An Ace Mooter Petitions for Nice Guys in the ‘Friendzone’ in the Supreme Court of Love


Writ Petition No. 69 of 2016
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India read with Order VII, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, Love story 1947


PREM & ORS…………………………………………………………………………………………………….BOYFRIENDS


PRIYA & ORS…………………………………………………………………………………………………….GIRLFRIENDS





Pinkiben w/o Harikesh Bharat Lal Soni V. State of Gujarat R/CR.MA/17920/2014


Peoples Union for Boyfriend’s Liberty( PUBL), 4th Report on Gender Equality, 2010.


James E L, Fifty Shades of Grey, 2011

Bhagat Chetan, Half Girlfriend, Roopa & Co. 2014

Kalia Tanuj, Law As a Career, LexisNexis, 1st Edition, 2015

Vatsyana, Kamasutra, 400 BCE



• Prem Kumar, a bright student of a prestigious law school in India has been spending most of his campus time with his attractive batch mate Priya for about three semesters now. He has been planning for weeks to ask her out officially on this Valentine day.

• It is of importance to note that he has been helping her out with projects, moots and assignments in the hope of spending more quality time with her and Priya used to thank him with kissing smiley, heart shaped emoticons, xoxo and other affectionate smiley’s available on several social networking sites and apps.

• On the evening of 7th Feb, 2016, when Prem approached Priya with a red rose, she appreciated the gesture and thanked him for that. Similar incidents occurred on chocolate day and teddy day i.e 9th Feb, 2016 and 10th Feb, 2016 respectively. Details of the expenses accrued have been attached with the petition as Annexure- A.

• The cause of action however arose on the eve of Valentine day when Priya was chatting with Prem on whatsapp and cribbing about how she has no one special in her life. Grabbing the right opportunity, Prem asked if she would be his Valentine.

• She replied and I quote “Lol ! You are such a sweet guy. Thank you :*”. On being asked if that means ‘Yes’ she replied “ROFL, You are so funny”.

• When Prem had enough of this he confronted her directly and discovered that she likes him but only “As a friend” and that she hopes someday she finds a nice guy like him.

Hence the matter is before this Honorable Court.


1) Whether such atrocities on ‘Nice Guys’ be allowed to continue while they suffer in silence, struggling to come out of the friend zone ?

2) Whether the prevailing practice that boys alone should buy gifts without expecting anything in return is a violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

1) Whether such atrocities on ‘Nice Guys’ be allowed to continue while they suffer in silence, trying to come out of the friend zone?

The expansive meaning given to the word ‘Nice Guy’ as per Urban Dictionary states that “A young male who will give up countless hours of his time listening to the problems of his very attractive female friends because they need someone to talk to about their apathetic, Baywatch jock of a boyfriend because no one else will listen or genuinely care. Although always surrounded by beautiful girls the nice guy can’t get a girlfriend or even facilitate the alleviation of certain “drives” because his “ordinary” physical appearance will forever be compared to the Baywatch beach bum’s…”(1).

In the light of the above definition, it is argued that this is the most misused tool in the hands of the opposite gender as they make it explicit that they want a nice guy to date but when guys act like nice guys to impress them they leave them hanging and go after a jerk.

Similarly, the word ‘Friendzone’ as described by the Urban dictionary reads “ What you attain after you fail to impress a woman you’re attracted to. Usually associated with long days of suffering and watching your love interest hop from one bad relationship to another”.(2)

Therefore it is argued that there’s an urgent need to review the broken dating system in the country and revamp the dating rules by giving incentives to guys for being “nice” and setting them free from ‘Friendzone cell’, allowing them to experience love in its true sense.


Where the un-amended definition of friend zone is ambiguous and has been interpreted by the court not exhaustively but tentatively, the definition of friend zone must at least be interpreted to accommodate “Friends with benefits”.

2) Whether the expectation that boys alone should buy gifts without expecting anything in return is a violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?

Article 14 of the Constitution states that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law irrespective of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

However, discrimination on the basis of sex can easily be seen when it comes to paying restaurant bills or buying gifts.

While boys try to get the most exotic of chocolates, largest of teddy and reddest of roses for their prospective Valentines, they have to compromise on hug and kiss day.

The apex court in a series of judgments has made it clear that hugging the teddy and kissing the roses doesn’t count.

Article 19(1)(a) secures to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. However every time a ‘nice guy’ tries to express his true feelings, unreasonable restrictions are imposed on the same.

Gujarat High Court recently in Pinkiben w/o Harikesh Bharat Lal Soni V. State of Gujarat (3), has observed that the greatest mistake a couple makes in their relationship is that they listen half, understand quarter, think zero and react double.(4)

Therefore it is important for the ‘girl friends’ to listen carefully what the ‘nice guys’ are trying to say before branding them as ‘Despo’ and ‘Chep’.

Considering the abovementioned factors and the fact situation in hand, when the petitioner had already went so far as to spend so much on gifts throughout the valentine week without any objection from the other party, by no stretch of imagination can the friendzoning by the respondent be justified.


Wherefore in the light of facts stated, relationship issues raised, logical arguments advanced and relevant authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Honourable Court, that it may be pleased to,

1. Issue the writ of Mandamus to direct the government to notify that discrimination on the basis of sex will not be tolerated in any relationship and the present criteria of friend zoning should not continue to be the law of the land.

2. Order appropriate compensation based on the expenses accrued on gifts along with psychological and physical damage.

And Grant any other order in favour of the Petitioners as the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of love, affection and romance.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: 14th Feb, 2016 
Place: Friendzoneland 

Nitin Gaurav Srivastava, Counsel for the Petitioners.


Note: This is a reader’s blog. Thus, very obviously, the views expressed are that of the reader and not of Lawctopus.

Nitin Gaurav Srivastava, popularly known as NGS among his fans, blogs here.

Check out the The Valentine’s Day Special Blogging Competition here.

Law Pundits has already agreed to give courses worth Rs. 54,000 to the winners. Law Suits and More too is giving away some cool gifts!


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.