I. THAT SLP IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable SC that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the Honourable SC in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in
the widest phraseology.1 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion.2The
jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one. 3
It is pertinent to note that the scope of Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion
on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”.4 The plenitude of power under Article 136 of
the Constitution has been authoritatively stated by the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar
Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors.5 Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do
justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice.6

A. That all the necessary conditions of Special Leave Petition are satisfied.
In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another,7 it was held that a petition
seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons, some of which
are as follows:

(i) If the Petition is barred by time; (ii) If the Petition is presented in a defective manner; (iii)
The petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition; (iv) The conduct of the petitioner
disentitling him to any indulgence by the court; (v) The question raised by the petitioner for
consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt with by
the Apex Court.

In the instant case, it is obvious on a prima-facie level that the Appellants have no grounds on
which the instant petition for special leave could be rejected.

B. That the matter involves substantial question of law.

It has been held by this Hon’ble Court that when a question of law of general public importance
arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can always be invoked.8
The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated
1
Nihal Singh &Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
2
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520; Associated Cement Companies Ltd
v. P.N. Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366;
3
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC).
4
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
5
AIR 1954 SC 520.
6
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss &ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196;
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
7
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359
8
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India
(4th edn. Vol 1 2010)
for the sake of upholding technicalities.9 In any case, special leave would be granted from a
second appellant decision only where the judgment raises issue of law of general public
importance.10 In the case at hand, rights of thousands of homosexuals are in question. Also,
the criminalization of Sec 377 of Indian Penal Code has had an impact on public at large.
Hence, the matter concerned is a matter of public interest and national importance the same
was reiterated by the High court in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.11

C. That the court has power of judicial review over policy decisions.
According to Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution, law includes any ordinance, order bye- law,
rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law in India. 12whether the
impugned act violates or threatens to violate a fundamental right, the duty to enforce which
has been committed by the Constitution exclusively to the Judiciary.13 Although , this may be
called as a social policy of state is violative of the Constitution of India is rightly subject to
judicial review.14 Similarly any law that is arbitrary or discriminatory in nature violates
Article 14 and hence can be subjected to the bane of judicial review.Degree of deference to
be given to the legislature is dependent on the subject matter under consideration15. When
matters of “high constitutional importance” such as constitutionally entrenched human rights
– are under consideration, the courts are obliged in discharging their own sovereign
jurisdiction, to give considerably less deference to the legislature than would otherwise be the
case.16In the present case, the two constitutional rights relied upon i.e. 'right to personal
liberty' and 'right to equality' are fundamental human rights17 which belong to individuals
simply by virtue of their humanity, independent of any utilitarian consideration. Hence the
constitutional validity of Sec 377 of Indian Penal Code can be subjected to judicial review.

9
JanshedHormusjiWadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214.
10
Balakrishna v. Rmaswami, AIR 1965 SC 195.
11
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 160 Delhi Law Times 277
12
Constitution of India 1950.
13
Judiciary Prem Chand v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996
14
Ugar sugar mill vs. dehli administration(2001) 3 SCC 635
15
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943)
16
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, R. (Alconbury Ltd.) v. Environment Secretary, [2001] 2 WLR 1389, , I.R. Coelho
(Dead) by LRs v. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 1 and Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, LokSabha
&Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 184.
17
General Finance Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343.