Memorial for the Petitioners

TEAM CODE- C35

1ST P.A. INAMDAR INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016
BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF MALP
U/ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MALP
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. X
PETITIONER
V.
TRANS PALSHIAN UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 23/2016
AND

YOUNG PALSHTIYA WOMEN ORGANISATION

PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF MALP AND ORS.
RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 47/2016
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Memorial for the Petitioners

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

PAGE
NO.

HEADING
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

BOOKS REFERRED

DICTIONARIES

WEBSITES

CASE LAWS

4
4,5

5,6,7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10,11

ISSUES RAISED

12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

13,14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016.
20-21
I.

WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY YMWO MAINTAINABLE U/A 32

THE CONSTITUTION OF MALP?
A. YMWO has a Locus standi to file PIL
B. MEB is State
C. Violation of Fundamental Rights
D. Alternative Remedy Not a Bar

II. WHETHER THE RULING BY MEB PERTAINING

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
A.
A. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Violation of Art.14
Violation of Art.15
Violation of Art.29
2

TO

OF

DRESS CODE
22-26

Memorial for the Petitioners

Violation of Art.25
Violation of Art.21
B.

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 23/2016

27-29
III.

IV.
C.

9.

WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY MS. X MAINTAINABLE U/A 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MALP?
A. Petitioner has locus standi to file the petition
B. Alternative Remedy Not a Bar
C. Respondent is State u/a 12

WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE TRANS PALSHIYAN UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
A. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Violation of Art.14
Violation of Art.15
Discrimination on Basis of Religion

THE PRAYER

33

34

Memorial for the Petitioners

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS:
1. The Constitution Of India,1950

BOOKS REFERRED:
1.Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India; India: Lexis Nexis (2nd edition
2007).
2. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India; Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company
(8th ed. 2007).
3. H.K Saharay, The Constitution of India-An Analytical Approach: Eastern Law House (4th
edition 2012)
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional law of India, Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd. (3rd ed. 1983).
5. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad: Central Law Agency (42nd edition
2005)
6. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law; Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company (5th edition 2003)
7. M.P. Singh, V.N. Shuklas Constitution of India (11th ed. 2008).

8. V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, Lukhnow : Eastern Book Company 6th edition

9. P.M Bakshi, Public Interest Litigation, New Delhi: Ashoka Law House (3rd edition 2012)

10.P.K Majumdar, R.P Kataria, Commentary on the Constitution of India; New Delhi: Orient
Publishing Co. (10th edition 2009)
11.I P Messay, Administrative Law,Eastern Book Company,Lucknow ( 8th edn. 2012)
12. Justice B L HANSARIAS, Writ Jurisdiction (3rd ed. 2005)

Memorial for the Petitioners

13.Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India, Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency (7th edition
2008)
14. P.M Bakshi, The Constitution of India; Universal Law Publishing Co. (12th edition 2013)
15. D.E D.J, The Constitution of IndiaHyderabad , Asia Law House, vol.1 edn. 2002

DICTIONARIES:
1. Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition)
2. Advanced Law Lexicon, 4th Edition
3. Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Ed.)

WEBSITES:
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
3. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
4. www.scconline.com
5. www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-submits-data-on gaypopulation/article2991667.ece
6.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17363200

7.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17363200

8. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/A.HRC.19.41_English.pdf

ARTICLES REFERRED:
1. Christine Kehoe,American Psychological Ass'n, "Definition of Teims: Sex, Cjender, Gencter
Identity, Sexual Orientation" (Feb. 2011)

Memorial for the Petitioners

2. Michael O'Flaherty and John Fisher, "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International
Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles" - Human Rights Law
Review 8:2 (2008), 207-248
3. Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court
of India, (2014)

CASES REFERRED:
1) Namdin v. Dani, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1225 ............................................................................ 18
2) I.M. Chagla v. P.Shiv Shankar,(1981) 4 SCC 1975 ......................................................... 10
3) R.D. Upadhyayv. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2007) 15 SCC 337..................... 22
4) Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1570 (1575). ........................................ 18
5) Fertiliser Corpn. Kamagar Union v. Union of India,(1981) I SCC 568,574-75., ........... 11
6) State of Kerala v. T.P Roshana, AIR 1979 SC 765 .......................................................... 18
7) .R.D. Shetty v. International airport authority ,1979 AIR 1628, 199 SCR (3) 1014........ 18
8) ChiranjitLal v. Union of India, AIR, 1951, SC41 ............................................................ 18
9) Evans v. Newton 382 US 296 15 L. Ed.-2nd 373, Ch614 : 1963 1 All. E.R. 590 ............ 19
10) Hooney v. Kolohan 294 US 103 ....................................................................................... 18
11) HusainaraKhatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 .................... 18
12) LIC v. Escorts, AIR 1986 SC 1370 : (1986) 1 SCC 264 .................................................. 21
13) Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 65 (68), 7........................................... 18
14) A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India, AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367 ... 21
15) A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 205) ............................................ 21
16) A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986
Sc 1490; ............................................................................................................................ 24
6

Memorial for the Petitioners

17) Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid MujibSehravardi & Ors(1981) 1 SCC 722 ................... 13,18
18) Albert Raj v. District Cpollector Kanyakumari AIR W. P. No. 16804 of 2003 ................ 16
19) Amita v. Union of India,(2005) 13 SCC 721 .................................................................... 14
20) New York v. United States 326 US 572, Helvering v. Gerhardt) Marsh v. Alabama (3)
326 U.S. 501: 19 L.ed. 265 ............................................................................................... 19
21) St. Stephen college vs University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 588 : AIR 1992 sc 1630. ........ 24
22) State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka U.D. Karamchari Sanstha AIR 2009 SC 2249 ....... 11
23) AndiMuktaSadguru Shree MuktajeeVandas Swami SuvarnaJayantiMahotsavSmarak
Trust and Others v. V.R. Rudani and Others, 1989 AIR 1607, 1989 SCR (2) 697 ........... 19
24) Bachan Singh v. State or Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325 : (1982) 3 SCC 24 ......................... 21
25) Bijoe Ennamuel v. State of Kerela 1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518 .............................. 16
26) Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1570 (1575). ......................................... 18
27) Bodhisattawa Gautum v. Subbhra Chakraborty.(1996) I SCC 490:AIR 1996 SC 922 .... 10
28) Bondu Ramaswamy v. Banglore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129 .................. 14
29) Chandra Mohan Khanna V. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76 .................................................... 18
30) CharanLal Singh v. Gaini Zail Singh, [1984] 1 SCC 390 [1984] AIR 309(SC) .............. 17
31) Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR, 1951, SC41 ............................................................ 18
32) Commr.,HRE,Madras v. Sri Laxmindra,AIR 1954 SC 282,290:1954 SCR 1002 ............. 15
33) Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457............................................... 18
34) Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145]................................................... 20
35) Delhi development authority v. joint action committee,Alottee of SFS Flats,(2008) 2 SCC
672..................................................................................................................................... 13
36) Delhi Transport Corp. v. DTC Mazdor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101, 196; ..................... 20

Memorial for the Petitioners

37) DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of IndiaWRIT PETITION (C) NO.
441 OF 2015 ..................................................................................................................... 11
38) Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v SRM University SLP(C) No.11208/2015) ....................................... 19
39) Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees, Bombay Port, AIR 1989 SC 1642 ... 21
40) DwarkadasMarfatia& Sons v. Board of Trustees, Bombay Port, AIR 1989 SC 1642 ...... 21
41) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu................................................................................ 20
42) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 : (1974) 3 SCC 3 ...................... 20
43) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,............................................................................... 20
44) Evans v. Newton 382 US 296 15 L. Ed.-2nd 373, Ch 614 : 1963 1 All. E.R. 590 ............ 19
45) Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; ................................ 21
46) Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; Netai Bag v. State of
West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262 : AIR 2000 Sc 3313 ...................................................... 21
47) Fertiliser Corpn. Kamagar Union v. Union of India,(1981) I SCC 568,574-75. ............. 11
48) Ganapathi National Middle School v. M.D. Kannan 1996 SCALE (6)36 ........................ 19
49) Gauri Shankar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 55 at 58 : (1994) SCR 349 ..................... 20
50) GithaHariharan (Ms) and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another (1999) 2 SCC
228..................................................................................................................................... 22
51) Glamrock Estate (P) Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 10 SCC 96 ............................... 14
52) Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984) 2 SCC 534 .. 22
53) Haji Abdool Shakoor & Co. v. Union of India, JT 2001 (10) SC 438 .............................. 21
54) HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120 ............................. 18
55) Hooney v. Kolohan 294 US 103 ........................................................................................ 18
56) Husainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 .................... 18

Memorial for the Petitioners

57) Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin(1980) 2 SCC 360 ........................................... 22

58) K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725 ..................................................... 18
59) Kerala Students Union Vs. Sojan Francis,2004(2)KLT378.............................................. 17
60) Kesavananda Bharati Sripadavalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 ................... 23
61) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225............................................. 22
62) Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295............................................ 18
63) Lalit and Others v Govt. of NCT and Another .................................................................. 24
64) Lalit and Others v Govt. of NCT and Another W.P.(C) 3444/2008 CM.No.6573/2008 ... 24
65) LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre , AIR 1995 SC 1811 : (1995)
5 SCC 482 ......................................................................................................................... 21
66) LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre 1995 .................................... 20
67) M.Nagraj v. Union of India,AIR 2007 SC 71 .................................................................... 13
68) M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
& ORS.(AIR 2002 SC 322 ................................................................................................. 20
69) M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
& ORS.(AIR 2002 SC 322 )............................................................................................... 20
70) Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn., AIR 1993 SC 935 :
(1993) 2 SCC 279.............................................................................................................. 20
71) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 2 SCR
621..................................................................................................................................... 21
72) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 ...................... 21
73) Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic (1966) 1 SCR 391............................. 22
74) Mohd.Shujat Ali v. Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1631 ..................................................... 20

Memorial for the Petitioners

75) Mohd.Shujat Ali v. Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1631; LIC of India v. Consumer
Education and Research Centre 1995 .............................................................................. 20
76) MoopilNayar v. State of Madras (1959) SCR 2 Suppl 316: AIR (1959) SC 725 .............. 18
77) N.Adhithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board,(2002) 8 SCC 106 ................................... 16
78) N.Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commr.,Pondicherry,AIR 1962 SC 797,804 .......................... 11
79) Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384 (385) .................................................. 18
80) Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384 (385) : 1953 SCR 1184 (1186 ........... 18
81) Nakara v. Union of India,AIR 1983 SC 130 ..................................................................... 13
82) Namdin v. Dani, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1225 ............................................................................ 18
83) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 ............................... 18
84) NareshShridharMirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 ................................. 18
85) Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262 : AIR 2000 Sc 3313 .................... 21
86) New York v. United States 326 US 572, Helvering v. Gerhardt) ...................................... 19
87) Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 .................................................... 18
88) NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 ..................................................... 18
89) Omkumar v. Union of India,AIR 2000 SC 3704 ............................................................... 13
90) Panjab Rao v. DP Meshram AIR 1965 SC 1179 .............................................................. 15
91) Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another (2005) 2SCC 436 ...... 22
92) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. : (2002) 5 SCC
111..................................................................................................................................... 18
93) Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.................................. 17, 18
94) Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. AIR 1963 SC 996 ................................................... 11
95) R.D. Shetty v. International airport authority ,1979 AIR 1628, 199 SCR (3) 1014......... 18

10

Memorial for the Petitioners

96) Ramesh v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 668.................................................................... 10

97) Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950, SC 163 ..................................... 18
98) Ratilal v. state of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388. ................................................................... 15
99) Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [(1950) SCR 594: AIR (1950), SC 121..................... 18
100) Royappa v. State of tamil nadu,AIR 1974 SC 555 .......................................................... 13
101)S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149............................................................... 11
102)S.S.T. SaifuddinSaheb v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853 .......................................... 15
103)Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi v. The State of Madhya Bharat, AIR
1960 SC 768 ............................................................................................................................ 18
104)Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, AIR 1999 SC 564 ..................... 21
105)Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. BirendraBahadurPandey(1984) 2 SCC 534 ..... 22
106)ShivramPoddar v. ITO, AIR 1964 SC 1095 ..................................................................... 18
107)Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 8 SCC 705 .............. 15
108)State of A.P. v. Mc Dowell & Co,(1996)3 SCC 709 (para 44):AIR 1996 SC 1627......... 12
109)State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka U.D. Karamchari Sanstha AIR 2009 SC 2249 ...... 11
110)State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252 ........................................ 12, 18
111) State of Kerala v. T.P Roshana, AIR 1979 SC 765 ......................................................... 18
112) State of Madras v. ChampakamDoranirajan AIR 1951 SC 226..................................... 24
113)State of Sikkim v. S.P. Sharma, AIR 1994 SC 2342; Coram : A.M. Ahmedi and N.
Venkatachalaiyah .................................................................................................................... 21
114) Style (dress land) v. Union Territory,Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89 (para 9) .............. 12
115)Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahbad Bank, (2011) 3 SCC 486 .......................................... 12

11

Memorial for the Petitioners

116)Sunil Babu Pant &Ors. v. Nepal GovernmentWrit Petition No.917 of 2007 decided on
21stDecember, 2007), .............................................................................................................. 22
117) SyidMurtazaHusaInVs. MusammatAlhanBibi. 2 Ind Cas 671 ....................................... 16
118) Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 65 (68) ............................................. 18
120)Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 .............................................. 18
121)Toonen v. Australia (No.488/1992 CCPR/C/ 50/D/488/1992, March 31, 1994) ............ 22
122) Tractor Export v. Tarapore& Co. (1969) 3 SCC 562 .................................................... 22
123)Union of India v. Int. Trading Co., AIR 2003 SC 3983 ................................................... 20
124)Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. 1993................................................................................ 19
125)Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241 ....................... 22
126)Vriend v. Alberta per Cory J. para 90[1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 ............................................ 22
127)VST Industries Ltd. Vs. VST Industries Workers Union &Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 298........ 11
128)W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) per Patanjali Sastri C.J., Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T.
(1959) ....20

12

Memorial for the Petitioners

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Anr.

Another

Art.

Article

A.I.R.

All India Reporter

C.A.D.

Constitutional Assembly Debates

Ed.

Edition

Govt.

Government

Honble

Honourable

HRC

Human Rights Committee

IC

International Conventions

ICCPR

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

LGBT

Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgenger

MEB

Medical Education Board

NGO

Non Governmental Organisation

Ors.

Others

P.I.L

Public Interest Litigation

S.C.

Supreme Court

S.C.C.

Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reporter

St.

State

U/A

Under Article

UDHR

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

U.O.I

Union of India

Vs/V.

Versus

W.P.

Writ Petition

YMWO

Young Palshtiya Women Organisation

13

Memorial for the Petitioners

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners have approached the Honourble Supreme Court of Malp by virtue of Article 32
of the Constitution of Malp which reads as follows:
Article 32
(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 clauses (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.
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed under W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016.

14

Memorial for the Petitioners

STATEMENT OF FACTS
UNDER W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016
1. Political Setup
Malp is a developing country consisting of four states. As per the latest census, the followers
of Shran constitute 62 percent of the population while Palshtiyas constitute about 21
percent of the population and the remaining people are followers of Kritya, Shana and
Vanah. The constitution of Malp provides for a socialism and secularism based framework.
2. Circular of Medical Education Board
In 2015, after a large scale cheating discovered in Pre-medical examination the Supreme
Court setting aside the entire examination ordered a fresh examination. The Medical
Education Board central body responsible for medical education issued a circular stating the
guidelines for conduct for the re-examination prohibiting the candidates from wearing any
headgear like caps, headscarves, burqa, habit etc and full sleeve clothes.
3. Petition by Young Palshtiya Women Organisation
A registered NGO named Young Palshtiya Women Organisation filed a PIL before the SC
against the said regulation of MEB. The president of the organisation said: It is our right to
wear the headscarf and full-sleeve dress as it forms part of our religion to wear it in public. It
would be against my faith and religious belief to sit for the test in the said dress code. The
authorities are trying to impose their orders on Palshtiyan women only
4. Status of Petition
The petition was initially heard by a bench of three judges of SC but was later transferred to
the Constitutional Bench as may involve substantial interpretation of the constitution.

15

Memorial for the Petitioners

UNDER W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 23/2016

Social Setup
The modern times in Malp has seen social-inclusion of the weaker & stigmatised sections of the
society. LGBT community is now visible as an active part of the society, enjoying an improved
status therein.
Order of Trans Palshian University
Ms. X, follower of shran took admission in the Trans Palshian University a state-aided
religious minority institution. However soon after her admission, the University authorities
cancelled the previously allotted hostel room to her, on the ground that she was a lesbian and that
fellow women candidates had objected to her staying with them in the same hostel.
Petition by Ms. X
Ms. X filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the S.C. of Malp,
challenging the validity of the order. She contends that the order is violative of Arti 14, being
arbitrary and Art.15(1) as the fundamental right against discrimination on the basis of sex also
include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The respondent Trans Palshian
University has claimed that the term sex in article 15(1) of the Constitution cannot be
interpreted to include sexual orientation. It has also contended that it is a religious minority
institution and hence has the right to independently administer the institution on its own.
Status of Petition
Hearing the petition, a division bench of the SC issued notice to the University for its reply to
petition and the matter has been referred to five judge constitutional bench art. 145(1)

16

Memorial for the Petitioners

ISSUES RAISED
UNDER W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016
ISSUE-I
Whether the PIL filed by Young Plshtiya Women Organisation under u/a 32 of the
Constitution of Malp maintainable or not?
ISSUE- II
Whether the rule pertaining to dress code in the circular issued by Medical Education Board
constitutionally valid or not?
UNDER W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 23/2016
ISSUE- III
Whether the petition filed by Ms.X u/a 32 of of the Constitution of Malp maintainable or
not?
ISSUE-IV
Whether the order of Trans Palshiyan University constitutionally valid or not ?

17

Memorial for the Petitioners

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016
I. Whether the PIL filed by Young Palshtiya Women Organisation under u/a 32 of the
Constitution of Malp maintainable or not?
The Public Interest Litigation filed by YWMO under Art. 32 of Constitution of Malp is
maintainable .
YWMO has locus standi to file PIL u/a 32 of the Constitution of Malp.
Medical Education Board is state u/a 12
There has been violation of fundamental rights.
Alternative remedy is not a bar to petition u/a 32

II. Whether the rule pertaining to dress code in the circular issued by Medical
Education Board constitutionally valid or not?
The rule pertaining to dress code in the circular issues by Medical Education Board is
constitutionally invalid.
There has been violation of Fundamental Rights Art.14, Art. 15, Art. 25, Art. 29 and Art. 21
(inter alia).

18

Memorial for the Petitioners

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 23/2016

III. Whether the petition filed by Ms. X u/a 32 of the Constitution of Malp
maintainable or not?

The petition filed by Ms. X under Art. 32 of Constitution of Malp is maintainable.

The petitioner has a locus standi to appear before this court.
Alternative remedy is not a bar to file writ petition u/a 32
The respondent University is State u/a 12 and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction of this
court.

IV. Whether the order of Trans Palshiyan University constitutionally valid or not ?
The order passed by the University is constitutionally valid.
The order of University resulted in violation of Fundamental Rights in Art.14, Art. 15
and discrimination on prohibited ground of religion (inter alia).

19

Memorial for the Petitioners

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016
I.

WHETHER THE PETITION FILED

BY

YOUNG PALSHTIYA WOMEN ORAGANISATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. It is humbly submitted the Public Interest Litigation filed by YMWO under Art. 32 of
Constitution of Malp is maintainable for the reasons submitted hereunder:
A.)YMWO HAS A LOCUS STANDI TO FILE PIL
2. The court can exercise jurisdiction suo-moto or on the basis of PIL in the absence of any
personal approach by the victim.1 Rules of law will be "substantially impaired" if no one can
have standing to maintain an action for judicial redress in case of public injury. If breach of
public duties was "allowed" to go unredressed by courts on the ground of standing, it would
"promote disrespect for rule of law."2The writ is maintainable even though no violation of
the Constitution is violated, if the petition so filed draws the attention of the court to ensure
that the communal atmosphere is kept clean and unpolluted.3 Any member of the public or
social action group acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts or the
Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of
persons.4

BodhisattawaGautum v. SubbhraChakraborty.(1996) I SCC 490:AIR 1996 SC 922

UpendraBaxi, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India,212
(2014).See also, I.M. Chagla v. P.Shiv Shankar,(1981) 4 SCC 1975
3

Ramesh v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 668.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

20

Memorial for the Petitioners

B.)THE MEDICAL EDUCATION B OARD IS STATE

3. MEB is state u/a 12 of the constitution. A writ lies only against a person if it is a statutory
body or performs a public function or discharges a public or a statutory duty, or a State
within themeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.5
C.) VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
4. It is well settled that this Court under Article 32 will not interfere with an administrative
order where the constitutionality of the statute or the order made there under is not
challenged on the ground of contravention of Fundamental Rights.6 For example SC struck
down certain rules framed by it as violative of Fundamental Rights.7
D.)ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NOT A BAR
5. The court may in its discretion exercise writ jurisdiction in spite of the availability of
analternative remedy in following

situations: 1) Where writ seeks the enforcement of

fundamental rights . 2)Where there is a failure of the principles of natural justice.3) Where
orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. 4) Where the wires of the law is
challenged.8Also,where there is well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been
infringed alternative remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief . 9
5

VST Industries Ltd. Vs. VST Industries Workers Union &Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 298; and State of Assam Vs. Barak
Upatyaka U.D. KaramchariSanstha AIR 2009 SC 2249.
6

.N.Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commr.,Pondicherry,AIR 1962 SC 797,804. FertiliserCorpn.Kamagar Union v. Union

of India,(1981) I SCC 568,574-75.,DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of IndiaWrit Petition (C)
NO. 441 OF 2015.
7

Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. AIR 1963 SC 996.

I P Messay,Administrative Law,321(8thedn. 2012).

9State

of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252.

21

Memorial for the Petitioners

II. WHETHER THE RULE PERTAINING TO DRESS CODE IN THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY MEDICAL
EDUCATION BOARD CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
6. It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the rule pertaining to dress code in the
circular issued by Medical Education Board is not constitutionally valid as it is violative of
various fundamental rights which is proved hereunder:
A.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14
A.1)THE RULING OF MEB IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE
7. Under Article 14, the law or the administrative action has to satisfy the reasonable test. 10The
principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding
omnipresence.11An act which is discriminatory is liable to be labeled as arbitrary12.It is the
duty of State to allay fears of citizens regarding discrimination and arbitrariness.13
8. With respect to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Supreme Court concluded that when
an administrative action is challenged as discriminatory the courts would carry out a primary
review using the doctrine of proportionality. However when an administrative action is
questioned as arbitrary the principle of secondary review based on wednesbury principle

10

Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahbad Bank, (2011) 3 SCC 486.

11

Bhagwati J. in Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,AIR 1974 SC 555,also see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 2 SCR 621.

12

State of A.P. v. Mc Dowell & Co,(1996)3 SCC 709 (para 44):AIR 1996 SC 1627.

13

Style (dress land) v. Union Territory,Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89 (para 9).

22

Memorial for the Petitioners

applies.14Reasonableness and fairness is the heart and soul of Art.1415.In short, Art.14 hits
arbitrariness of state action in any form16.
9. In Kruse v. Johnson17, Lord Russell laid down the test unreasonableness of delegated
legislation as : a) Partial or unequal operation between different classes b) Manifestly Unjust
c) Bad Faith d) Oppressiveness Gross Interference with the rights of the people that no
justification can be found in the mind of Reasonable man.
10. The principle of equality is the essence of democracy and accordingly basic feauture of
Constitution.18 It is humbly submitted that the ruling in question being arbitrary and
unreasonable is violative of Art.14.
A.2) THE RULING AMOUNTS TO CLASS LEGISLATION
11. Art.14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly
circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf.19Article 14 thus,
forbids class legislation .20

14

Omkumar v. Union of India,AIR 2000 SC 3704.

15

Delhi development authority v. joint action committee,Alottee of SFS Flats,(2008) 2 SCC 672 (para 43).

16

Royappa v. State of tamilnadu,AIR 1974 SC 555;Ajay v. Khalid,AIR 1981 SC 487;Nakara v. Union of India,AIR 1983

SC 130 (para14).
17

(1898) 2 QB 91: (1895-99)All ER Rep 105 (DC).See also Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Ltd. V. Union of India,(1996)

10 SCC 104.
18

M.Nagraj v. Union of India,AIR 2007 SC 71.

19

BonduRamaswamy v. Banglore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129.See also Glamrock Estate (P) Ltd v.

State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 10 SCC 96.

20

JN Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India 78, (50 th Ed. Central Law Agency 2013).

23

Memorial for the Petitioners

B.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15

12. Clause 1to Art 15 says that any act of the state shall not discriminate as between the citizens
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The plain meaning
of the prohibition is that no person of a particular religion , race, caste etc be treated
unfavourably by the state when compared with the persons of other religion, race etc merely
because he belongs to a particular religion etc.21 If a person is sought to be discriminated
against simply because he belongs to a particular community,religion, race or sex, he can get
the State action annulled through a court.22 The specific mention of caps, headscarves,
burqa point towards the application of law against the palshtiyans by the public authority
with an evil eye and an unequal hand23.Any headgear pertaining to majority community
finds no mention in the ruling.
C.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 29
13. Theories of multiculturalism posit corresponding categories like that of a salad bowl
wherein different communities co-exist while retaining their unique cultural practices. To
protect this uniqueness is the duty of the state. An early example of this is the decision in
S.S.T. SaifuddinSaheb v. State of Bombay 24.

21

D.D Basu, Introduction To Constitution of India,96( 21st edn 2012).

22

Ibid

23

See Amita v. Union of India,(2005) 13 SCC 721.

24

AIR 1962 SC 853.

24

Memorial for the Petitioners

D.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 25

D.1)PROTECTION OF "PRACTICE OF RELIGION"

14. The guarantee under the constitution of India, not only protects the freedom of religious
opinion, but it protects also acts done in pursuance of religion. 25Religious practices are
reflective of matters concerning religion and if religion is to be venerated, then the practices
annexed thereto are equally respectable and have to be complied with.26Art 25 assures to
every person right to exhibit his belief in such outwardly act 27as he thinks proper.28
15. A religion may also prescribe rituals and observances.These forms and observances may
even extend to matters of food and dress.Therefore, the constitutional guarantee regarding
freedom of religion contained inArt.25(1) extends even to rites and ceremonies associated
with the religion.29
D.2) WEARING OF HEADSCARF AND FULL SLEEVED CLOTHES- AN ESSENTIAL PRACTICE
16. What really constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by
the courts in reference of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of
religion.30Right u/a 25, is not restricted or qualified with reference to the number of

25

Ratilal v. state of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388.

26

Commr.,HRE,Madras v. Sri Laxmindra,AIR 1954 SC 282,290:1954 SCR 1002.See also, PanjabRao v. DP

Meshram AIR 1965 SC 1179.
27

Supra 25

28

Sri SriSriLakshamanaYatendrulu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 8 SCC 705 (para14)

29

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1203 (6th edn. 2008)

30

N.Adhithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board,(2002) 8 SCC 106

25

Memorial for the Petitioners

persons.If any rule violates the interests of the public in the area the rule must be struck down
31

17. The traditions form the second source of rules when it comes to practicing of religion. In the
nature of things it is impossible for a tradition to change, abrogate or contradict, any rule of
law which is founded on the religious text.32The question is not whether a particular religious
belief or practice appeals to our reason but whether the belief is genuinely and consciously
held as a part of practice of religion. Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant.33

E.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21

18. Right to education is held to be a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of
India. Right to uninterrupted education is also fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen
of India lest it may affect the right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. 34

31

Albert Raj v. District CpollectorKanyakumari AIR W. P. No. 16804 of 2003

32

SyidMurtazaHusaInVs.MusammatAlhanBibi. 2 IndCas 671

33

BijoeEnnamuel v. State of Kerela 1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518

34

Kerala Students Union Vs. Sojan Francis, 2004(2)KLT378

26

Memorial for the Petitioners

W.P. No (Civil) 23/ 2016

III. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY MS. X UNDER ARTICLE 32 MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
19. It is humbly submitted that the present petition by Ms. X under Art 32 of the constitution is
maintainable because of following reasons
A.MS. X HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE PETITION
20. The term Locus standi means existence of right of an individual to have a Court enter upon
adjudication on an issue brought before that Court. It is well settled by the SC that there must
exit some subsisting legal or constitutional right which has been violated to file writ
application35 The order of cancellation of allotment of a room in womens hostel to the
petitioner by the university authorities is violative of petitioners fundamental rights.
B. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NO BAR
21. The SC held that the right to approach this Court under art. 32is absolute and may not be
impaired on any ground,36 as it is not merely a discretionary power of the Court.37 The
judicial orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 32. 38 Thus, where it is well
founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed alternative remedy is no bar.39

35

CharanLal Singh v. GainiZail Singh, [1984] 1 SCC 390 [1984] AIR 309(SC)

36

Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996

37

Daryao v.The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457; TilokchandMotichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898

38

SahibzadaSaiyedMuhammedAmirabbasAbbasi v. The State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1960 SC 768;

NareshShridharMirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1; NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC
1960; Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
39

State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252; K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC
725;ShivramPoddar v. ITO, AIR 1964 SC 1095; Also see JUSTICE B L HANSARIAS, WRIT JURSIDICTION 212 (3 ed. 2005)

27

Memorial for the Petitioners

22. Thus,the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as existence of
alternative remedy is not a bar.40
C.RESPONDENT IS STATE U/A 12
23. The SC has enunciated certain tests for determining whether an entity is an "instrumentality
or the agency of the state", to come under art. 12.41 Determination in each individual case
would depend on whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively
dominated by or under the control of the Government.42 Also, all authorities which perform
the essence of the government are under the control of government form the
State.43InSukhdev v. Bhagatram44 it was held that institutions performing fundamental
activities, even if privately, are bound by the constitutional standards applicable to all state
actions.45The combination of state aid coupled with an unusual degree of control and
rendering of an important public service may point out that the body is state.46 Also, the

40

RomeshThapar v. State of Madras [(1950) SCR 594: AIR (1950), SC 121; MoopilNayar v. State of Madras (1959)
SCR 2 Suppl 316: AIR (1959) SC 725; ChiranjitLal v. Union of India, AIR, 1951, SC41; Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal
Board, Kairana, AIR 1950, SC 163; Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384 (385) : 1953 SCR 1184
(1186); Namdin v. Dani, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1225; Hooney v. Kolohan 294 US 103; HusainaraKhatoon v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369. State of Kerala v. T.P Roshana, AIR 1979 SC 765; Tata Iron & Steel
Co. v. Sarkar, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 65 (68), 7.Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1570
(1575).HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
41

.Ajay Hasia&Ors. v. Khalid MujibSehravardi&Ors(1981) 1 SCC 722; R.D. Shetty v. International airport
authority ,1979 AIR 1628, 199 SCR (3) 1014
42

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. : (2002) 5 SCC 111

43

Chandra Mohan Khanna V. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76

44

AIR 1975 SC 1331 : (1975) 1 SCC 421

45

Ganapathi National Middle School v. M.D. Kannan 1996 SCALE (6)36); See Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. 1993
; Evans v. Newton 382 US 296 15 L. Ed.-2nd 373, Ch614( Supreme Court of US) : 1963 1 All. E.R. 590 and New
York v. United States 326 US 572, Helvering v. Gerhardt) Marsh v. Alabama (3) 326 U.S. 501: 19 L.ed. 265(
Supreme Court of US)
46
Supra 26

28

Memorial for the Petitioners

government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational
institutions.47
24. The apex court,48held the respondent State under art. 12 as it was performing public function
of imparting education in higher studies and was also under regulation of UGC.
25. It is humbly submitted that the respondent is state under art. 12 and thus as a necessary
consequence, it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of SC under art. 32.

47

AndiMuktaSadguru Shree MuktajeeVandas Swami SuvarnaJayantiMahotsavSmarak Trust and Others v. V.R.

Rudani and Others, 1989 AIR 1607, 1989 SCR (2) 697
48
in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v SRM University SLP(C) No.11208/2015)

29

Memorial for the Petitioners

IV. WHETHER THE ORDER OF TRANS PALSHIAN UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR

NOT?
26. It is humbly submitted that the order of cancellation of allotted room to Ms. X in womens
hostel constitutionally invalid because of the following reasons
A.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14
27. Art.14 prohibits discriminatory laws and guarantees that equals should not be treated
unequally.49 It strikes at arbitrariness in state executive action50 and would not be justified
even on the basis of the doctrine of classification.51
28. The expression arbitrarily means: in an unreasonable manner, as done capriciously or at
pleasure, without adequate determining principle, reason or judgment, non-rational.52 The
apex court pointed out that Art. 14 embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness and equality
cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits.53 Every
arbitrary action must necessarily involve the negation of equality as it infringes Art. 1454
however, one need not allege any discrimination vis a vis others.55 Art. 14 enacts primarily a

49

Gauri Shankar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 55 at 58 : (1994) SCR 349

50

Delhi Transport Corp. v. DTC Mazdor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101, 196; Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager,
U.P. Financial Corpn., AIR 1993 SC 935 : (1993) 2 SCC 279, W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) per PatanjaliSastri
C.J., BashesharNath v. C.I.T. (1959)
51

Union of India v. Int. Trading Co., AIR 2003 SC 3983) ;Mohd.Shujat Ali v. Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1631; LIC
of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre 1995, Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145]
52

M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS.(AIR 2002 SC 322

)
53

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 : (1974) 3 SCC 3

54

A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 205) ; Bachan Singh v. State or Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325 :
(1982) 3 SCC 24
55
A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India, AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367)

30

Memorial for the Petitioners

guarantee against arbitrariness or unreasonableness56 as every state action must be informed
by reasons and guided by public interest.57 An order depriving a person of his rights passed
without affording him an opportunity of being heard suffers from vice of violation of natural
justice as well.58The Right to equality when read with DPSP especially Arts.38, 39 and 46
imposes a duty on the state to protect the interest of unprivileged.
29. It is humbly submitted that Ms. X being a women is denied allotment of seat in the womens
hostel by an arbitrary and unreasonable order of the University authorities is violative of her
Right to equality under Art. 14
B.) VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15
30. Art. 15 is particular application of the right of equality, protecting the citizens against
discrimination on certain grounds.59 The word discriminate against60means, to make an
adverse distinction with regard to; to distinguish unfavourably from others. It involves
prejudice and if this prejudice is based on any of the grounds mentioned in Art.15, it will be
violative of the constitutional prohibition.61
31. It is humbly submitted that discrimination against the petitioner on basis of her sexual
orientation is violative of Art.15 as it constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex because
56

See DwarkadasMarfatia& Sons v. Board of Trustees, Bombay Port, AIR 1989 SC 1642 ; LIC v. Escorts, AIR 1986 SC
1370 : (1986) 1 SCC 264 ; LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre , AIR 1995 SC 1811 : (1995) 5
SCC 482;;Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 2 SCR 621.
57

Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872;Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC
262 : AIR 2000 Sc 3313.
58

Haji AbdoolShakoor& Co. v. Union of India, JT 2001 (10) SC 438; Also see Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC
Mazdoor Union, AIR 1999 SC 564; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248.
59

State of Sikkim v. S.P. Sharma, AIR 1994 SC 2342.

60

Oxford English Dictionary, (2nd edn. 2009).

61

Supra 49,at 70.

31

Memorial for the Petitioners

sexual orientation cannot be defined without reference to sex. There is an inescapable link
between the two as discrimination on the basis of orientation is premised on sex-based
preferences, assumptions, expectations, stereotypes or norms.62 It is so because
consideration to sexual orientation will require a persons sex to be taken into account and
willbe based ongender stereotypes. HRC held that sex in art. 2 of the ICCPR includes
sexual orientation63The Canadian SC also treated sexual orientation as ground analogous to
that of sex listed in Section 15(1).64 The SC of Nepal recently recognised equal rights of
homosexuals.65Due to the absence of suitable legislation protecting the rights of the
homosexuals in domestic law, the courts can apply the IC, if they are not in conflict with the
domestic law66in view of Art. 51 of the Constitution67The SC observed Yogyakarta
Principles68not to be inconsistent with the Malpian Constitution, and thus must be recognized
and followed.
32. It is humbly submitted that discrimination to Ms. X on basis of her sexual orientation is
violative of Art. 15 (1) as it is discrimination on basis of sex only.
62

Christine Kehoe,American Psychological Ass'n, "Definition of Teims: Sex, Cjender, Gencter Identity, Sexual
Orientation" (Feb. 2011)
63

Toonen v. Australia (No.488/1992 CCPR/C/ 50/D/488/1992, March 31, 1994)

64

Vriend v. Alberta per Cory J. para 90[1998] 1 S.C.R. 493

65

Sunil Babu Pant &Ors. v. Nepal GovernmentWrit Petition No.917 of 2007 decided on 21stDecember, 2007),

66

See Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. BirendraBahadurPandey(1984) 2 SCC 534 and Tractor Export v.
Tarapore& Co. (1969) 3 SCC 562, Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic (1966) 1 SCR 391,Jolly
George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin(1980) 2 SCC 360; KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225;
See GithaHariharan (Ms) and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another (1999) 2 SCC 228, R.D. Upadhyayv.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2007) 15 SCC 337 and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
and another (2005) 2SCC 436 ;Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241
67

KesavanandaBharatiSripadavalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

68

Michael O'Flaherty and John Fisher, "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law:
Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles" - Human Rights Law Review 8:2 (2008), 207-248

32

Memorial for the Petitioners

33. It is humbly submitted that in present issue has brought long ignored issue of recognition of
sexual minority (LGBT community) in limelight. It is a smaller group distinguished on the
basis of their sexual orientation69 and often the stigmatizing attitudes and discriminatory
actions towards them are hostile.70
C.) DISCRIMINATION O N BASIS OF RELIGION
34. Art. 29(2) gives a special right of non discrimination on basis of religion mentioned in Art.
15(1) for the admission into the state maintained or aided educational institutions,71 even if it
may be a minority institution conferred with Right to administer their institution.72 The HC
observed that for a person receiving education in a state-run institution as a resident scholar,
the right to shelter and decent living is an inalienable facet of the right to education itself. 73
35. It is humbly submitted that the respondent is a state aided minority institute has cancelled
Ms. Xs allotment of room in womens hostel because she is a Shran by religion, is violative
of Art. 15(1) and 29(2).74

69

Governments Data on Gay Population, available on http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govtsubmits-data-on gaypopulation/article2991667.ece ; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india17363200, last seen at 12/03/2016
70

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17363200
(last
visited
on
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/A.HRC.19.41_English.pdf (last

10th
March
2016);
visited on 10th March

2016)
71

State of Madras v. ChampakamDoranirajan AIR 1951 SC 226

72

A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986 Sc 1490; See D.E D.J,
The Constitution of IndiaHyderabad , Published by Asia Law House,p1102, vol.1 edn. 2002)and st Stephen college
vs university of delhi (1992) 1 SCC 588 : AIR 1992 sc 1630.
73

Lalit and Others v Govt. of NCT and Another W.P.(C) 3444/2008 CM.No.6573/2008.

74

Page 10 paragraph 19 factsheet

33

Memorial for the Petitioners

THE PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted that this Honble Court may adjudge and declare that:
In W.P. (PIL) NO. 47/2016 that

PIL filed by Ms. X is maintainable.

The rule pertaining to dress code in circular issued by MEB be declared unconstitutional and
struck down as per doctrine of severability.

In W.P. No (Civil) 23/ 2016 that

Writ petition filed by Ms. X is maintainable.

Order of the respondent University be declared unconstitutional and strike down

The Honble Court may also be pleaded to pass any other order, which this Honble Court
may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Counsel for Petitioners

Place:
Date:

34

Memorial for the Petitioners

35