BEFORE

THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

GAKI....................................................................................................................PETITIONER 1

THE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION..................................................................PETITIONER 2

V.

STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH...................................................................RESPONDENT

WRITTEN MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE NO.

1.LIST OF ABBREVIATION.........................................................................................1

2. STATUTES REFERRED............................................................................................2

3. BOOKS REFERRED...................................................................................................3

4. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................4

5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................5

6. STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................6

7. ISSUES RAISED ..........................................................................................................7

8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................8

9. ADVANCED ARGUMENTS........................................................................................9

10.PRAYER.......................................................................................................................10

2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
1.Art. – Article

2. Hon’ble - Honourable

3.SC - Supreme court

4. v. – Versus

5. PIL - Public Interest Litigation

6.Govt - Government

7. UOI - Union of India

8.UDHR - Universal declaration Of Human Rights

3|Page
STATUTES REFERRED
The Indian constitution, 1950

Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961

Human Rights Act, 1993

4|Page
BOOKS REFERRED

 H.M. Seervi, Constitutional Law Of India,(Universal Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 4th Edn., Vol,1
 D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India (Wadhwa & Co. Law Publishers Nagpur, 13th
Edn. 2004)
 Dr.L.M. Singhvi, Constitution Of India (Thomson Reuters, 3rd Edn. Vol.2)
 V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India

5|Page
LEGAL DATABASE

 Manuptra
 SCC online
 Hein online
 Westlaw
 India Kanoon
 Sage online

6|Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Name of The Cases page no.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROCHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950

The petitioner has the honor to submit the before the hon’ble supreme court of India, the
memorial for the petitioner in the case of Gaki v. state of vindhya Pradesh and under article 136
of the constitution of India, 1950.

Article 136 read as-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

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

8|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The state of Vindhya Pradesh brought an amendment to the vindhya Pradesh civil
service, 1961. The newly added sub rules namely sub rule 5 and 6 added subsequent sub
rule 4 into rule 6, which was published in the vindhya Pradesh gazette on the 10th march
2000.

 The amendment sub rule 5 is complete ban of getting married below the age of 18,
disqualifies the candidate to the government job.

 The amendment sub rule 6 is not very much clear that how it has to be applied, also there
is no burden of proving that the child has conceived before the amendment or after the
amendments.

 The two party which were aggrieved by the said amendment ;

First is public spirited citizen, GAKI filed a public interest litigation in the Hon’ble high
court of vindhya Pradesh .

And second is the association of various religion had also filed a writ petition.

Both are challenging the vires of the vindhya Pradesh civil service rules, 1961

 They are also challenging sub rule 5 violation of article 21, article 14 and also article 25
of the Indian constitution.

 The state of vindhya Pradesh defended the vires of the said amendment :

Fundamental rights are not absolute fundamental right every right have reasonable
restriction.

Fundamental rights read with the directive principal of state policys.

Reasonable restrictions have to be implemented through DPSP.

The hon’ble high court has upheld the validity of the amendment and the petitioner are before the
honorable supreme court argue the case.

9|Page
ISSUES RAISED

Issue 1:
“Admissibility of Special Leave Petition”

Issue 2:
“Whether Rights Guaranteed Under Article 14,19, 21 Are Violated”

Issue 3:
“Violation of United Human Right Commission”

Isssue 4:
“Whether Violation of Article 38 under Directive Principle of State Policy”

+-

10 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. “ADMISSIBLITY OF SLP”

It is humbly submitted the hon`ble supreme court that present SLP is maintainable
against the state of Vindhya Pradesh. Since, it is a state under Art. 12 of the constitution.

It is further submitted that since, there has gross violation of Art. 14, 19, 21 of the
constitution, the petitioner have a locus standi, soothe instant SLP is maintainable under
Article 136 of the constitution. Also there would be violation of fundamental rights of
citizens and there is a constitutional obligation on his court to protect fundamental right.

Hence the PIL is maintainable and on the account of same the relief is sought. In any
case, the alternative remedies are not equally efficacious.

2. WHETHER RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 19 ,21 ARE

VIOLATED

it is humbly submitted before the hon`ble supreme court that, Article 14 of the
constitution will be violated on account of making amendments in the state of vindhya
pradesh civil service, which have negative social impact resulting in violation of
fundamental rights of, right to equality and under article 19 right to freedom to practice
any profession or to carry on any occupation , right to live with dignity under article 21,
since the people will be subject to negative social impacts arising out of amendments in
the state of vindhya Pradesh civil service rules.

11 | P a g e
 3“VIOLATION OF UNITED NATION HUMAN RIGHT COMMISION”

It is humbly submitted that amendments have serious impact on declaration of human

rights of the child by united nation specifically declares that any child in conflicts of law
shall not suffer any disqualification in his career and shall be supported by the state to
reform himself as a law abiding citizen. But these guideline is not maintain by the state.

4. “VIOLATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY”

It is humbly submitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy aim to create social
and economic conditions under which the citizens can lead a good life. They also aim to
establish social and economic democracy through a welfare state. But here state make
amendment which is not seems to be economically or socially right but fundamental in the
governance of the country, it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making
laws per Article 37.

12 | P a g e
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 :

“ADMISSIBILITY OF SLP”

Under Article 136, the Constitution of India gives power to the Supreme Court to grant special
permission or leave to an aggrieved party to appeal against an order passed in any of the lower
courts or tribunals in India.1

 Special leave petition (SLP) means that an individual takes special permission to be heard
in appeal against any high court/tribunal verdict. Thus it is not an appeal but a petition
filed for an appeal. So after an SLP is filed, the Supreme Court may hear the matter and if
it deems fit, it may grant the ‘leave’ and convert that petition into an ‘appeal’. SLP shall
then become an Appeal and the Court will hear the matter and pass a judgment.

 Through SLP, an aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment
passed by any lower court or tribunal. This leave is granted when the case involves a
question of law.

Pritam Singh v. the State2 it was held that The Supreme Court will not grant special leave to
appeal under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution unless it is shown that exceptional and special
Circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has boon done and the case in question
presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.

In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees,3 ,

In the this case Court a observed as under :- "It is well settled that Article 136 of the
Constitution does not confer a right to appeal on any party; it confers a discretionary power on
the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. Article 136 cannot be read as conferring a right
on anyone to prefer an appeal to this Court; it only confers a right on a party to file an application
seeking leave to appeal and a discretion on the Court to grant or not to grant such leave in its
wisdom. When no law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot be called

1
"Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System"
2
Pritam Singh v. the State [AIR 1950 SC 169]
3
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815 (para 33)

13 | P a g e
in aid to spell out such a right. The Supreme Court would not under Article 136 constitute itself
into a tribunal or court just settling disputes and reduces itself to a mere court of error. The
power under Article 136 is an extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases
and on well- known principles."

the general appeals listed in 132-135 are as follows. First, it is not just restricted to appeals
against judgments, decrees and final orders of the High court but it can also be granted against
the judgments of lower courts.

So also in this case petitioner file a PIL in vindhya Pradesh high court upheld the validity so by
aggrieved the decision of the high court petitioner file SLP under Article 136 of the Indian
constitution in the Supreme Court of India.

In this case substantive question of law is that whether disqualification from government jobs on
the basis of married age will apply or not. This amendment also violates fundamental rights of
the citizens.

Amendment include that who married before the age of 18 would not eligible for government
jobs but in India Forced and child marriages entrap women and young girls in relationships that
deprive them of their basic human rights.

From the above facts and case laws SLP by GAKI should be maintainable.

14 | P a g e
 ISSUE 2

“Whether Rights under Article 14, 19, 21 Is Violated”

Article-14 of Constitution Of India

The state not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India. As such this right was considered to be a negative right of an
individual not to be discriminated in access to public offices or places or in public matters
generally. It did not take account of the existing inequalities arising even from public policies
and exercise of public powers. The makers of Indian Constitution were not satisfied with such
type of undertaking. They knew of the widespread social and economic inequalities in the
country sanctioned for thousands of years by public policies and exercise of public power
supported by religion and other social norms and practices.”4

Article 14 embodies the idea of equality expressed in the preamble. It lays down the general
principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between the
persons. The Succeeding Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18 lays down specific applications of the
general rules laid down in Article 14. Article 14 is the equality clause because of its wide ambit
and applicability.

In this case GAKI who married before the age of 18 disqualified from getting government jobs
abolished his fundamental right to equality The Article 14 is clearly in two parts – while it
commands the State not to deny to any person ‘equality before law’, it also commands the State
not to deny the ‘equal protection of the laws.

4
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 10th Ed. , p. 37

15 | P a g e
 ISSUE 3

“Violation of United Nation Human Right Commission”

Child marriage is a violation of human rights and is prohibited by a number of international

conventions and other instruments. Forced and child marriages entrap women and young girls in
relationships that deprive them of their basic human rights. Forced marriage constitutes a human
rights violation in and of itself.

Children who forced by their parents to get marry if they want to get government job so how will
they get, this eligibility criteria is violating the human rights. Thise who married before the
permittable age should be viewed as a victim rather than as someone who practice social evil.

“Rule of law does not contemplate any punishment or disqualification of a child who is a victim
of such child marriage practice and in fact, even the declaration of human rights of the child by
united nations specifically declares that any child in conflict of law shall not suffer any
disqualification in his career and shall be supported by the state to reform himself as a law
abiding citizen”

16 | P a g e
ISSUE 4

“VIOLATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPAL OF STATE POLICY”

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) is a guideline in the Constitution of India to the
State. They are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution from Article 36 to Article 51.

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are non-justiciable in nature which means they
are not enforceable by the courts for their violation. However, the Constitution itself declares that
‘these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duly of the
state to apply these principles in making laws’. Hence, they impose a moral obligation on the
state authorities for their application.

These principles contemplate the ideology of socialism and lay down the framework of a
democratic socialist state. The concept envisages providing social and economic justice, so that
state should achieve the optimum norms of welfare state. They direct the state through- Article
38, Article 39, Article 39 A, Article 41, Article 42, Article 43, Article 43 A and Article 47.

17 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, issue raised argument advanced and authorities
cited it is most humbly prayed before the hon`ble supreme court of India that it may be pleased
to adjudge and declare:

1. The sub rule of vindhya Pradesh violates art. 14, 19(f) and 24.

2. The high court reject the PIL public spirited citizen GAKI and the writ petition of the religion
association related to the sub rule- A5 of the state of vindhya Pradesh.

3. The people who getting married before the age of 18 years do not suffer any disqualification
from government jobs.

4. That, this petition should not dismissed with or without cost.

The hon’ble Supreme Court of India may be pleased to pass any other order as it deemed fit in
the interest of justice, equality and good conscienee.

18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
.

21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e