Team Code- F
26 M. C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL
TH
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DHARMASTHAAN
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOURNALIST & LAWYERS …….PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF SHORYU & ORS. ……RESPONDENT
PETITION (PIL.) NO***/2019
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DHARMASTHAAN
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DHARMASTHAAN
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Para
§ Section
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Ass. Association
Cl. Clause
Const. Constitution
DRA Act Dharmasthaan Religious Activities Act
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
i.e. That is
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of Dharmasthaan, 1950.
STATUTES
1. Information & Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
2. Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring &
Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (IT Rules)
BOOKS
1. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14th ed. 2009), LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.
2. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4th ed.2002), Volume 2, Universal Book
Traders.
3. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 2018), LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.
4. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, OUR CONSTITUTION, National Book Trust (1994).
5. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (11th ed. 2008), Eastern Book Company.
CASES
1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., (1988) 2 SCC 602...................................................11
2. Abdul Qayum & Ors. v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All 485....................................................19
3. Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1402.....................................................16,17
4. Arya Vyasa Sabha v. Commissioner, HRE, A.I.R 1976 S.C. 475....................................16
5. Beant Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1977 S.C.C. (1) 220...............................................2
6. Bhimashya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alia Janawwa, (2006) 13 S.C.C. 627........................18
7. Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board and Ors., A.I.R. 2007
S.C.2276……………………………………………………………………………….…14
8. Bipin kumar Mandal v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 3638...........................................5
9. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group,
A.I.R. 2006 SC 1489…………………………………………………… ……………14
10. Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of MP, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 891............................................4
11. Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415.........................................2
12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tapang Light Foundry & Co. (1984) 147 I.T.R. 581. . .19
13. Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, A.I.I.R
1954 S.C. 282...............................................................................................................16,17
14. Dalbeer Kaur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1977 S.C 472.......................................................3
15. Dattatraya v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1953 BOM 311.....................................................15
16. Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 748.....18
17. Gedu Alias Parameswar Patra v. State of Orissa, (2016)....................................................5
18. Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731..................................................................14, 20
19. Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 400....................................17
20. Jahar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27..............................................................7
21. Jethalal v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1968 Guj 163..............................................................10
22. Kausha PN v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1457............................................................14
23. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., A.I.R 1953 S.C. 404..............................................20
24. Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883.........................................8,9
25. Khalil khan v. state of MP, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4670.............................................................4
26. Mahmood v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 69....................................................................7
27. Matru v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1050......................................................................4
28. Mausam Singh Roy v. state of W.B., (2003) S.C.C. (377)..................................................4
29. Md. Alimuddin & Ors. v. State of Assam, 1992 CrLJ 3287.............................................10
30. Mohammed Nawaz v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1941 PC 132.........................................................1
31. Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab Biswas, A.I.R. 2013 S.C. 3334..............................................5
32. Naina Mohammed re, 1960 CrLJ 620...............................................................................10
33. Narayana v. State, 1999 CrLJ 4994 (4999...........................................................................7
34. Naz Foundation Trust v. Suresh Kumar Curative Petitions, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 0307.........11
35. P. B. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908................................................................14
36. Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 771..............................................................14
37. R. Dineshkumar v. State and Ors., A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 181....................................................8
38. Rahman v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 110.....................................................................4
39. Ram Bharose v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 704............................................................5
40. Ramaswami Mudaliar v. Commr, HRE, A.I.R. 1999 Mad 393........................................16
41. Ramchandra v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1959 Ori 5............................................................17
42. Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 CrLJ 372 (377)........................8
43. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 388..............................16
44. RK Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138…………………………………………14
45. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388....................................................10
46. S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N., (2014) 16 S.C.C. 72...........................................14
47. Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors., (2008) 13 S.C.C. 119...................18
48. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswati v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 323.. 1
49. SP Mittal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1938 S.C. 1................................................................17
50. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 4
S.C.C. 606..........................................................................................................................16
51. Sri Venkataramana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255..........................................16
52. State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla, A.I.R. 1980 S.C .1382..............................................9
53. State of MP v. Paltan Mallah, (2005) 3 S.C.C. 169.............................................................5
54. State of U.P v. Krishna Gopal & Anr., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2154...........................................1
55. State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1205...........................................................8
56. Sukbir Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1168...................................................2
57. Surender Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999 CrLJ 267 (S.C.).................................................7
58. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853......................17
59. Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853...................................16
60. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1638.............17
61. Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 S.C.C. 90........................................................2
62. Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255.....................................17
63. Vidya Varuthi Thirthia Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar, (1922).......................................20
64. Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (9) SCALE 319..............................7
65. Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, WP. (Civil) No. 373 (2006)..............13,19
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent has the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the memorandum
for Respondent in the response of the PIL filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Dharmasthaan.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
THE BACKGROUND:
Dharmasthaan, an island nation situated south-west of Indian sub-continent Internet facilities are
monitored by government agencies and there had been significant strides in science and
technology and self- sufficiency has also been enhanced. Religion plays an important role in the
lives of people in Dharmasthaan. “Unsullied” police officers are there for the enforcement of
religious practices as well as security of the island. Dharmasthaan is largely non-secular and
Hinduism is the unofficial state religion.
THE BELIEF:
In Dharmasthaan, Hinduism and Mahabhaktism, are the two prominent religions. Many citizens
of Dharmasthaan believe that Mahabhaktism is a rebranded form of Hinduism as they share a
similar trajectory. Since two centuries, Dharmasthaan has a Mannath shrine devoted to Lord
Kadamba in the province of Shoryu. It is the holiest land for Mahabhakts. Some practices of this
temple are similar to that of Hindu temples. It is open only for 28 days in a calendar year. Only
upon the completion of ‘Karvatam’ one can enter the temple. It is applied to both men and
women equally with pure body, mind and soul. The devout followers believe that a.) Lord
Kadamba derives powers from due to his abstinence from all forms of worldly pleasures, he was
a celibate. b.) Prayers must be offered only after the strict sacrifice of doing Karvatam over 100
days. Due to this some women find it difficult to follow.
THE ENACTMENTS:
In the year 1965, the government of Dharmsthaan, passed the Dharmasthaan Religious Activities
Act, which provides freedom to worship to all sections of mahabhakts
Shoryu Mahabhaktism Religious Rules 1967 was introduced which says the classes of persons
mentioned here under shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of public worship or any
means which is requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship.
In 1968, the Association of the shrine modified the 1966 directive, as follows:
“Of late, there seems to have been a deviation settled customs and practices. In order to
maintain the sanctity and dignity of this shrine, it is hereby notified that Mahabhakts who do not
observe the Karvatam are prohibited from entering the shrine and women between the ages of
twelve to sixty are forbidden from entering the shrine”.
THE SECURITY
After that strict security was set up to ensure that only Mahabhakt will enter the temple. The
examination of entry system was digitized. Group of bandit women with gender activists adopted
various methods to enter the temple. It was reported that some persons had entered the shrine
without meeting the required criteria. In 2015, it was noticed that no.of persons entering the
shrine was significantly higher than no. of Mahabhakts on the island of Dharmasthaan. By May
2015, a large number of protests being carried out. This protest turned violent and led to the
death of unsullied officers including assassination of Thakur Pragyanam. Curfew was also
declared. People used different methods to demolish the gates of the temple. On the same day,
announcement was done by the bandit women on various media to break the gate and open it for
all members of the community. To put an end to such activities, govt. of Dharmasthaan passed
notification in the year 2016 under section 69(1) of the IT Act:
THE PROTEST AND THE REFERENDUM:
The 2016 Notification resulted in large volume of data, on the basis of which 200 people got
arrested including Mahabhakts and bandit women. Some non-Mahabhakt lawyers and foreign
gender activists approached the local government of Shoryu for the correct interpretation of
religious text as well as amendments in the acts passed by the Govt. despite such efforts, they
could not succeed. This led to several protests and riots within the island.
To dissuade the momentum that was gathered by the filing of the Petitions, 95% of the citizens
of Dharmasthaan voted in favour of the referendum which is “whether the practices of the
Mannath shrine are in consonance of the personal beliefs of the citizens”
ISSUES RAISED
I.
WHETHER THE PIL FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DHARMASTHAAN IS
MAINTAINABLE?
II.
WHETHER THE EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES UNDER THE SHORYU MAHABHAKTISM RELIGIOUS
RULES, 1967 ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION?
III.
WHETHER THE DIRECTIVE OF 1968 PASSED BY THE MANNATH SHRINE ASSOCIATION IS
VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
DHARMASTHAAN?
IV.
WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION OF 2016 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ENSHRINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF DHARMASTHAAN?
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
[I]. THAT THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before the apex Court that the PIL filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution
is not maintainable. Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move to SC for the enforcement of
fundamental right as in this instant case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights
enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. Also, the petitioner has not acted in a good faith and
has his own self-interest in it. It is also contended that the PIL is not maintainable on the ground
that alternative remedy has not been exhausted as the High Court must be approached first.
[II]. THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES UNDER THE SHORYU MAHABHAKTISM RELIGIOUS
RULES, 1967 ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Dharmasthaan that prohibiting
certain classes of persons from entering and offering worship in the Mannath shrine is not
violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of
Dharmasthaan. The prohibition is not a social discrimination but is only a part of the essential
spiritual discipline related to the pilgrimage as it is imposed to maintain the sanctity and dignity
of the shrine. Therefore, the Shoryu Mahabhaktism Religious Rules, 1967 intra vires the Shoryu
Mahabhakt Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of entry) Act, 1967 and it is not violative of
any provisions of the Constitution.
[III]. THAT THE DIRECTIVE OF 1968 PASSED BY THE MANNATH SHRINE ASSOCIATION IS NOT
VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
DHARMASTHAAN.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Dharmasthaan, that prohibiting
women of a particular age group from entering the shrine is not violative of the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of Dharmasthaan. The exclusion of
women from religious worship of the shrine is for the purpose to maintain the sanctity and
dignity of this shrine and it is not oppose to the values of Liberty, Dignity and Equality or any of
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Rather the allowance of entry of women
in the Mannath shrine has caused the violation of the Article 21 of Lord Kadamba as the juristic
person, violation of Article 26 and also violation of Article 25 of the devotees of Lord Kadamba.
[IV]. THAT THE NOTIFICATION OF 2016 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ENSHRINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF DHARMASTHAAN.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the State of Dharmasthaan is a
Sovereign State. “Sovereignty” involves freedom from all foreign control or dominion.
‘Security’ of the state is of paramount importance and as such, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the rights available under Act. 19 (1) are permissible. Security of the state can be
undermined by danger from both within and without the state. It is also pertinent that mere
guarding of the shrine or any deity of the temple by the police force is no interference with the
freedom of worship. In the present set of facts there is wide danger to the law and order situation
as well as serious threats to the security of the state. Therefore, the Notification of 2016 under
challenge is a necessity to tackle and minimize the said concerns and threats.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
