17BALLB31- R

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT

APPELANT JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. _________ of 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 133 OF THE CONSTITUTION

REETA, GEETA &ORS .............……………………………… APPELLANT

V.

KUTUMBA SAMITI …………………………………………... RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….

i ARTICLES AND JOURNALS………………………....

ii BOOKS………………………………………………… iii

DICTIONARIES………………………………………. iv

ONLINE RESOURCES………………………………... v

STATUTES……………………………………………...

vi CASE LAWS…………………………………………….

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1 . & And

2. AIR All India Reporter

3 Art Article

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 5 Anr Another

6. Ker Kerala

7. Ltd Limited

8. Ors Others

9 P Page

10. Para Paragraph

11 Sec Section

12. SC Supreme Court of India

13. SCC Supreme Court Cases

14. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

15. T. N. Tamil Nadu

16. U.P Uttar Pradesh

17.. v Verses

18 Vol Volume

19 www World Wide Web

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

ARTICLE AND JOURNELS

Sherry Joseph” The Law and Homosexuality in India” May 17, 2014

Arvind Narayan , Queer despite sexuality, law and social change 79,(2004)

Smoak Ghoshal , The well of Loneliness the Telegraph , Nov 25, 2008

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Ruth Vanita , Wedding of the two souls

BOOKS
1. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7th Edition 2014, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths
2. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, Vol 1,2nd
Edition Reprint 2010, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
3. D.D BASU ‘S COMMENTARY ON THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA, Vol
1,2nd 8th Edition 2009, Lexis Nexis
4. Dr. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 48th Edition,
Central law agency
5. NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 18th Edition,
Allahabad Law Agency
6. V. N. SHUKLA, CONSITITUNAL OF INDIA, 11th Edition, Eastern Book
Company

DICTIONARIES
1. Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, 8th Edition. 2004, West, Thompson

2. Shorter Cambridge English Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002, Cambridge University

Press

ONLINE RESOURCES & DATABASES

1. www.indiankanoon.org

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.legalserivceindia.com

4. www.lawctopus.com

5. www.barandbench.com

6. www.manupatra.com

7. www.jstor.org

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

3. Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act,2019

CASE LAW

TABLE OF CASES
NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. NALSA vs Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863

2. Arunkumar vs The Inspector General of WP(MD) No. 4125 of 2019
Registration and others
3. Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF
& Ors 2013
4. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
6. Govind v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1378.

1. Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of AIR 1970 SC 1390

Maharashtra,
2. Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar AIR 1996 SC 1113
Kashinath Kunte,.

3. Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20

INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

2. R v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Reeta and Geeta are transgender. Geeta had undergone sex-reassignment surgery
(SRS) at the age of nineteen. Reeta was born male however she identifies herself as a
female. Both are thirty-five years of age and work as office assistants.
2. Reeta and Geeta live together almost 10 years in Prakriti house with other transgender
leaving their home The owner of the house was Laxmi, a renowned transgender in
Perinthalmanna.
3. Reeta and Geeta fall in love with each other over the course of time and used to go for
movies, parks, and restaurant and sometimes they go on vacation for spending quality
time. They do these acts secretly without informing anyone. They had also made a
plan to live together and adopt a child.
4. Geeta's family finds her where she was living, through some relatives. Geeta's family
searched her and decided to visit her. After knowing this very fact that she had
undergone sex-reassignment surgery and about her relationship with Reeta, they got
provoked Consequently a scuffle brock out between Geeta's friends and family, and
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 they further threatened Reeta & Geeta with dire consequences because of this they
both decided to get married.
5. Shayum was relative of Reeta in October 2019, Reeta told Shyamu about Geeta and
their plan to get married and live together as couple. Shyamu was surprised on this
new development. Shyamu went along with Reeta to the Perinthalmanna Police
Station to seek protection for Reeta and Geeta both, if they were to encounter any
danger.
6. Two weeks after the incident, Reeta and Geeta along with their friends met at the
Guruvayur temple and got married with Hindu rituals & customs. As soon as marriage
photos became viral, a pro binary gender family organization called „Kutumba
Samiti‟ began to harass and threaten the newlywed couple that they are violating the
institution of marriage as they claimed that trans- genders cannot tie the Mangalasutra.
Kutumba Samiti also put out an advertisement in the newspaper about the sanctity and
importance of Hindu Marriage

7. Further Kutumba Samiti approached to the High Court of Kerala for nullification of marriage.
After hearing the matter, the Court held “while the marriage was solemnized according to
Hindu rituals & customs therefore we cannot nullify marriage solely on those grounds, but the
law defines marriage between two Hindus where „bridegroom‟ has completed the age of
twenty one years and the “bride” the age of eighteen years at the time of marriage. Even if we
include trans- genders within the ambit of „bride‟, the definition of „Bridegroom (the man)‟
cannot be changed. On these very grounds, we declare the marriage invalid.”

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION

THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPERME COURT OF INVOKING APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF
THE HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 133 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. WHETHER SECTION 5 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ,1955 ALLOWS THE

SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

B. WHETHER PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATE

ARTICLE
15 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

C. WHETHER SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEADS TO SERIOUS DISEASES.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE

15 AND 21. OF THE CONSTITUTION A
1. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 15.
A.1.1 IT IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE AND DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS

IMPACT.

A.1.2 THERE IS A COMPELLING STATE INTERST INVOLVED.

A.2 IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21.

A.2.1 IT QUALIFIES THE TEST OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCES

A.2.2 IT IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC MORALITY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 B. SECTION 5 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955 DOES NOT
ALLOWED THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE

B.1. THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A

SEPARATE COMMUNITY OR THE CUSTOM DOES NOT PERMIT

SAME- SEX MARRIAGE

B.2 NO AMENDMENT UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

C. SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEADS TO CAUSE MANY SERIOUS

DISEASES.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT