Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com)
WRIT PETITION
VERSUS
PAPER BOOK
INDEX
Reforms of Criminal
Justice System, Vol 1,
March 2003
13. Annexure - P 3 53 – 55
True copy of the
judgment by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the
case bearin Crl. Appeal
No.2232/ 2011
dated 01.12.2011
14. Annexure - P 4 56
True copy of the news
report dated
18.10.2012
15. F/M 57
16. V/A 58
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
SYNOPSIS
1974(4) SCC 3.
provided for women under Article 15(3) does not fall within
and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., 2015(1) SCC 192. (Also
The said provision is also hit by the ratio laid down in Justice
in adultery.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Date Particulars
an abettor.”
India.
several reasons.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
system.
husband".
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
freedom of privacy.
of the code.
WRIT PETITION
Joseph Shine
Koodathai Bzar,
Kozhikode,
VERSUS
Union of India
Raisina Hill,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TO
litigation before also. His postal address is: His email id is:
2. The Petitioner herein has not filed any similar Writ Petition
3. The Petitioner herein has the locus to file the present PIL as
Constitution.
nature of PIL and the same squarely falls within the ambit of
petition.
IPC has undergone very few changes in the last one hundred
meet their colonial needs. Yet, there are many new offences
gender justice.
punishable as an abettor.”
stated:
man.
guilty of adultery…….”
viii) It is also pertinent to note that in the year 2011, this Hon'ble
xii) Hence the present Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
GROUNDS
unconstitutional.
in this article shall prevent the State from making any special
from the rigour of Art. 15(1) and charges the State to make
so, as it seems.”
themselves.”
governance.”
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
child.”
Women (1999).”
others left out of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must
classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what
above test. Firstly, married women are not a special class for
adultery. This does not have any rational basis or nexus with
that women are the property of the men and every married
of case-to-case development...”
two adults. Therefore, for this reason as well, the above said
unconstitutional.
infringed.”
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Court presumed that man is the seducer and not the woman.
SCC 438 and the drastic change in the social situation, the
constitutional validity.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
following:
included under Article 21. In the said case, the petitioner had
include the accused women in the party array in the trial, she
of the adulterer.”
obligations”.
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without
PRAYER
unconstitutional ;
interest of Justice.
DRAWN BY FILED BY
MAITREYI HEGDE
NEW DELHI
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT