only classifies women as a man’s property and safeguards the right of a man to his wife. Therefore, the Section does not make a reasonable classification and hence, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3.2. SECTION 497 OF IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION [¶33.] The Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating on grounds of sex. The section 497 of IPC is violative of article 15 since it is archaic and discriminates against women on the ground of sexual autonomy and romantic paternalism. [¶34.] A husband is considered an aggrieved party by the law if his wife engages in sexual intercourse with another man, but the wife is not, if her husband does the same. Viewed from this angle, the offense of adultery discriminates between a married man and a married woman to her detriment on the grounds of sex only. The provision is discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 15(1). 17 Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P(C) No. 118 of 2016 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 25 she would be entitled to be heard, the section is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 4.3. RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO CHOOSE [¶42.] This Court has recognized sexual privacy as a natural right, protected under the Constitution. Sharing of physical intimacies is a reflection of choice. 21 To "shackle" sexual freedom of a woman and allow criminalization of consensual relationships is a denial of right of sexual privacy and considering a citizen as a property of other is an "anathema" to ideal of dignity. 22 [¶43.] In the case of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K .M. & Ors. 23 , the hon’ble Court observed that each individual is guaranteed the freedom in determining the choice of one’s partner, and any interference by the State in these matters would have a serious chilling effect on the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover in the case of Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India 24 , the hon’ble SC held that personal autonomy includes both the negative right of not to be subject to interference by others and the positive right of individuals to make decisions about their life, to express themselves and to choose which activities to take part in. [¶44.] Hence, subjecting interpersonal relationships to the severity of criminal law would amount to an intrusion into the right to privacy and other implicit rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 21 W. Kalyani v. State, Crl. appeal NO. 2232 OF 2011 22 Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, W.P(Crl) NO. 194 OF 2017 23 Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K .M. & Ors, Crl Appeal No. 366 OF 2018 24 Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 26 5. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC SHOULD BE RECASTED REMOVING ANOMALIES OR NOT? [¶45.] It is humbly submitted that removing anomalies cannot justify criminalizing adultery. Adultery is a marital wrong, which should have only civil consequences. A wrong punishable with criminal sanctions, must be a public wrong against society as a whole, and not merely an act committed against an individual victim. [¶46.] According to Section Article 13 (1) of the constitution, a law is invalid or considered void only if it is inconsistent or in contravention with the Part-III of the Indian Constitution. Since the sction 497 IPC is violative of Article 14,15, 21, it is entitled to be void. [¶47.] The doctrine of severability which provides striking down the unconstitutional part instead of the entire law is not applicable to the present case. Because the section already violates several fundamental rights making whole provision unconstitutional making it constitutionally inseparable from the vaild ones. Thus, question of striking down the unconstitutional part or severability does not arise. This has been clearly held in the case of R.M.D.C. vs. Union of India 25 , where the Hon'ble court held that If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety. [¶48.] Hence there is no necessity to recast the section 497 of IPC irrespective of removing the anomalies. Because adultery is not a crime, but a civil wrong. Thus, it has been rightly struck down by this court as unconstitutional in its entirety. 25 R.M.D.C. vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 27 PRAYER WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT 1. TO DISMISS THE REVIEW PETITION 2. TO UPHOLD THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE CASE OF SOWMITHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA THAT DECLARED SECTION 497 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. -COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT