TEAM CODE: T21

BEFORE,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP)

[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS]

WITH

WRIT PETITION

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS]

— IN THE MATTER OF ▬

MR. ASHFAQ AND ORS. ................................................................................................ PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UDAYAN PRADESH AND ANR. …………………………..RESPONDENT

▬WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2024.
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………… .(1-2)

INDEX OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………………………………..(3)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….(4-6)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….(7)

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………(8-9)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………..…………(10)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………..(11)

ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….(12-24)

1. Whether the present SLP is maintainable or not?............................................….(12-17)

1.1 That there is no Substantial Question of Law.…………..………………………(12-16)

1.2 That the Special Leave Petition is not Maintainable……………………………(16-17)
1.3 Conclusion for the First Issue …………………………………………………….(17)

2. Whether the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act,

2021 is Constitutionally valid or not?.........................................................……..(18-21)

2.1 That there is no violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution of the Indus ………..(18-20)

2.2 That there is a violation of Art.14 and Art.21 of the Constitution of the
Indus ………………………………………………………………………………….(20-21)

2.3 Conclusion for the Second Issue…………………………………………………..(21)

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
1
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

3. Whether the denial of bail to Ashfaq’s family and issuance of a non-bailable warrant
against Ashfaq under section 498A of IPC, 1860 is valid or not?....................…(22-24)

3.1 That the denial of bail to Ashfaq’s family and issuance of a non-bailable warrant
against Ashfaq under section 498A of IPC, 1860 is valid……… …………….(22-24)

3.2 Conclusion for the Third Issue…………………………………………………….(24)

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….. (25)

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
2
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

 Art. : Article
 Ed. : Edition
 i.e. : that is
 Pg. No. : page
 v. : versus
 vol. : Volume
 & : And
 ¶ : Paragraph
 § : Section
 AIR : All India Reporter
 Sec : section
 Ltd. : Limited
 Ors. : Others
 SC : Supreme Court
 SCC : Supreme Court Cases
 viz. : Videlicet
 U.O.I. : Union of India
 Govt. : Government
 Anr. : Another

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
3
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF STATUTES/REGULATION

1. Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 .
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. The Information Technology Act, 2000.

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. M.P Jain, “Indian Constitution Law”, 7th edition, Lexis Nexis.

2. V.N. Shukla, “Constitution of India”, 12 Edition.
3. Dr. S.R. Myneni, “Constitutional Law –I”, 1st Edition, Asia Law House.
4. Dr. Kailash Rai, “The Constitutional Law of India”, 11th Edition, Central Law
Publications.
5. Tejaswi Surya & Suyash Pande, “UP Ordinance On Religious Conversion Is Being
Misconstrued: Here's Why It Will Pass Judicial Scrutiny”.

DICTIONARIES

1. Bryan A. Garner, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group.
2. Greenberg Daniel, ‘Shrouds Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases’, 7th Ed. Sweet
and Maxwell Co.
3. Ramanatha Aiyar P., ‘Concise Law Dictionary’, 3rd Ed., Rep. 2006, Wadhwa, Nagpur.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
4
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

ELECTRONIC MEDIUM
1. http://www.scconline.com (visited on……..………...(02-04-24, 03-04-24, 04-04-24)
2. http://www.legalservices.com( visited on ….…………………..(01-04-24, 02-04-24)
3. http://www.livelaw.com (visited on…………………………….(01-04-24, 02-04-24)
4. http://www.manupatra.com (visited on…………….………….(01-04-24, 02-04-24)
5. http://www.Indiankanoon.com (visited on……...….………….(27-03-24 - 03-04-24)
6. http://www.aironline.in (visited on…………………...….……..(27-03-24 - 03-04-24)

7. https://Indiannexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/constitution-law-modi-govt-
p-chidambaram-7093190/.(visited on…………………...….……………....(28-03-24)

8. https://thewire.in/communalism/legal-howlers-in-ups-anti-conversion-law-
expose-its-realintent. (visited on…………………...….……………………(29-03-24)

9. https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/adityanaths-new-hitler-like-rule-on-inter-faith-
marriages2329867.(visited on…………………...….……………………….(30-03-24)

10. https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/adityanaths-new-hitler-like-rule-on-inter-faith-
marriages2329867.(visited on…………………...….…………..…………..(31-03-24)

11. https://theprint.in/judiciary/up-not-first-to-target-love-jihad2-states-have-law-
against-forced-conversions-for-marriage/552033/.(visited on…………...(01-04-24)

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
5
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

LIST OF CASES

1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2756………………..(12)

2. State (CBI) v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Ors AIR 1997 SC 2494 : (2000) 10 SCC
438……………………………………………………………………………………………..(13)
3. Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State Of Uttaranchal & Others AIR 2008
SUPREME COURT 251 ……………………………………………………………..……..(13)
4. State of U.P. v. Poosu & Another (1976) 3 SCC 1 …………………………………….. (14)
5. Vikas vs State Of Rajasthan 2013 AIR SCW 6256, ……………………………………..(14)
6. 2013 AIR SCW 6256, 2014 (1) AJR 161, 2014 CRI. L. J. 183…………………………(14)
7. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau Of Investigation…………………………….(14)
8. Prithviraj Saremal Kothari v. P.S.Srinivas, SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION
(QUASHING) NO. 4441 of 2015………………………………………………………….(14)
9. Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. -
8338 of 2022…………………………………………………………………………………(14)
10. Md Kudus Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
2484 of 2014………………………………………………………………………………….(14)
11. Shaik Nanne Saheb, v. The State Of A.P Writ Petition No.13261 of 2021………..…(15)
12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal AIR 2013 SC 56…………..(16)
13. Usha K.Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, (1993) 3 SCC 208: AIR 1993 SC 2090……………(17)
14. Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980)3 SCC 435: AIR 1980 SC 1510……………….(17)
15. Union Carbide Corp. v. Union Of Indus, (1991) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 317….(17)
16. Raigarh Jute Mills Ltd v. Eastern Railway, AIR 1958 SC 525: 1959 SCR 236……(17)
17. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65: (1955) 1 SCR 941………..(17)
18. Rev. Stanislaus v. Madhya Pradesh 1977 AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611……………..(18)
19. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75 …………………………..(20)
20. Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA AIR 1989 SC 307………………………………………..(20)
21. Justin @Renjith v. Union of India W.P. (C) No. 15564 of 2017………………………(20)
22. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra 1 SCC 759………………..……..(23)
23. Surendran v. State of Kerala CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1080 of 2019………………..(24)

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
6
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Respondent has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
response to the instant Special Leave Petition under Art.1361 and Writ Petition of
Certiorari2 under Art.323 of The Constitution, which are clubbed challenging the
decisions of the Court of Magistrates.

The Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present matter.

1 Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:

1. Not with standing anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

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

2 To quash an order passed by a lower court, tribunal, or authority.

3 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of
the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
7
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Meera, a Hindu woman, and Ashfaq, a Muslim man, met on a dating app, fell in
love, before they decided to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1956
they were in a live-in relationship for a few months.

2. Despite opposition from Meera's parents due to religious differences, the couple
got married on 10th January 2022.

3. Meera decided to convert to Islam out of love and respect for Ashfaq's family on
17th January 2022.

4. After the marriage, Meera sustained injuries during quarrels and fights due to her
belongings found containing pictures of idols of her earlier faith. She sent pictures
of her injuries to her parents in a feet of rage.

5. That due to the pandemic declared on 15th March 2022 there was nationwide
lockdown for the next 2 weeks which restricted the respondent Meera to travel
and visit her parents due to limited transportation option.

6. In May 2022, Meera asked her parents to pick her up from Ashfaq's home. They
suspected that Ashfaq and his family had coerced Meera into converting her
religion and were wrongfully restraining her.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Meera's parents filed an FIR against Ashfaq's family under Section 498A and
S.340 of IPC and the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious
Conversion Act, 2021.

2. Ashfaq's family members were arrested on 20th May 2022, and the Magistrate
denied bail to them and issued a non-bailable warrant against Ashfaq under
section 498A.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
8
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

3. Ashfaq and his family preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court against the order of The Magistrate court denying his family the bail and
issuing non-bailable warrant issued against him and filed a writ petition
challenging the validity of the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious
Conversion Act, 2021.

4. The matter is listed for hearing on 12th April 2024 before a Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
9
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SLP IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE UDAYAN PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ACT, 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
OR NOT?

3. WHETHER THE DENIAL OF BAIL TO ASHFAQ’S FAMILY AND

ISSUANCE OF A NON-BAILABLE WARRANT AGAINST ASHFAQ UNDER
SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860 IS VALID OR NOT?

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
10
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the present SLP is maintainable or not?

It is submitted that the Petitioner does not raise any Substantial Question of Law. The
Magistrate Court has completely applied the Judicial mind in ordering arrest of
Petitioner’s family and issuing a non-bailable warrant against the Petitioner. This
infers that Special Leave Petition does not have any legal standing. Thus, it is not
maintainable.

2. Whether the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act,

2021 is Constitutionally valid or not?

It is submitted that the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious

Conversion Act, 2021 is Constitutional. Article 25,14 and 21 are not at all disturbed
by the anti-conversion act in any way.

3. Whether the denial of bail to Ashfaq’s family and issuance of a non-bailable

warrant against Ashfaq under section 498A of IPC, 1860 is valid or not?

It is submitted that the section 498A of IPC is an non-bailable offence against the
cruelty towards the women.That such sections under IPC helps to curb heinous
crimes against the women. That there are numerous cases where women have gone
under such atrocities. To curtail and tame such offenders, such sections were enacted.
That the denial of bail to Ashfaq’s family and issuance of non-bailable warrant is
completely judicious and valid.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
11
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SLP IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Special Leave Petition (SLP)
is a powerful provision in the Indus judicial system. Article 136 of the Constitution of
Indus grants the Supreme Court of Indus the discretionary power to grant special leave
to appeal against any judgment, decree, or order in any matter or cause passed by any
court or tribunal in the country. The Supreme Court exercises its discretion in granting
or refusing special leave based on the circumstances and merits of each individual
matter.

1.1. THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.

1.1.1. That the Respondent humbly submits that the Petitioners Parents arrest and Non-
Bailable warrant issued against the Petitioner is valid. That the arrest and non-
bailable warrant has been ordered by the Magistrate court U/s 498A which is well
defined in section of IPC which clearly state the section as Non- Bailable offence.
That the Section 498A fall in the Category of Non-Bailable offence, where the
offence is so serious that no bail can be granted. That the Magistrate court has
granted Non-Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner which clearly states that the
petitioner is not an law- abiding citizen, the issuance of Non-Bailable warrant
itself infers that the Petitioner did not follow the law and is absconding, the
Magistrate Court. Moreover the Magistrate Court had no reason to order for arrest
or issue a non-bailable warrant against the Petitioners at least after strict directions
given by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark Judgement of Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar4.

1.1.2. That there is no question to be raise about the substantial question of law as there
is no loophole in the due process followed by the investigating agency or
Magistrate Court. It is the settled question of law as the offence has been

4
AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2756.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
12
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

registered U/s 498A of IPC which is the non-bailable offence and the mode of
conduct of the Petitioner has forced the Magistrate Court to order Arrest and issue
Non- Bailable Warrant against them.

1.1.3. That the Respondent humbly submit that section 73(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 states: “The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest
of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a
non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.”

1.1.4. The Supreme Court in the case of State (CBI) v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar &
Ors5 stated that the Magistrate has the power to issue a warrant u/s. 73 during an
investigation also. This power can be exercised by him for bringing about the
appearance of the accused person before the court only and not before the police
in the aid of investigation.

1.1.5. It is humbly submitted that The Supreme Court has observed that warrants must
be issued with due care. The court enumerated the circumstances in which non-
bailable warrant should be issued. In this context, it is pertinent to observe the
case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others6
wherein the Supreme Court stated:

“When non-bailable warrants should be issued non-bailable warrant should be

issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be
unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:

a. It is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in

court;
b. or the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a
summon;

5 AIR 1997 SC 2494 : (2000) 10 SCC 438

6 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 251

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
13
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

c. or it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into
custody immediately.”
1.1.6. It is further submitted that in the case of State of U.P. v. Poosu & Another7, the
Court observed:

“Whether in the circumstances of the case, the attendance of the accused

respondent can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non- bailable
warrant, is a matter which rests entirely in the discretion of the court. Although,
the discretion is exercised judiciously, it is not possible to computerize and reduce
into immutable formulae the diverse considerations on the basis of which this
discretion is exercised. Broadly speaking, the court would take into account the
various factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of
the evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his absconding,
larger interest of the public and the State.”

1.1.7. It is further submitted that in the case of Vikas vs State Of Rajasthan8 stated that
Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons
or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result.9 This could be
when firstly it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear
in court10; or secondly that the police authorities are unable to find the person to
serve him with a summon11 and thirdly if it is considered that the person could
harm someone if not placed into custody immediately12. In the absence of the
aforesaid reasons, the issue of non-bailable warrant a fortiori to the application
under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. would extinguish the very purpose of existence of

7 (1976) 3 SCC 1
8 2013 AIR SCW 6256, 2014 (1) AJR 161, 2014 CRI. L. J. 183
9 Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
10 Prithviraj Saremal Kothari vs P.S.Srinivas, SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4441 of 2015
11 Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8338 of 2022
12 Md Kudus Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2484 of 2014

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
14
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

procedural laws which preserve and protect the right of an accused in a trial of a
case.

1.1.8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is lack of Ground for
filing SLP: Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which provides for SLP, is an
extraordinary remedy that is to be used sparingly. It is not a matter of right, but a
matter of privilege or discretion of the Supreme Court. In this case, Ashfaq and his
family have not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warrant the
invocation of Article 136.

1.1.9. That the Petitioner is approaching the Apex court with not a clean hand, the order
of the Magistrate court clearly infers that the Petitioner have not at all cooperated
with the investigating agency and dishonoured Summons of the Magistrate court,
which is clearly contempt of court and for that reason it was essentially need of an
hour to issue Non- Bailable warrant against the Petitioner and such conduct of the
Petitioners conveniently makes the Magistrate Court to order rejection of bail for
the petitioners Family.

1.1.10. It is further submitted that there is existence of alternative remedies: The Supreme
Court has consistently held that an SLP should only be entertained when there are
no other efficacious remedies available. In this case, Ashfaq and his family could
have pursued other remedies, such as filing a revision or an appeal before the
High Court. It is further submitted that there is misuse of SLP: The SLP appears to
be a tactic to delay the proceedings and evade the due process of law. The
Supreme Court has cautioned against the misuse of SLP for such purposes.

1.1.11. In this context, it is pertient to observe the case of Shaik Nanne Saheb, v. The
State Of A.P13, Time And again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the
principle about exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
without availing statutory remedy by the petitioners therein.

13
Writ Petition No.13261 of 2021.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
15
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

1.1.12. It is further submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.

Chhabil Dass Agrawal14, the Supreme Court held that, when the statutory forum
is created by law for redressal of grievances, the writ petition should not be
entertained ignoring statutory dispensation subject to certain exceptions. The
Apex Court further opined that non-entertainment of petitions under the writ
jurisdiction by the High Courts where efficacious or alternative remedy is
available, is a rule of self- imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.

1.1.13. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is no violation of
Fundamental Rights, Ashfaq and his family have not demonstrated how the
application of the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion
Act, 2021, in this case, violates their fundamental rights. The Act is a reasonable
restriction on the freedom of religion in the interest of public order.

1.2. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

1.1.1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Articles 132 to 135 of the
Constitution deal with appeals to the Supreme Court which a person may avail of
as a matter of right so long as the conditions specified in those articles are
satisfied. Under Article 136, one may appeal to the court only with its permission
or leave. But the power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider
and general. It vests in the Supreme Court plenary jurisdiction in the matter of
entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special leave against any judgment,
decree, determination or order, in any cause or matter, passed or made by any
court or tribunal.

14
AIR 2013 SC 56

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
16
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

1.1.2. Compared with the provisions of Articles 132, 133 and 134, the jurisdiction
conferred under Article 136 has the following distinguishing features:

1. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgments, decrees or

final orders of the High Courts.15 It can be granted even against the decisions
of the lower courts such as of Magistrates.16
2. Appeals shall line from orders or determinations of all courts or tribunals in
the territory of Indus, except those mentioned in clause (2).
3. There is no condition that the order of the court should be a final order There
appeals against interlocutory orders are permissible. But normally, an
appellant is expected to exhaust the other remedies provided in law.
4. An appeal shall lie from any order or determination of a court or a tribunal.
The order or determination need not be final.17
5. The order or determination of a court or tribunal may be in any cause or
matter, civil criminal or otherwise.18
6. No law making any determination of ant court or tribunal final can limit the
jurisdiction of he court in article 136.19

1.3. CONCLUSION FOR THE FIRST ISSUE.

It is submitted that the in light of these cases, it is evident that the Special Leave
Petition is not maintainable in Indus. The provision for SLP is enshrined in Article
136 of the Constitution of Indus, and the court exercises its discretion in granting or
refusing special leave.

15
Usha K.Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, (1993) 3 SCC 208: AIR 1993 SC 2090.
16
Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980)3 SCC 435: AIR 1980 SC 1510.
17
Union Carbide Corp. V. Union Of Indus, (1991) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 317.
18
Raigarh Jute Mills Ltd V. Eastern Railway, AIR 1958 SC 525: 1959 SCR 236.
19
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65: (1955) 1 SCR 941.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
17
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

2. WHETHER THE UDAYAN PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ACT, 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR
NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 25 of Constitution gives
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, it
also allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of public order,
morality, and health. The Act can be seen as a reasonable restriction designed to
protect these interests.

2.1. THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS.

2.1.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 25 of the
Constitution of Indus states: “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice
and propagation of religion
1. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this
Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent
the State from making any law—
a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular
activity which maybe associated with religious practice;
b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of
Hindus.”
2.1.2. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Rev. Stanislaus v. Madhya Pradesh20,
the Supreme Court of India considered whether the fundamental right to practice
and propagate religion includes the right to convert. The court held that the right
to propagate does not include the right to convert and therefore upheld the

20
1977 AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
18
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

constitutional validity of the laws enacted by Madhya Pradesh and Odisha

legislatures prohibiting conversion by force, fraud or allurement.
2.1.3. The Supreme Court further stated that the freedom of religion enshrined in Art.
25 is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only but covers all religions alike
which can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner
commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religion. What is
freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure and there can,
therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s
own religion.
2.1.4. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Act does not restrict inter-
religious marriage, it merely tries to regulate the unlawful aspect of it on the
ground of public order. Further, it is claimed that only the marriages which are
used as a masquerade to further the agenda of conversion or vice-versa is being
made punishable. Moreover, the provisions of the Act are religion-neutral and will
be equally applicable to all communities.21
2.1.5. It further submitted that the Act is designed to protect the fundamental rights of
individuals, particularly the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the
Constitution. It seeks to prevent forced conversions, which infringe upon an
individual’s right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Act
serves a legitimate state interest in maintaining public order. Given the potential
for religious conversions to cause social unrest and communal violence, the state
has a compelling interest in regulating such conversions to ensure public safety
and order.
2.1.6. It is humbly submitted that while the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom
of religion, it also allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of
public order, morality, and health. The Act can be seen as a reasonable restriction
designed to protect these interests.

21 Tejaswi Surya & Suyash Pande, “UP Ordinance On Religious Conversion Is Being Misconstrued: Here's
Why It Will Pass Judicial Scrutiny”.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
19
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

2.1.7. It is further submitted that the Act applies equally to all religions and does not
discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, in line
with Article 15 of the Constitution.

2.2. THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDUS.
2.2.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in order to say that any
statutory provision is in aligns with Art. 14 it should passes the test of reasonable
classification constituting the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational
nexus.22 Further, to pass the intelligible differentia test for a provision, it is
necessary to check whether the way in which these provisions classified from
other standard or practised pattern, as intelligible differentia means distinguishing
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out from the group.23
2.2.2. It is further submitted that the statutory provision must have a rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.24 The legislative intent
of the Act as obtained from Statement of Objects and Reasons is to equip the law
to cater to best interests of the people to provide for prohibition of unlawful
conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue
influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage and for
the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus, there exists a rational
nexus between the object sought by the Act along with intelligible differentia
thereby making the section constitutionally valid under Art.14. Furthermore, A
challenge of that Act on the ground that it takes away or abridges or is
inconsistent with the rights conferred under Articles 14 of Constitution of India, is
not sustainable in the light of saving clause under Article 31-C of the Constitution
of India.25

22 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75

23 V. N. Shukla, “Constitution of India”, 12th Edition.
24 Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA AIR 1989 SC 307
25 Justin @Renjith v. Union of India W.P. (C) No. 15564 of 2017

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
20
4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

2.2.3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indus states:
“Protection of life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
2.2.4. It is further submitted that the Act not hamper Article 21 rather it gives protection
of life to people who willingly want to convert their faith. The Act aims to prevent
the exploitation of individuals, particularly women and minors, who may be
coerced or induced into converting to another religion under false pretenses or for
ulterior motives. This aligns with the constitutional mandate of ensuring justice,
liberty, and equality for all citizens. The Act provides procedural safeguards, such
as the requirement of prior notice to the District Magistrate, to ensure that
conversions are voluntary and not a result of force, fraud, or inducement.

2.3. CONCLUSION FOR THE SECOND ISSUE.

It is submitted that Article 25, Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of Indus
is not at all hit by the provisions of Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Religious Conversion Act, 2021. Moreover, the Act goes hand-in-hand with the
above mentioned Articles of the Constitution of Indus. Article 25 defines Right to
Religion, the Anti-conversion Act does not exhaust any rights of the citizens in fact
they help the citizens to practice their rights. The Anti-Conversion Act safeguards
the citizens who are misrepresented and forcefully converted. That Article 14 of the
Constitution of Indus defines Equality and Arbitrary nature. That Arbitrary Nature
do not make the petitioner guilty of any crime, it’s a mere presumption, however, the
Petitioner is given fair chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
21
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

3. WHETER THE DENIAL OF BAIL TO ASHFAQ’S FAMILY AND ISSUANCE

OF A NON-BAILABLE WARRANT AGAINST ASHFAQ UNDER SECTION
498A OF IPC, 1860 IS VALID OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the issuance of non- bailable
warrant and denial of bail is completely valid in Law. That the Magistrate Court has
convincingly passed the order as per the due process of Law. That the FIR against the
Petitioner U/s 498A is an non- bailable offence, the section is enacted for the cruelty
against the women.

3.1. THAT THE DENIAL OF BAIL TO ASHFAQ’S FAMILY AND ISSUANCE OF A NON-
BAILABLE WARRANT AGAINST ASHFAQ U/S 498A OF IPC IS VALID.

3.1.1. That it is submitted further that the FIR registered against the Petitioner and his
family in U/s 498A of Indian Penal Code is a serious offence and Non- bailable
offence against the woman. The main motive to formulate such laws was to
control atrocities toward the married women. There are plethora of instances
where women are subject to torture for materialistic gains of the Groom and his
family. That such laws are the hope and sense of safety and security, of such
aggrieved women. Such Laws create fear in the minds of the culprits so they can
think twice before doing any wrong.

3.1.2. That in the instant case the Petitioner is accused in Section 498A and U.P
conversion act which is a Non-bailable offence, moreover it is stated that the
Respondent willingly converted herself to Islam out of Love and affection but
being a citizen of U.P it was the duty of the Petitioner to follow the compliance
under section 9 of the U.P Act, which clearly states that the conversion application
need to be sent to the Magistrate for verification, in the present matter no such
Application was ever sent to the Magistrate, such instance create doubt that if the
respondent was willing to get converted to Islam, why did she not follow the
compliance?,

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
22
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

3.1.3. That it is pretty clear that she was following her earlier faith even after her
marriage, the fact that she was married to Petitioner in Special marriage act which
clearly portrays her mind that she was not of an opinion to convert herself, her
belongings had pictures of idols of her earlier faith, in-fact such finding resulted in
quarrels and fight between the Petitioner and his family with the Respondent. That
the fights were so intense that they were not only restricted to verbal abuses but
physical beating too. That, when the Respondent could not control herself and
when she lost the ability to take the pain, she gathered her courage and informed
her parent regarding such atrocities against her by sending images of her injuries
and bruises.

3.1.4. That in such cases the Women is her own witness, that when the parents of the
Respondent visited her the Respondent No. 2 disclosed all the atrocities she had to
face through the hands of her Petitioner Husband and his family, whereas the
Respondent Parents helped her to gather courage and register FIR against the
Petitioner and his family.

3.1.5. It is pertinent to observe the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.
Chopra26 where the Supreme Court Stated:

“In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest,

the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get
swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the dictionary
meaning of the expression "molestation". they must examine the entire material to
determine the genuineness of the complaint. the statement of the victim must be
appreciated in the background of the entire case. where the evidence of the victim
inspires confidence, as is the position in the instant case, the courts are obliged to
rely on it.”

26
1 SCC 759

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
23
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

3.1.6. That from the records and history it has always been proved that the women was
always subject to exploitation due to unlawful demands by the Groom and their
families.

3.1.7. In this context, it is pertinent to observe the case of Surendran v. State of

Kerala27, this Supreme Court judgment on 498A (2022) reiterated the well settled
principle of law that “the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness
cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the
Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more
carefully.”

3.2. CONCLUSION FOR THE THIRD ISSUE.

It is submitted that Section 498A cannot be taken lightly, that the petitioner accused
U/s 498A are charged because of their ulterior motives, that if such accused person
is set free that would result in more damages and tampering of evidences, moreover
it can also be life threatening for the Victim/Respondent and her family. That
issuance of Non-Bailable warrant and rejecting of bail is perfectly valid in the
present case.

27
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1080 of 2019

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
24
 4TH EDITION OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced and authorities cited,
it is therefore, most respectfully the Respondent most humbly and respectfully pray and
request the Hon’ble court:

1. To hold that the SLP is not maintainable.

2. To hold that the Udayan Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act,
2021 is constitutionally valid.

3. To confirm and validate the order of bail to Ashfaq’s family and issuance of a non-
bailable warrant against Ashfaq under section 498A of IPC, 1860.

4. Pass any other order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the respondent shall be
duty bound as ever pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
25