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 PETITIONERS 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 PETITIONERS 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 …………………………….……...……..…………….…..12 ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY ‘CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’ ASSOCIATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?...............................12 1.1. THE PETITIONER HAS THE REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI EVEN BEING A THIRD PARTY 1.2. THERE IS ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD IN THE JUDGMENT LEADING TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE 1.3. THE DECISION IS GIVEN “PER INCURIAM” ISSUE 2: WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? ........................................................................................16 2.1. ANCIENT CIVILISATIONS AND RELIGIONS OF INDIAN SOCIETY TREAT ADULTERY AS AN UNPARDONABLE SIN 2.2. DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY UNDERMINES THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE 2.3. EXCEPTION OF CONNIVANCE NEITHER AFFECTS THE SANCTITY NOR THE OBJECT OF SECTION 2.4. INTENT OF SECTION 497 IPC IS TO DETER CRIME 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 CONCEPT OF ‘ROMANTIC PATERNALISM’ IN SECTION 497 OF IPC IS NOT IRRATIONAL 3.2. SECTION 497 OF IPC IS IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS 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 PETITIONERS Page | 6 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES 1. Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa,1991(4) SCC 54 2. M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552 3. Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Others, Review Petition (C) D. No. 40966 of 2013 4. The High Court of judicature at Patna and Anr. vs. Rakesh Kumar, Civil Review No. 153 of 2015 5. Rattiram & Ors vs State Of M.P.Tr.Insp.Of Police, Crl. Appeal No. 223 OF 2008 6. Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. The State Of Bombay, 1954 AIR 321, 1954 SCR 930 7. Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union Of India & Anr, 1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741 8. V. Revathi vs. Union Of India &Ors, 1988 AIR 835, 1988 SCR (3) 73 9. Commissioner of Police vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770, 782: AIR 2004 SC 2984 10. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005 11. Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai vs Basanta Kumar, (1901) ILR 28 Cal 751 12. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309 13. Dawood and another vs. Minister of Home Affairs and others, 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC) 14. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279 15. D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India, 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 16. Ameerunnisa Begumand ors. vs. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1956 SC 91 17. Dattatraya Motiram More vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 Bombay 311 18. Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 P&H 372 19. Rajagopal vs. State of T.N., AIR 1991 SC 207 20. Syndicate Bank vs General Secretary Syndicate Bank , Appeal (civil) 4263 of 1999 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS 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 PETITIONERS 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 PETITIONERS Page | 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY ‘CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS’ ASSOCIATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the review petition is maintainable since the petitioner has requisite locus standi and there is an error apparent on the face of record in the judgment of the Hon’ble SC. 2. WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that repealing section 497 of IPC and not making adultery as a crime destroys the sanctity of marriage thereby violating the freedom of religion as guaranteed under article 25 of the Indian constitution. 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 not violative of articles 14 and 15 of the Indian constitution since it is in accordance to article 15(3). Moreover the provision also clears the test of reasonable classification. 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 is not violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution and it is in accordance to the procedure established by law. Also, none of the above implicit rights are absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions and actions may be lawfully taken for the prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 12 5. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC SHOULD BE RECASTED REMOVING ANOMALIES OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the section 497 of IPC should be recasted by removing anomalies but should not be abrogated. Because the ultimate aim is to bring back adultery as a "crime" as decriminalizing adultery can lead to chaos and result in destroying societal progress. So if the court is of the view that any part of the section 497 IPC inadequate or violative of the constitutional provisions, then that part alone should be read down rather than repealing the entire law. J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 15 be used as a weapon by the bad elements for their own vested interest in weakening the institution of marriage and encouraging the morale of those engaged in such offense. 1.3. THE DECISION IS GIVEN “PER INCURIAM” [¶9.] The term “per incuriam” literally means ‘through lack of care. A decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own. 6 Prior to this judgment, the Supreme Court has itself righteously rejected various pleas for decriminalization of Adultery laws in India. While the present judgment held section 497 of IPC to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21, there are previous decisions of this court which justified the same section not being violative of such articles. [¶10.] The Supreme Court in these cases observed that Article 14 is general and must be read with the other provisions which set out the ambit of fundamental rights. Sex is a sound classification and although there can be no discrimination in general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special provisions in the case of women and children. Article 14 and 15(3) read together validate the impugned clause in the section of the IPC. 7 [¶11.] Therefore, in consideration of all the above grounds, it is humbly submitted that the Review Petition filed by COR is maintainable. 6 Rattiram & Ors vs State Of M.P.Tr.Insp.Of Police, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2008 7 Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. The State Of Bombay, 1954 AIR 321, 1954 SCR 930; Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union Of India & Anr, 1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741; Revathi vs. Union Of India &Ors, 1988 AIR 835, 1988 SCR (3) 73 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 16 2. WHETHER DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THEREBY VIOLATING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? [¶12.] It is humbly submitted that repealing section 497 of IPC and not making adultery as a crime destroys the sanctity of marriage thereby violating the freedom of religion as guaranteed under article 25 of the Indian constitution. 2.1. ANCIENT CIVILISATIONS AND RELIGIONS OF INDIAN SOCIETY TREAT ADULTERY AS AN UNPARDONABLE SIN [¶13.] The crime of Adultery is considered a sin in almost all the religions. It has been given an extensive treatment in Indian religious texts. The definition and chastisement for adultery may differ in different religious convictions, civilizations and legal systems but the basic theme remains the same and points towards betrayal and violation of nuptial promises. [¶14.] In the biblical texts, adultery is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment in the Hebrew Bible. 8 The adultery between a man and a married woman carries the death punishment. For the record, anyone found guilty of adultery with a woman other than his own wife will be executed absolutely. In Islam, the premarital or extramarital unlawful sexual relations are referred to as “zina” in Arabic and it has been linked to a number of circumstances and penalties. In Hinduism, the ancient scriptures provide a wide range of views on adultery. Manusmriti provided for punishment for those addicted to intercourse with other men’s wives by punishment which caused terror, followed by banishment. [¶15.] The protection guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution is not confined to matters or beliefs but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore contains a guarantee for rituals, ceremonies observances and modes of worship which are essential or integral part of the religion. 9 From the above lines of religious text, an interference can be drawn that in an Indic perspective, ‘marriage’ is considered to be ‘sacramental union’ which falls under the purview of an act done in pursuance of religion. 8 Book of Exodus passage Exodus 20:12. 9 Commissioner of Police vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770, 782: AIR 2004 SC 2984 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 17 [¶16.] Moreover, the test to determine whether a part or practice is essential to a religion is to find out whether the nature of the religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part. What constitutes an integral part or essential part of religion has to be determined with reference to the doctrines 10 , practices, tenets, historical background,etc of the given religion. [¶17.] Similarly, with regard to marriage, a there are several references about its importance ancient religious texts. Also, this ritual has been considered as a sacred bird due to its rich and deep rooted involvement in the cultural and religious traditions. Therefore, the ritual of marriage tantamount to being an “essential religious practice” and the act of decriminalizing adultery creates a chaos to its morality and causes fundamental change to its belief. 2.2. DECRIMINALIZING ADULTERY UNDERMINES THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE [¶18.] A marriage in Indian society is understood as a sacrament 11 and a purificatory ritual in all religions. It is a contract but it is also a sacred covenant.The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security, support and companionship of members of our society and bear an important role in the rearing of children. It gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born of the marriage. [¶19.] In the case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma, 12 , the court observed that, “Entering into and sustaining a marriage is a matter of intense private significance to the parties to that marriage for they make a promise to one another to establish and maintain an intimate relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges them to 10 The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005 11 Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai vs Basanta Kumar, (1901) ILR 28 Cal 751 12 Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 20 been the reason why section 497 is considered by the Legislature as an offense against the sanctity of the matrimonial home and therefore those men who defile that sanctity should be brought within the net of the law. But, if it is turned merely into a civil offense, adultery will only be a ground to seek divorce and will provide a free license to prospective offenders to breach in the sanctity of marriage. 16 [¶31.] Therefore, it is humbly submitted that repealing section 497 of IPC and not making adultery as a crime destroys the sanctity of marriage thereby violating the freedom of religion as guaranteed under article 25 of the Indian constitution. 16 ibid J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS 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? [¶32.] It is humbly submitted that the section 497 of IPC classifying men and women in different pedestals is not violative of article 14 and 15 of the Indian constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality and equal protection before law. But, this principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application to all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. 3.1. THE CONCEPT OF ‘ROMANTIC PATERNALISM’ IN SECTION 497 OF IPC IS NOT IRRATIONAL [¶33.] The section 497 of IPC is designed in such a way that a man obtains both right to prosecute and bear culpability. However, the section does not hold such applicability in case of women. Because, if one side of the woman (wife of adulterer) gets a right to prosecute, the other women who is a ‘victim’ will be at the risk of punishment. Even though Section 497 of IPC does not contain a specific provision for hearing the married woman who faced repercussions, that does not justify the proposition that she is not entitled to be heard at the trial, if she makes an application to the court to that effect. Thus, this reverse discrimination in 'favour' of the woman rather than 'against' her. 17 [¶34.] This reverse discrimination undoubtedly clears the test of reasonable classification making section 497 IPC not violative of Article 14. In India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the twin test for reasonable classification 18 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. 17 Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union Of India & Anr, 1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741 18 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 PETITIONERS Page | 22 It was further stated that such classification made by the law should have a reasonable nexus with the object which the Legislature seeks to achieve. [¶35.] The legislature’s intent with regard to section 497 of IPC which excludes women as offender or abettor is that- it has an obligation to make laws distinguishing and classifying persons and things upon which its laws are to operate in order to deal with diverse problems resulting from an infinite variety of human relations. In the case of Ameerunnisa Begum vs. Mahboob Begum, 19 the Supreme Court held that the legislature has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations and must necessarily have the power of making special laws to attain particular objects. Hence, Article 14 recognizes “women” as a class different from men. [¶36.] The equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 does not always mean that all laws must be general in character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. In fact, identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. Therefore for the society to progress a reasonable classification is necessary. 3.2. SECTION 497 OF IPC IS IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION [¶37.] Sex is a sound classification and although there can be no discrimination in general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special provisions in the case of women and children. The two articles i.e, Articles 14 and 15 read together validate the impugned clause in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. [¶38.] There is no denying the fact that women in India have made considerable progress since independence but yet they have to struggle against many handicaps and social evils in the male dominated society. The recent data released by NCRB 20 shows that the crime against women rose by 15.3 per cent in 2021 from the previous year, with 4,28,278 cases registered in 2021 following 3,71,503 cases in 2020. Hence, women are mistreated in various spheres of life across religions, regions and communities. Thus, protecting them by different legislations and provisions as a positive discrimination upholds social justice. 19 Ameerunnisa Begumand ors. vs. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1956 SC 91 20 National Crime Records Bureau, crime against women data(2021) J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 25  the married woman with whom the accused is alleged to have committed adultery.  the married woman who faced repercussions due to her adulterer husband. [¶49.] But, that does not justify the proposition that she is not entitled to be heard at the trial. There is nothing, either in the substantive or the adjectival criminal law, which bars the court from affording a hearing to a party, which is likely to be adversely affected, directly and immediately, by the decision of the Court. 25 [¶50.] However, it is also to be noted that the right of hearing is a concomitant of the principles of natural justice, though not in all situations. There can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside. 26 Therefore, the fact that a provision for hearing the wife is not contained in section 497 cannot render that section unconstitutional as violating Article 21. 4.4. PUNISHMENT IS A PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW [¶51.] Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a wide range of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man. However, if a person commits a criminal offense and punishment has been given to him by a procedure established by law which is free and fair, there is no question of violation of Art. 21. [¶52.] Hence, none of the above implicit rights are absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions and actions may be lawfully taken for the prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that section 497 of IPC is not violative of Article 21 of the constitution. 25 Sowmithri Vishnu vs. Union Of India & Anr, 1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741 26 Syndicate Bank vs General Secretary Syndicate Bank , Appeal (civil) 4263 of 1999 J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 26 5. WHETHER SECTION 497 OF IPC SHOULD BE RECASTED REMOVING ANOMALIES OR NOT? [¶53.] It is humbly submitted that the section 497 of IPC should be recasted by removing anomalies but should not be abrogated. Because the ultimate aim is to bring back adultery as a "crime" as decriminalizing adultery can lead to chaos and result in destroying societal progress. So if the court is of the view that any part of the section 497 IPC inadequate or violative of the constitutional provisions, then that part alone should be read down rather than repealing the entire law [¶54.] The role of Judiciary to merely interpret and declare the law has been said to be the concept of by-gone age. It is now fairly settled that the courts can so mould and lay down the law, formulating principles and guidelines, as to adapt and adjust to the changing conditions of the society, the ultimate object being to dispense justice. Also, 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. However, the section 497 IPC is in perfect consonance with the fundamental rights. [¶55.] Moreover from the facts of the present case, it can be clearly seen that the review petitioner has only prayed for the recast of section 497 of IPC and not section 198(2) of CrPC. This spirit is in consonance with the recommendations of Report of Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms 27 and the 42nd Report of the Law Commission 28 . [¶56.] Hence it is most humbly submitted that both men and women have an equal and responsible role to play in maintaining the sanctity of marriage. Criminalizing adultery is therefore indispensable for safeguarding the institution of marriage. Thus, section 497 of IPC should be recasted removing anomalies. 27 Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2000) 28 Law Commission Report No. 42 on Indian Penal Code (1959) J.C COLLEGE OF LAW- 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page | 27 PRAYER WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT 1. TO ADMIT THE REVIEW PETITION 2. TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 497 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID. AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. -COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS