In The Case Concerning Right To Privacy, Homosexuality As A Crime and Extortion

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 45

P-15

1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indicia

Writ Jurisdiction

Public Interest Litigation No.………………

In the case concerning


Right To Privacy, Homosexuality as a crime and Extortion

IN THE MATTER OF

XYZ…………………………..Petitioner
V
Union Of Indicia………….. Respondent

To

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Indicia and his Lordship’s Companion


Justices of The Supreme Court of Indicia

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner I


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner II
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITY .................................................................................................. III


INDEX OF ABRREVIATIONS........................................................................................... VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................... VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................. IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUE ................................................................................................ X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... XI
Arguments Advanced ............................................................................................................ 1
1.ThePetition filed by XYZ is maintainable in supreme court of Indicia....................... ..... 1
The petitioner has locus standi.
1.1 ............................................................……………………………………… 1
1. 2. There is a violation of basic human rights………………………………………… 2
There is a violation of Right to Privacy
2. ...........................................................………. 3
The act of accused attracts liability under IPC as well as IT Act, 2008
3. ...................................................................…………………………………… 4
Act is punishable under 383, 384, 389 of Indian Penal code, 1860
3. 1. .................................................................…………………………………… 4
PUNISHABLE OFFENCE UNDER SEC 66E, SEC 67, SEC 67A OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT , 2008.
.......................................................................………………………………
3.2. 5
Section 377 of Indian Penal code should be Decriminalized or severed.
.................................................…………………………………………..
4. 6
Violation Of Fundamental Rights ...................................................................…..
4.1 6
Article 14
4.1.1 ....................................................................................................……………… 6
4.1.2 Article 15................................................................................................................. 7
Article 19.............................................................................
4.1.3 ...........................................… 8
4.1.4 Article 21 ……………………………………………………………………… 8
4.2 SEC 377 IS PARTLY VOID ON THE BASIS OF DOCTRINE OF
SEVERABILITY…………………………………………………………………………. 10
Prayer For Relief ................................................................................................................. 12

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner III


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner IV
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

Cases

S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (30.12.1981 - SC) : MANU/SC/0080/1981…1
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (28.08.1992 - SC) : MANU/SC/0532/1992………..1

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (13.08.1991 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0618/1991…………………………………………………………………………1

Kavalappara Kottarathil and Kochunni vs. States of Madras and Kerala and Ors. (04.05.1960
- SC) : MANU/SC/0366/1960…………………………………………………………………2

People’s Union v. Union of India,A.I.R 1982 S.C. 1473 (para 1)……………………………2

T. Nagappa vs. T.C. Basappa and Ors. (15.09.1955 - SC) : MANU/SC/0099/1955…………2

Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490…2

I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs. 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762……..2

Ajay Hasia and Ors. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (13.11.1980 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0498/1980…………………………………………………………………………2

Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sondoli vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(11.04.2000 - BOMHC)………………………………………………………………………3

Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Ors. (18.12.1962 - SC) : MANU/SC/0085/1962….3

Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (07.08.2009 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1410/2009………………………………………………………………………..3

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (25.01.1978 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0133/1978………………………………………………………………………..3

State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors. (01.09.2008 - SC) :
MANU/SC/3789/2008…………………………………………………………………………3
Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner V
Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23.02.2012 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0131/2012…………………………………………………………………3

Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Modi Kuresh Jamat, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1892………….3

Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Ors. (13.12.2012 -
SC) : MANU/SC/1103/2012……………………………………………………………….3

Distt. Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. Canara Bank and Ors. (01.11.2004 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0935/2004………………………………………………………………..3

Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23.09.2011 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1100/2011………………………………………………………………………3

‘X' vs. Hospital 'Z' (21.09.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0733/1998……………………………3

Sharda vs. Dharmpal (28.03.2003 - SC) : MANU/SC/0260/2003……………………………3


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (15.04.2014 - SC)…3

Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (18.03.1975 - SC) : MANU/SC/0119/1975….4

Shyambabu Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (08.01.1996 - MPHC) : MANU……….4

Krishnan and Ors. vs. Krishnaveni and Ors. (24.01.1997 - SC) : MANU/SC/0223/1997….4

Gursharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (10.09.1996 - SC) :


MANU/SC/1597/1996…………………………………………………………………………5

Biram Lal vs. State, RLW 2007 (1) Raj 713…………………………………………………5

Labhshankar vs. State of Saurashtra, 1955 CriLJ 839………………………………………..5

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner VI


Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India PIL NO. 155 OF 2009…………………………..5

Mohd. Arif vs State Of Uttarakhand Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 909 of
2014……………………………………………………………………………………………5

Parminder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (15.02.2013 - PHHC) :


MANU/PH/0319/2013……………………………………………………………………….5

S/ vs Sonu Sawarkar Fir No. 58/12…………………………………………………………..6

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 160 Delhi Law Times 277……………………..6

E. P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (23.11.1973 - SC) :


MANU/SC/0380/1973………………………………………………………………………..6

Chintaman Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (18.02.1958 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0143/1958………………………………………………………………………..6

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. (30.08.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0184/1978….7

National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (15.04.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0309/2014…………………………………………………………………………7

DELWIN VRIEND V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA. [1998] 1


SCR 493……………………………………………………………………………………..8

S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and Ors. (28.04.2010 - SC) : MANU/SC/0310/2010………8

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. (13.01.1981 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0517/1981………………………………………………………………9

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558(2008)……………………………………………………9

Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (18.10.2012 - SC) : MANU/SC/0892/2012……9

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner VII


Distt. Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Ors Vs. Canara Bank and OrS.
MANU/SC/0935/2004……………………………………………………………9

Thornburgh v. American College of O and G, 476 US 747 (1986)…………………………9

1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 (2003)……………………………………………..10

Manoj Narula vs. Union of India (UOI) (27.08.2014 - SC) : MANU/SC/0736/2014………10

Suresh Kumar Koushal and Ors. vs. NAZ Foundation and Ors. (11.12.2013 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1278/2013………………………………………………………………………..10

D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0157/1997………………………………10

CHIRANJIT LAL CHOWDHURY V. UOI (1950) 1 SCR 869……………………………10

State of Kerala and Ors. vs. N.M. Thomas and Ors. (19.09.1975 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0479/1975………………………………………………………………………10

SAURABH CHAUDHARI V. UOI (2003) 11 SCC 146; CHIEF JUSTICE OF ANDHRA


PRADESH V. L.V.A. DIXITULU (1979) 2 SCC 34………………………………………..11

Anuj Garg and Ors. vs. Hotel Association of India and Ors. (06.12.2007 - SC) :
MANU/SC/8173/2007………………………………………………………………………11

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (22.12.1989 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0644/1989……………………………………………………………………….11

Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (21.03.1997 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1176/1997………………………………………………………………………11

John Vallamatton v. Union of India (2003) 6SCC 611…………………………………….11

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner VIII


R. M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. The Union of India (UOI) (09.04.1957 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0020/1957……………………………………………………………………….11

Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 - SC) : MANU/SC/0074/1962…………..11

Bhim Singhji and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (01.07.1985 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0035/1985………………………………………………………………………..11

State of A.P. and Ors. vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (22.04.2002 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0356/2002…………………………………………………………………11

State of Madras and Ors. vs. V.G. Row (31.03.1952 - SC) : MANU/SC/0013/1952………11

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and ors (18.02.1992-SC):MANU/SC/0753/1992……………11

Minerva Mills Ltd. And ors v. Union of India and ors. (09.09.1986- SC):
MANU/SC/0523/1986………………………………………………………………………..11

A.K. Gopalan vs. Govt. of India (27.10.1965 - SC) : MANU/SC/0091/1965………………11

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner IX


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

Constitutional Provisions
India Const. art. 32……………………………………………………………………1
India Const. art. 32, cl 1……………………………………………………………….1
India Const. article 21…………………………………………………………………2

Book

5, Durga Das Basu, Constitution Of India 4914, (Justice S S Subramani,9th ed.2015). ..........2
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 ...............................3
S.P. Gupta v. President of India And Ors, AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2
SCR 365. ............................................................................................................................1
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310: AIR 1976 SC 490 ................................10

Online Databases

Manupatra
SCC Online
JSTOR
LexisNexis
Westlaw

International Conventions

UDHR……………………………………………………………………………………2

ICCPR……………………………………………………………………………………2

Statutes Referred

 IPC, 1860……………………………………………………………………………..4

 IT Act, 2008………………………………………………………………………..5
Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner X
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

INDEX OF ABRREVIATIONS

& And
IPC Indian Penal Code
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
so State Of
Constitution The Constitution of Indicia, 1950

LGBTQ Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer


Ed. Edition
Hon'ble Honourable
ICCPR International Covenant Of Civil and Political Rights
UDHR Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
Ors. Others
UOI Union Of India
PIL Public Interest Litigation
u/a Under Article
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
HC High Court

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XI


IT Information Technology
Anrs. Anothers
ed. Edition
para Paragraph
FR Fundamental Right

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XII


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indicia, 1950.

Article 32 reads as:

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 warranto 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 clause ( 1 ) and
(2) Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all 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.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XIII


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XIV
1ST Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A University situated in Bangla Pradesh, Indicia named Bharda University has started its
fresh admissions for the batch of 2013. Numerous students took admission in Bharda
University on the basis of merit, quota and caste. Two students named Mahesh and Suresh
also took admission in Bharda University on the basis of their merit. Suresh’s and Mahesh’s
family were very poor and they lie in the BPL (Below Poverty Line) Category, so they were
granted a scholarship to pay the fee.

Suresh was alloted room with Ramesh and Mahesh was allotted room with Palkesh. Their
rooms were adjacent to each other. During the admission process, Mahesh and Suresh
became good friends. As their friendship grew, they became emotionally attached to each
other and started facilitating each other academically to secure good marks in semester
examinations. Though Ramesh was the roommate of Suresh but he was not into studies
because of his infamous nature and whenever he was involved in group studies by Suresh and
Mahesh, he instead of studying started disturbing them. So, they decided to remove their
helping hand from Ramesh because of which he started failing in exams. Ramesh started
envying both of them and held them accountable for his situation.

Mahesh and Suresh while studying together developed a sexual attraction towards each other
and ended up being intimate during the time when Ramesh was not around. One day, Ramesh
planned a night out with his friend Rupesh. Suresh called Mahesh in his room after Ramesh
left and while studying they got intimate. Ramesh forgot his wallet and went back to take it.
He sneaked into their personal space and thinking it as an opportunity for revenge shot their
video. Ramesh told everything to Rupesh and also showed him the video and they planned to
blackmail them for notes and study material. Ramesh and Rupesh confronted them about their
relationship and started blackmailing them in exchange of the video not posted on internet.
Their plan turned out to be a success. After some time, Ramesh lost a hefty amount of money
in bets and waging and started blackmailing them for money to pay off his debts.
Dispute:-
After experiencing the blackmailing for one year they approached an LGBTQ rights NGO
named ‘XYZ’. XYZ decided to file a plea in SC seeking the remedy for infringement of a
fundamental right, i.e. Right to privacy. Ramesh reverted by claiming that homosexuality is a
criminal offense and he has the video evidence for the same.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XV


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XVI
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Issue I

Whether The Petition filed by XYZ is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicia?

Issue II

Whether there is a violation of fundamental right to privacy or not?

Issue III

Whether the act of accused attracts liability under any Indian Law?

Issue IV

Whether Section 377 of Indian Penal code should be Decriminalized or severed?

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XVII


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The Petition filed by XYZ is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicia.

The PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indicia for the reason that the
act done by the accused is violating the human rights of the victims and a fundamental right
guaranteed under article 21 of Indian Constitution i.e. Right to life and personal liberty. The
petitioner has the locus standi and sufficient interest for filing the petition before the court,
the word “Locus Standi” means the right of any party to appear before the court or to bring
an action before it and a person not directly affected by the issue can also file a suit in the
interest of public at Large. In the present case the petitioner who is not directly affected by
the issue also has the right to bring an action before the court as he is acting in a good faith.

II. There is a violation of right to privacy.

Right to privacy is considered as an integral part of Right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21 of Indian Constitution, 1950. Various Judgements have depicted
right to privacy as a fundamental right in India as well as the right to privacy is supported by
various international conventions such as the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human
Rights) and ICCPR (International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights). These conventions
say that, anyone’s personal space should not be infringed and in this case accused infringed
the personal space of victims and infringed their right to privacy which is a human as well as
a fundamental right.

III. The act attracts liability under IPC as well as IT act 2008.

The act done by the accused is punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the
Information Technology Act, 2008.The accused had threatened the victims to leak their video
of getting intimate in exchange of study material i.e., notes and later he also threatened them
for money, which he lost in betting and waging. This act of the accused constituted the
offence of extortion under section 389 of IPC and section 66, 67 and 67a of IT act, 2008.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XVIII


1ST Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

IV. Section 377 of the Indian Penal code should be Decriminalized or severed.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the intercourse between two men , woman
or with an animal by defining such type of intercourse as the carnal or unnatural intercourse.
This rule violates a basic human right described under the article 6 of the UDHR which says
that everyone has a right to recognition in every part of the world. This rule puts a question
on the mere existence of the gay and lesbian people. Everyone should have a basic right to
choose his or her partner and that is why this provision should be decriminalized. This
provision might have been appropriate when it was formed, but in the current scenario with a
massive evolution of the human rights regime, this provision is highly inappropriate and if
not totally decriminalized, it should be severed up to the part it criminalizes same sex
marriages and intercourse, the rest of the part should be left.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XIX


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner XX
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. The Petition filed by XYZ is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicia.


The petitioners humbly submit before this Hon’ble court that the PIL is maintainable in the
Hon’ble court for the reason that the act of the accused is violating the human rights and
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, 1950 and some reputed
international covenants of which India is also a signatory. The PIL is maintainable under
1
Art 32 (1 ) because: (1.1). That the petitioner has locus standi (1.2). There is a violation of
basic human rights2.

1.1 The Petitioner has Locus Standi.

1. Locus Standi means right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address a court on
a matter before it.3 A person acting in good faith and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will have a locus standi and can approach the court for wiping out the
tears of poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights.4

2. Where a person or a class of persons to whom legal injury is caused by reason of


Violation of a FR is unable to approach the court for judicial redress on account of
poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, any member of
the public acting bona fide can approach the court for relief under article 32.5

3. When we have the case of a person or a class of persons whose fundamental rights are
violated but they cannot resort going to the court on account of their poverty or
disability, socially or economically disadvantaged position, in such a case the court can
and must allow any member of the public acting bona fide to espouse the cause of such

1
Constitution of India, 7 June 2020, 4:26 PM, https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india
2
Want to file a Public Interest Litigation(PIL)? Here’s all you need to know,19 July 2020, 9:14 PM,
https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/want-to-file-a-public-interest-litigation-pil-here-s-all-you-need-to-
know-1592174-2019-08-27
3
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (30.12.1981 - SC) : MANU/SC/0080/1981
4
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (28.08.1992 - SC) : MANU/SC/0532/1992
5
Supra. at 2.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 1


person or class of persons and move the court for the judicial enforcement of the FR of
such person or class of persons6.

6
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (13.08.1991 - SC) : MANU/SC/0618/1991

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 1


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

4. The SC has held that in Social or public interest actions any person may move the court.
This is called public interest litigation.7

5. SC has relaxed its strict rules relating to affidavit locus standi and the like in the class of
litigation classified as “Public Interest Litigation”.

6. Where the people in general are interested in the vindication of some right or the
enforcement of some public duty8. An application under art. 32 cannot be refused on the
ground that the petitioner had another legal remedy open to him. Where a FR appears to have
been infringed9, the SC has jurisdiction to enforce the fundamental rights against the private
bodies and individuals. It can exercise its jurisdiction suo moto on the basis of PIL10.
1.2 There is a violation of basic human rights.

1. Substansive expansion of Concept of Human rights under article 21 of Indian Constitution


is that every person has right to life and personal liberty. Fundamental rights are modern
name for what have been traditionally known as human rights11. Supreme Court said that it
has special responsibility to enlarge the range and meaning of Fundamental Rights and to
advance the human rights and jurisprudence12.

2. India is a party to the UDHR and ICCPR, these declarations describe some of the
fundamental rights as inalienable. All human beings are born free and have equal dignity,
rights13. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in
spirit of brotherhood. Everyone has right to life, liberty and security of person14. No one
should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

7
Kavalappara Kottarathil and Kochunni vs. States of Madras and Kerala and Ors. (04.05.1960 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0366/1960
8
People’s Union v. Union of India,A.I.R 1982 S.C. 1473 (para 1)
9
T. Nagappa vs. T.C. Basappa and Ors. (15.09.1955 - SC) : MANU/SC/0099/1955
10
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490
11
I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs. 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
12
Ajay Hasia and Ors. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (13.11.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0498/1980
13
United Nations, United Declaration of Human Rights, 7 June 2020, 5:40 PM,
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
14
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 7 June 2020, 5:43 pm,
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 2


3. Fundamental rights are those basic rights which are recognized and guaranteed as natural
rights inherent in status of a citizen of a free country. The act of accused has deteriorated the
right to life and personal liberty of the victims and has created a scar on some basic human
rights

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 2


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020
3.(contd.). of the victims

2. There is violation of Right to privacy.


1. Right to privacy has been discussed in a trail of judgements by several courts within the
limits of Indian territory. Such judgements intricate that right to privacy is an inseparable part
of right to life and personal liberty, which is guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution15. In a case it was held that, right to life does not means living like a mere animal
and same views were depicted in some more precedents, it means living the life with
dignity 16 . The minority opinion in kharak singh case declared right to privacy as a
fundamental right17. The reasoning given in the kharak singh case was held as an essential
ingredient of personal liberty 18 . In a case, the minority view of kharak singh bench was
upheld and, right to privacy was declared as an integral part of article 21 of the constitution of
India19.

2. Right to privacy has underwent a development process by now and if the term “personal
liberty” is widely interpreted, this will include right to privacy within the meaning of article
21 of constitution20. If the personal life or private life of any person is wrongfully intruded,
this act endangers that person’s right to privacy which is an 21integral part of right to life and
personal liberty under constitution22. 23
Indian courts whether it be SC or HC have justified in
their 24numerous judgments that right to privacy is an 25integral and 26indispensable part of

15
Supra. at 1
16
Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sondoli vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (11.04.2000 -
BOMHC)
17
Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Ors. (18.12.1962 - SC) : MANU/SC/0085/1962
18
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (07.08.2009 - SC) : MANU/SC/1410/2009
19
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (25.01.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0133/1978
20
State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors. (01.09.2008 - SC) : MANU/SC/3789/2008
21
Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23.02.2012 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0131/2012
22
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Modi Kuresh Jamat, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1892
23
Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Ors. (13.12.2012 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1103/2012
24
Distt. Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. Canara Bank and Ors. (01.11.2004 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0935/2004
25
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23.09.2011 - SC) : MANU/SC/1100/2011
26
‘X' vs. Hospital 'Z' (21.09.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0733/1998

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 3


right to life 27 . Right to privacy is not limited to restriction free movement but also an
encroachment free private life. Irrespective of the sexual orientation of a person, his
fundamental right of privacy should not be violated and everyone has the absolute right of
either to tell or not to tell his/her sexual orientation and no one should be coerced to do the
same.

27
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (28.03.2003 - SC) : MANU/SC/0260/2003

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 3


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

3.Right to privacy empowers a person to protect one’s family, motherhood28 and private life29
and if this right is violated, it affects the spirit of some basic human rights guaranteed

under 30UDHR and 31ICCPR. In the present case, accused breached the private space of the
victims and violated their right to privacy. Accused has breached the right to privacy of the
victims, which is a fundamental right because it is an integral part of article 21 of Indian
Constitution.

3. The act of accused attracts liability under IPC as well as IT Act 2008

Accused extorted the victims for his dishonest benefit. He sneaked into their private space
and shot their video while they were getting intimate and used that video to extort them in
exchange of notes and study material and later for the money which he lost in waging and
betting. The act of accused constitutes an punishable offense under both IPC & IT act 2008.
Counsels for the Petitioner will cover the liability of accused as we proceed further.

3.1) ACT IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 383, 384 AND 389 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.

1. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person ,or to any
other,and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, commits “extortion”32.

2. Offences like robbery,dacoity,kidnapping and “extortion” are grave and serious and are
generally committed by desperate and hardened criminals, who threaten to otherwise
eliminate the witness33.

28
Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (18.03.1975 - SC) : MANU/SC/0119/1975
29
Shyambabu Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (08.01.1996 - MPHC) : MANU
30
UDHR § 12 (1948)
31
ICCPR § 17 (1976)
32
IPC § 383 (1860)
33
Krishnan and Ors. vs. Krishnaveni and Ors. (24.01.1997 - SC) : MANU/SC/0223/1997

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 4


3. Ingredients that would constitute the offence of extortion are –

 The accused must put any person in fear to injury to that person or any other person &

putting of person in such fear must be intentional

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 4


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

 The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver anything that can be
converted into valuable security

 Such inducement must be done dishonestly34.

4. In the given case, Ramesh’s plan turned out to be success. Putting in fear a person to
deliver something valuable amounts to extortion35. If the act of inducement caused by the
wrongdoer
bring forth its result consenting to produce requisite effect , offence of extortion takes place36.

According to section 389 of IPC, “putting a person in fear of accusation of offence, in order
to commit extortion is punishable ; and, if the offence be punishable under sec.377 of this
code, may be punished with imprisonment of life”. It was held in Amit garg vs SO
uttrakhand, Extortion and transmission of any material which contains sexually explicit act in
electronic form are certainly the penal offences.

5. In the given case, Ramesh blackmailed them for helping him academically in exchange of
video not being posted on internet. The essence of offence of extortion is complete after the
actual delivery37 .The given case fulfills all the ingredients of the offence of “extortion” and
hence the respondents must be held liable.

3.2) PUNISHABLE OFFENCE UNDER SEC 66E, SEC 67, SEC 67A OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT , 2008.

1. According to section 66E of IT Act, 2008 . “ whoever , intentionally or knowingly captures


, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent ,
under circumstances violating the privacy of that person , shall be punished38”. Section 67 of

34
( 2.2.2007 – SC) : MANU/SC/7061/2007
35
Gursharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (10.09.1996 - SC) : MANU/SC/1597/1996
36
Biram Lal vs. State, RLW 2007 (1) Raj 713
37
Labhshankar vs. State of Saurashtra, 1955 CriLJ 839

38
IT Act § 66E (2008)
Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 5
the act provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic
form39.

2. Section 67 A of the act provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting of the
material containing sexually explicit act, etc, in electronic form40. In the case of Janhit manch
and ors vs uoi, it was held that the person liable for commitment of offence which falls under
the purview of sec 66 E, sec 67 or sec 67 A of IT Act , 200841 shall be punished.

39
IT Act § 67 (2008)
40
IT Act § 67A (2008)
41
Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India PIL NO. 155 OF 2009
Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 5
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020
3. Extortion and transmission of any material which contains sexually explicit act in the
electronic form are certainly the penal offenses. Extortion through message containing
sexually explicit act or conduct of the victim is a punishable offence. In the case of
Parminder Singh vs SO Punjab, convict was sentenced 2 year rigorous imprisonment under
sec 66 E and sec 67A of the IT Act42.

4.Commitment of extortion by blackmailing and showing pornographic material to someone


is a punishable offence. In the case of S/ vs Sonu Swarkar, rigorous imprisonment of 4 years
and fine of rs. 500 was sentenced to the convict under sec 67A , of IT act,2008 43. In the given
case, victim’s private content was captured and they were accordingly blackmailed for the
same, thus making it an act punishable under sec 66E, sec 67 and sec 67A of IT act,2008.

4.Section 377 of Indian Penal code should be Decriminalized or severed.

1.As Martin Luther King Jr. rightly said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere”. In 1860 when we got the Indian Penal Code, drafted by Lord Macaulay, the
british government inserted sec. 377 in the IPC, which brought in the concept of “sexual
offences against the order of nature”. In India we did not have the concept of something being
“against the order of nature”. It was essentially a western concept which has remained over
the years44. Social prejudice and laws criminalizing same-sex intercourse have lead to several
negative outcomes impacting the overall health of the LGBTQ community like blackmailing,
extortion, depression, anxiety, eviction, violence, substance abuse, and interruptions in
treatment. By criminalizing private, consensual same-sex conduct, sec 377 IPC serves the
weapon for police abuse, detaining and questioning, extortion, harassment, forced sex,
payment of hush money and perpetuates negative and discriminatory beliefs towards same
sex relationships45. 2.Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalizes men who have sex with
men, must be decriminalized46. Section 377, if retained in its present form, would involve the
violation of, not one but, several FRs of the LQBTQs, namely, right to equality, right of

42
Parminder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (15.02.2013 - PHHC) : MANU/PH/0319/2013
43
S/ vs Sonu Sawarkar Fir No. 58/12
44
Naz Foudation vs Government of NCT of Delhi, 7 July 2020, 8:18 PM,
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/100472805/?formInput=kirby
45
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 160 Delhi Law Times 277
46
Ramadoss backs gay rights, says Sec 377 must go, 7 July 2020, 8:26 PM,
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/ramadoss-backs-gay-rights-says-sec-377-must-go/346649

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 6


dignity, right to life and liberty and right to freedom of expression. Section 377 IPC violates
the constitutional protections embodied in art 14, 19 and 2147

47
Supra. at 46

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 6


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020
4.1 There is violation of Fundamental rights
4.1.1 ARTICLE 14
1.Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
“cribbed and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits48. Legislation which
arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot said to be containing the quality of
49
reasonableness . What is punitively outrageous, unusual or cruel,
rehabilitatively counterproductive, is unarguably unreasonable ,arbitrary and is
violating struck down by art 14 and 1950.
2.In the present case, the two constitutional rights relied upon i.e. ‘right to equality
and right to personal liberty are fundamental human rights which belong to
individuals simply by virtue of their humanity. Section 377 suffers from the vice of
unreasonable classification and is arbitrary in the way it unfairly targets the
homosexuals or gay community.
3.It conveys the message that homosexuals are of less value than other people which
demeans them and unconstitutionally infringes upon their rights51. Sec 377 subjects
the LGBTQ community to societal pariah and dereliction and is, therefore, manifestly
arbitrary, for it has become an odious weapon for the harassment of the community by
subjecting them to discrimination and unequal treatment. In the present case, Ramesh
and Suresh have been subject to extortion for about one year, as they feared that
instead of getting justice, they will be prosecuted for being homosexuals as sec. 377
makes homosexuality a criminal offence.
4.1.2 Article 15
1.Sexual orientation is understood for referring to each person’s capacity for
profound emotional, affectional and sexual relations with, individuals of a different
gender or the same gender or more than one gender52. The expression of sexuality
requires partner whether it be real or imaginary. It is not for the state to choose or to
arrange the choice of partner, but for the partners to choose themselves53.

48
E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (23.11.1973 - SC) : MANU/SC/0380/1973
49
Chintaman Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (18.02.1958 - SC) : MANU/SC/0143/1958

50
Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. (30.08.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0184/1978
51
Supra. At 46
52
Yogyakarta Principles- human rights law review 8:2(2008), 207-248
53
National coalition for gay and lesbian equality v. the minister of justice, 7 July 2020, 8:37 PM,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Gay_and_Lesbian_Equality_v_Minister_of_Justice

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 7


2.The term ‘sex’ as it occurs in art. 15 has been given an expansive interpretation by
this court in the NALSA case. The discrimination on the ground of “sex” u/a 15, 16
includes discrimination on the ground of gender identity.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 7


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

3.The discrimination on the ground of sex under art 15 and 16, therefore includes
discrimination on the ground of gender identity54. LGBTQ persons being a sexual minority
have been subjected to societal prejudice, discrimination and violence on account of their
sexual orientation. Since sec. 377 criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of
nature”, it complex LGBT persons to lead closeted lives.
4. As a consequence, LGBT persons are seriously
disadvantaged and prejudiced when it comes to access to health care facilities55. The most
important outcome is the psychological harm which may ensue from the state of affairs as the
fear of discrimination(by LGBT) would logically lead them to concealment of true identity
and this is harmful to their personal confidence and self-esteem56. The expression “sex”as
used in art.15 cannot be read restrictive to “gender” but includes “sexual orientation”and thus
read, equality on the basis of sexual orientation is implied in the said FR against
discrimination. Article 15’s prohibition of sex discrimination implies the right to autonomy
and self-determination, which places emphasis on individual choice. Therefore, a measure
that disadvantages a vulnerable group defined on the basis of a characteristic that relates to
personal autonomy must be subject to scrutiny 57 . Any discrimination meted out to the
LGBTQ community on the basis of sexual orientation would run counter to the mandate
provided under the constitution and the said view has also gained approval of this court in the
NALSA case. The rights of LGBT community need to be recognized and protected, for
sexual orientation is an integral and innate facet of every individual’s identity. A person
belonging to the said community does not become alien to the concept of individual and his
individualism cannot be viewed with a stigma.

4.1.3 Article 19

Sec 377 IPC creates structural impediments to the exercise of freedom of speech and
expression and other freedoms under art 19 by homosexuals or gays 58. Law should not be
used in a manner that it has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression59. Sec.

54
National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (15.04.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0309/2014
55
The economic cost of stigma and the exclusion of the LGBT people: a case study of India(English), 7 June
2020, 8:54 PM, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-
reports/documentdetail/527261468035379692/the-economic-cost-of-stigma-and-the-exclusion-of-lgbt-people-a-
case-study-of-india
56
DELWIN VRIEND V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA. [1998] 1 SCR 493
57
Supra. at 46
58
Id.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 8


377 amounts to unreasonable restriction, for public decency and morality that cannot be
amplified beyond a rational or logical limit and cannot be accepted as a reasonable grounds
for curbing

59
S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and Ors. (28.04.2010 - SC) : MANU/SC/0310/2010

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 8


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020
the FR of freedom of expression and choice of the LGBTQ community. Consensual carnal
intercourse among adults, be it homosexual or heterosexual, in private space, does not in any
way harm the public decency or morality.

4.1.4 Article 21

1.Right to life and liberty, as envisaged u/a 21, is meaningless unless it encompasses
within its sphere individual dignity and right to dignity includes the right to carry such
functions and activities as would constitute the meaningful expression of the human
self. Right to life could not be restricted to a mere animal existence, and provided
much more than only physical survival60. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults
may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their
own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds
overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one
element in personal bond that is more enduring.
2.The liberty protected by the constitution allows homosexuals the right to male this
choice61. Sec 377 by creating a taint of criminality, deprives the LGBTQ persons of
their right to reputation which is a facet of the right to life and liberty of a citizen
under art 21 to the effect that reputation is an element of personal security and
protected by the constitution with the right to enjoyment of life and liberty62. This
right is being denied to the LGBTQ persons because of sec 377 as it makes them
apprehensive to speak openly about their sexual orientation and makes them
vulnerable to extortion, blackmail and denial of state machinery for either protection
or for enjoyment of other rights and amenities.
3.No aspect of one’s life may be said to be more private or intimate than that of
sexual relations, and since private, consensual, sexual relations or sexual preferences
figure prominently within an individual’s personality and lie easily at the core of
“private space”, they are an inalienable component of the right to life. Therefore
prohibition of certain private, consensual sexual relations (homosexual) provided by
sec 377 IPC unreasonably abridges the right of privacy and dignity within the ambit
of art. 21 63 . Privacy recognizes that we all have a right of private intimacy and

60
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. (13.01.1981 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0517/1981
61
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558(2008)
62
Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (18.10.2012 - SC) : MANU/SC/0892/2012
63
Supra. at 46
Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 9
autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human relationships without
interference from the outside community. If in expressing one’s sexuality, one acts
willingly and without

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 9


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020
harming the other, invasion of that precinct will be a breach of privacy 64 . The
concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not
to others nor to the society as a whole65.
3. The sphere of privacy allows person to develop human relations without interference from
the outside community or from the State. The exercise of autonomy enables an individual to
attain fulfillment, grow in self-esteem, build relationships of his or her choice and fulfill all
legitimate goals 66 . The state could not demean the existence or control the destiny of
homosexuals by making their private sexual conduct a crime, for their right to liberty gives
them the
full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the state67.Popular morality or
public disappointment of certain acts us not a valid justification for restriction of the fr under
art 21.
4. If there is any type of morality that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be
“constitutional moral” 68 . The court as final arbitrator of the constitutional rights, should
disregard social morality and uphold and protect constitutional morality69. Due to the social
stigma and criminal status attached to homosexuality, Ramesh and Suresh could not file a
complaint for extortion which any other citizen of Indicia could easily do. This the plight of
every homosexual in the country that they cannot get justice for being extorted, instead they
are punished for being homosexual, which is a mere sexual orientation.
5. The fact that the LGBT community constitute a “minuscule fraction” of the country’s
population and thus their plight cannot be made a ground for striking down a section 70.Even
though the community constitute a sexual minority, they are still the citizens of this country
who are equally entitled to the enforcement of their FRs guaranteed by the constitution. The
courts must not display an iota of doubt and must not hesitate in striking down such
provisions of law on the account of it being violative of the FR of certain citizens, however
minuscule their percentage may be71. Even single person legislation could be valid72.

64
Supra. at 54
65
Distt. Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Ors Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. MANU/SC/0935/2004

; Thornburgh v. American College of O and G, 476 US 747 (1986)


66
Supra. at 46
67
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
68
Supra. at 46
69
Manoj Narula vs. Union of India (UOI) (27.08.2014 - SC) : MANU/SC/0736/2014
70
Suresh Kumar Koushal and Ors. vs. NAZ Foundation and Ors. (11.12.2013 - SC) : MANU/SC/1278/2013
71
D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0157/1997

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 10


72
CHIRANJIT LAL CHOWDHURY V. UOI (1950) 1 SCR 869

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 10


1st law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition

4.2 SEC 377 IS PARTLY VOID ON THE BASIS OF DOCTRINE OF


SEVERABILITY

1. We do not intend to challenge that part of sec. 377 that relates to carnal intercourse
with animals. The aspect that is debatable is consensual carnal intercourse between
humans, whether homosexuals or heterosexuals.
2. Art. 13 is the basis of doctrine of severability. Art. 13(2) deals with the post
constitution laws and prohibits the state from making a law which takes away or
abridges the FRs and any such law is void to the extent of the contravention.
Indian const is a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of
transforming a medieval, hierarchical society into a modern, egalitarian democracy.
The purpose of having a constitution is to transform the society for the better and this
objective is the fundamental pillar of transformative constitutionalism73.
3.Our constitution is organic in nature, being a living organ, it is ongoing and with
the passage of time, it must change. Horizons of constitutional law are expanding 74.
Classification which may have been treated as valid at the time of its adoption may
cease to be so on account of changing social norms75. It is not that with changing
times the meaning changes but changing times illustrate and illuminate the meaning
of the expression used. The connotation of the expression used takes its shape and
color in evolving dynamic situations76. Therefore it is but the duty of the court to
balance the competing rights by interpreting the principles, to the language or the
words contained, in the living and organic constitution, broadly and liberally77.
4.The constitutionality of a provision will have to be judged keeping in view the
interpretative changes of the statute affected by passage of time, the law although
may be constitutional when enacted but with passage of time the same may be held
to be unconstitutional in view of the changed situation78. Where the legislation falls
in part within the area allotted to it and in part outside it, it is undoubtedly void as to

73
State of Kerala and Ors. vs. N.M. Thomas and Ors. (19.09.1975 - SC) : MANU/SC/0479/1975
74
SAURABH CHAUDHARI V. UOI (2003) 11 SCC 146; CHIEF JUSTICE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V.
L.V.A. DIXITULU (1979) 2 SCC 34
75
Anuj Garg and Ors. vs. Hotel Association of India and Ors. (06.12.2007 - SC) : MANU/SC/8173/2007
76
Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (22.12.1989 - SC) : MANU/SC/0644/1989
77
Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (21.03.1997 - SC) : MANU/SC/1176/1997
78
John Vallamatton v. Union of India (2003) 6SCC 611

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner


11
the latter. Whether the valid part could be separated from the invalid part is a
question which has to be decided by the court on consideration of the provisions of

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner


11
1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

the act79. If the legislation in question violates a FR, it would have to be struck down
“in discharge of a duty plainly laid upon the courts by the constitution80.
5.Paragraph 7 of the tenth schedule, inserted by the 52nd amendment act of 1985, was
declared unconstitutional because it violated the provisions under art 368(2). But the
rest part was upheld81. Section 4 of 55 of the 42nd amendment act, was struck down
for being beyond the amending power of the parliament and the rest of the act was
declared to be valid82. Preventive detention was held to be void and was removed
from section 14 and the rest of the part was held to be valid83.
6. Sec. 377 criminalizing consensual carnal intercourse between homosexuals or
heterosexuals in private is outdated and has no place in the modern society. In the
present case, Ramesh and Suresh willingly got intimate in private and therefore they
should not be subjected to any criminal proceedings.

79
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. The Union of India (UOI) (09.04.1957 - SC) : MANU/SC/0020/1957

; Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 - SC) : MANU/SC/0074/1962

; Bhim Singhji and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (01.07.1985 - SC) : MANU/SC/0035/1985

; State of A.P. and Ors. vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (22.04.2002 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0356/2002
80
State of Madras and Ors. vs. V.G. Row (31.03.1952 - SC) : MANU/SC/0013/1952
81
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and ors (18.02.1992-SC):MANU/SC/0753/1992
82
Minerva Mills Ltd. And ors v. Union of India and ors. (09.09.1986- SC): MANU/SC/0523/1986
83
A.K. Gopalan vs. Govt. of India (27.10.1965 - SC) : MANU/SC/0091/1965

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 12


1st Law Tales Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2020

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to;

1. HOLD, THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINATINABLE IN THE SUPREME


COURT OF INDICIA

2. HOLD, THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

3. HOLD, THAT ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER IPC AS WELL AS IT ACT, 2008 .

4. HOLD, THAT THE SECTION 377 OF IPC IS ABRIDING PEOPLE FROM THEIR
BASIC HUMAN RIGHT AS WELL AS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HENCE IT
SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED OR SEVERED.

And any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests of
justice, equity, and good conscience.

FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 12


Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner 14

You might also like