1)Wheather the obliteration of tower of sacrifice amounted to violation of Article 25 of

Constitution of Brahamsthan?

1.1: It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that obliteration of tower of sacrifice
amounted to violation of Article 25 as the World Sindhuan Council (WSC) destroyed the
Tower of sacrifice where Shahians practiced their custom of sacrifice. The action of WSC is
totally against the concept of secularism.As per Article 25 of Constitution of Brahmsthan
every citizen has Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion. The constitution of Brahamsthan promotes the idea of secularism as Constitution
gives paramount attention to the concept of secularism and Supreme Court also declared it as
basic feature of constitution1 The WSC directly infringed the right oh Shahians by destructing
the tower of sacrifice. Article 25 also extends to rites and ceremonies associated with
religion. In Lakshminra, Supreme court stated that “The guarantee under the Constitution of
India not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in
pursuance of religion”2 So the act of sacrifice held is a religious practice of Shahians and that
is why it is protected under Article 25. As it is mentioned in the facts that Shahians practised
custom of sacrifice in the Tower of Sacrifice and destruction of the tower is against the
concept of secularism as well as violates fundamental rights of Shahians. Such type of action
is against the concept of secularism and increases chances of fights between different
religious faiths. Article 25 constitutes basic structure of the constitution it is a basic
fundamental right of every individual and it confrere’s duty upon the state to protect such
right or take actions against its infringement.

The counsel humbly submits that The destruction of the Tower of sacrifice puts an end to all
previous controversies raised by World Sindhuan Council and Ramodhya People Party about
their alleged right to build a shrine in Lord Raghvan’s honour on the place where the Tower
stood. This is because no court will give any assistance to those who unilaterally by criminal
acts destroyed the subject matter of the dispute and violate the Constitution and the law. Such
act of destruction is unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence and without going
through the due process of law, no one’s life and liberty can be taken away.

1
M.IsmailFaruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC AT 630.
2
Commr.,HRE,Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra, AIR 1954 SC 282.
1.2: The counsel humbly submits that the customs lie in the foundation of all the legal
system. They come into existence with the existence of the society. Custom is the repeated
practice of the primitive society. Custom is a rule or practice which is followed by the people
from time immemorial. Customs are rationalised and are incorporated and embodied in legal
rules. The influence of custom can be traced in any legal system. It is a valid source of law;
therefore, the custom of Shahians of sacrificing in the holy place (tower of sacrifice) is an
integral part of their religion. In the case A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P.,3 the
Supreme Court held that every usage or custom which determinately establishes the relation
to a particular religion, such customs or usages develops an integral position to that religion.
So the counsel here tries to convey that the act of sacrifice is an integral and essential part of
shahians religion and any infringement or impediments to that custom directly violate the
right of shahians to freely practice their religion, protected under Article 25.

1.3: The counsel humbly submits that as it is mentioned in the facts the Archaeologist survey
report which was submitted to high court stating that shrine of Lord Raghavan existed on the
site which is evidence that the shrine is beneath the tower, howeverin the case M Siddiq (D)
ThrLrs v. Mahant Suresh Das &Ors4: A finding of title cannot be based in law on the
archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Title to the land must be decided
on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial. The
court also stated that “Between the twelfth century, to which the underlying structure is dated,
and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of
four centuries. No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human
history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries”. Therefore it is hard to decide or adjudicate
the title of any particular property only on the basis of ASI report.

1.4: The counsel humbly submits that slaughtering animals and giving their meat to the poor
has been encouraged by Islamic teachings and can be traced back to rich Islamic culture.
Prophet said: “A person who can afford but does not sacrifice an animal should not approach
our mosque.” InHedaya Book XLIII at p. 592 that it is the duty of every free Mussulman,
arrived at the age of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the YdKirban, or festival of the sacrifice,

3
(1996) 9 SCC 548.
4
Civil Appeal Nos 10866- 10867 of 2010.
provided he be then possessed of Nisab and be not a traveller. The sacrifice established for
one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel.5

Article 25 extends a guarantee for ritual and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship
which are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes an essential part of
religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to doctrine of
particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion.6 The counsel submits that
sacrifice of animal is integral and essential part of Shahians religion and destroying the tower
of sacrifice takes away their freedom to practice their religion.

5
Md. Hanif Quareshi & Others v. The State Of Bihar, 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629.
6
N.Adityan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106.
2) Whether the destruction of Tower of Sacrifice amounted to violation of the right to
practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article
19(1)(g) ?

2.1: It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Brahmasthan
that the destruction of Tower of Sacrifice amounted to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of Brahmasthan, Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of Brahmasthan provides
Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens
subject to Art.19 (6) which enumerates the nature of restriction that can be imposed by the
state upon the above right of the citizens. Sub clause (g) of Article 19 (1) confers a general
and vast right available to all citizens to do any type of business of their choice.

2.2: It is well established in the facts that Shahians were involved in sacrifice at the tower of
sacrifice which was an important trade practiced by them, so the place where such sacrifice
was practiced by the Shahians, if destructed will definitely affect the Right to Trade of
majority of Shahians, Also it is mentioned in the facts that majority of Shahians were
involved in sale and export of beef, but it is not mentioned that they were involved only in
sacrifice of beef (cow slaughtering) which means that the Shahians were also involved in
trade of other animals (which are not sacred animals of Sindhuans).

Though the Supreme Court in many cases banned the slaughter of healthy cows but on the
other hand it has also quashed the total ban. In Hasmattullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh7
the MP imposed total ban on slaughter of bull and bullock but Supreme Court quashed it
saying cattle above the age of 16 years are of no use for breeding, draught and agricultural
purpose hence slaughter could not be banned as it is unreasonable and violate the right to
trade and profession.

The Prohibition of slaughter of cows, bulls and their calves, in general, is valid but at the
same time, a general ban on the slaughter of cattle other than cows, etc., has been held to
offend Article (19)(l)(g), therefore, a ban on the slaughter of cattle, in general, without
prescribing any condition as regards their age or usefulness, is not constitutional.8

7
AIR1996 SC 2076.
8
Usmanbhai Hasanbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 Guj.
Supreme Court in the case of Md. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar9 held that a total ban on
the slaughter of buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable
of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as
reasonable in the interest of the general public.

2.3: The fact says that beef (cow, bulls etc.) is a sacred animal for Sindhuans, but by this very
fact the Sindhuans cannot be justified in taking away the Right to Trade of majority of
Shahians. The Court has emphasized that a prohibition imposed on the Fundamental Right to
carry on trade and commerce cannot be regarded as reasonable if it is imposed not in the
interest of general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a
section of the people. Thus, prohibition of slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes
below the age of twenty-five years is an unreasonable restriction on the butchers right to
carry on their trade as well as not in public interest as these animals cease to be useful after
the age of 15years.10

The court in Md. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh11 observed that imposition of restriction
on the exercise of fundamental right might be in the form of control or prohibition, but when
the exercise of fundamental right is prohibited, the burden of proving that a total ban on
exercise of right alone may ensure the maintenance of the general public interest lies heavily
upon the State. While quashing the impugned notification the court held that the prohibition
imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right may be considered as unreasonable if it is
imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and
sentiments of a section of the people.

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri12 there is no fundamental Right of
Muslim to insist on slaughter of a healthy cow on Bakri Idd day. Here the Court held that
slaughter of a healthy cow is not an integral part of their religion but here it is not said that
sacrifice of other animals (sheep, goat, camel) is not an integral part of their religion.
Slaughtering animals and giving their meat to the poor has been encouraged by Islamic
teachings and can be traced back to rich Islamic culture. Prophet said: “A person who can
afford but does not sacrifice an animal should not approach our mosque.” InHedaya Book
XLIII at p. 592 that it is the duty of every free Mussulman, arrived at the age of maturity, to

9
Supra note 5.
10
Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448.
11
(1969) 1 SCC 853.
12
AIR 1995 SC 464.
offer a sacrifice on the YdKirban, or festival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed
of Nisab and be not a traveller. The practice of sacrifice honours Abraham’s willingness to
slay his son Ishmael at Allah’s request, a supreme act of faith, therefore the counsel submits
that sacrifice done by Shahians at the Tower of Sacrifice was essential part of their religion
and also many of them relied on such sacrifice for their Trade and Occupation. So destructing
Tower of Sacrifice amounts to violation of Article 19(1) (g).

2.4: The counsel humbly submits that the practice of sacrifice at Tower of Sacrifice is a
custom amongst the Shahians, Custom is a habitual course of conduct observed uniformly
and voluntarily by the people concerned, custom lie in the foundation of all the legal system,
a custom is a repeated practice followed by the people from time immemorial, it must be
reasonable and not immoral or against public policy. In the case A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu
v. State of A.P13 the Supreme Court held that every usage or custom which determinately
establishes the relation to a particular religion, such customs or usages develops an integral
position to that religion. Therefore the destruction of Tower of Sacrifice Violates Article 25
as well as Article 19(1)(g), as the destruction prevented the Shahians from practicing this
custom of sacrifice which was also an important trade of Shahians.

2.5: The fact also states that sacrifice done by Shahians at the Tower of Sacrifice was
recognised by Ministry of Earth Sciences of Republic of Bharmsthan as essential for
preserving the ecological balance. Ecological balance is a term used to describe the
equilibrium between living organisms such as human being, plants, and animals as well as
their environment. Therefore, this balance is very important because it ensures survival,
existence and stability of the environment. Therefore such sacrifice is not only beneficial to a
particular section of community i.e. Shahians but is necessary for preserving and maintaining
the whole environment.
2.6: The counsel humbly submits that violation of Article 19(1)(g) results in violation of
Article 21 also Article 21 reads as:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.”
Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found shelter, growth, and nourishment.
Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements that is essential and unavoidable
for a person is the core concept of the right to life.

13
Supra note 3.
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh14, the Supreme Court quoted and held
that: By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal. In Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Administration15, the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” included the
right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime
conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture,
heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life.
The majority of Shahians were involved in sale, export, and trade of beef and other animals
which were sacrificed at the Tower of Sacrifice and as their Right to Trade gets violated their
right under Article 21 also gets adversely affected. A blanket ban or any act preventing the
cow slaughter or sacrifice of other animal has the potential for creating a standstill in meat
business due to which some Shahians will incur huge losses and they will not be able to lead
a decent life as under Article 21.
Therefore the counsel humbly submits that the destruction of Tower of Sacrifice amounted to
violation of the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business under Article 19(1)(g).

14
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
15
AIR 1978 SC 1675.
3) Whether demolition of Tower of Sacrifice amounted to non-fulfilment of the State's
duty under l Article 49 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan?

3.1: It is humbly submitted before the honourable court by the appellant that demolition of
Tower of Sacrifice amounts to non-fulfilment of the State’s duty under Article 49 of the
Constitution of Brahmasthan.The Constitution has provided for the protection of monuments
under Article 49 of the Constitution, Directive Principle of State Policy, wherein - Protection
of Monuments and Places and Objects of National Importance – “It shall be the obligation of
the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interests, declared
by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation,
disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be”.

3.2: Though Directive Principles of State Policy are not mandated provisions as they are not
enforceable, they hold an equal status as Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Hence, this Article is given importance and is followed. The Directive Principles of the State
Policy (DPSPs) lay down the guidelines for the state and are reflections of the overall
objectives laid down in the Preamble of Constitution. The expression “Justice- social,
economic, political” is sought to be achieved through DPSPs. DPSPs are incorporated to
attain the ultimate ideals of preamble i.e. Justice, Liberty, Equality and fraternity. Moreover,
it also embodies the idea of the welfare state.

3.3: The Constitution of Brahmasthan has divided the jurisdiction over these monuments,
cultural heritage, and archaeological sites as follows16 :

 Union: Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and remains, declared
by Parliament, by law to be of national importance.

 State: Ancient and Historical Monuments other than those declared by Parliament to be of
national importance.

 Concurrent: Besides the above, both the Union and States have concurrent jurisdiction over
archaeological sites and remains other than those declared by law and Parliament to be of
national importance.

16
Negi Mohita, The Relation Between Centre and State in India,
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/therelation-between-centre-and-state-in-india/24925/
3.4: The protection of monuments and places of National Importance falls under the scope of
the Directive Principles of State policy which are the guidelines and principles provided to
the federal institutes governing the State of Brahmasthan which are to be kept in citation
while forming laws and policies. The Directive Principles are not mandated and hence, are
not enforceable, they are placed equal to the fundamental rights. The basic feature of the
constitution is to maintain harmony between fundamental rights and DPSP. They are
complementary and supplementary to each other.

3.5: In Pathumma v. The State of Kerala,17, the Supreme Court emphasised on the purpose
of DPSP is to fix some social- economic goals. The constitution aims at bringing about a
combination between DPSP and Fundamental rights.

3.6: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,18 the Supreme Court has submitted
that DPSP are fundamental in the governance of the country so equal importance should be
given to meaning and concept of fundamental rights as well as DPSP.

3.7: In Dalmia Cement v. Union of India19, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights
and DPSP are supplementary and complementary to each other and the preamble to the
constitution which gives an introduction, fundamental rights, DPSP are conscience of the
Constitution.

3.8: In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,20, the Supreme Court said that no
difference can be made between the two sets of rights. Fundamental rights deal with Civil and
political rights whereas DPSP deals with social and economic rights. DPSP are not
enforceable in a court of law doesn’t mean it is subordinate. Hence, equal importance must be
given to the DPSP, and they should be placed equal to the fundamental rights provided to the
citizens.

3.9: The State should have taken action under Article 49 of The Constitution of Brahmasthan,
as it is well mentioned that it is the duty imposed of the state that it should protect the
monuments, places and objects which are of national importance, as declared by the law
made by the Parliament to be of national importance. The place must be protected by the state
from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export.

17
1978 AIR 771.
18
1986 AIR 180, 1985.
19
8(1972)DLT413.
20
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2006.
3.10: The state should have fulfilled the duty of protecting the Tower of Sacrifice, as
Shahians used to offer prayers and the place was of religious importance to the Shahians.
Hence, the State did not only fulfil the obligation of protecting the monument from
destruction but also violated various rights of the Shahians, as the tower of sacrifice was of
religious importance and was a place where the Shahians offered prayer, hence the freedom
of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion of the Shahians under
Article 25 of The Constitution of Brahmasthan, which clearly states that a citizen of
Brahmasthan has the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, and the Shahians
had the right to practise their religion freely by offering prayer at the site which was
demolished and torn down by WSC supporters and RPP in 1992, it is well mentioned in the
facts of the case that a committee was formed which was led by the WSC in order to build a
shrine in Lord Raghava’s honour and various campaigns took place, it is also well mentioned
that the Tower of Sacrifice was torn down by the WSC volunteers, when several campaigns
were taking place and the number of people campaigning were at large, the State must have
taken appropriate steps to safeguard the monument in case of riots, which was not done as the
riots led to the death of over 2000 people. If the state would have taken measures, the Tower
of Sacrifice would not be demolished and no riots would have taken place, hence, it is the
negligence of the State which led to serious consequences and it is stated on behalf of the
appellant that the State did not fulfil its duty and its obligation to protect the monument nor
took safety measures in case of any mishappening.

3.11: It is also submitted that while the Ramodhya People Party (RPP) and the leader
B.S.Krishnan headed the campaign, the district judge ordered the gate of the disputed area to
be opened and allowed Sindhuians to worship there, as a result of which the Shahians set up
the Tower of Sacrifice Action Committee in protest, the aforesaid is well mentioned in the
facts of the case.

3.12: Hence, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Constitution of Brahmasthana
provides under Article 14 that "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." But as the disputed site
was only open to Sindhuians and not Shahians, this shows that there was no equal protection
of law, as it is well stated in the facts that After the independence of Brahmasthana, the idols
of Lord Raghava appeared inside the Tower of Sacrifice which the Shahians alleged were
placed by Sindhus, civil suits were filed by both the parties and the site was marked disputed
by the Government and was locked up, after the Ramodhya People Party was formed and
headed by B.S.Krishnan, the district judge ordered the gate of the disputed area to be opened
in order to allow Sindhuians to worship, which was not justified as the government already
regarded the site as disputed and locked it up, and the site was opened for only Sindhus, and
it hence, violated article 14, as there was no equality in such act and no equal protection was
given to Shahians.

3.13: Also, the State had the obligation to protect the monuments under Article 49 of The
Constitution of Brahmasthana, as the monuments of national importance had to be protected
as Brahmasthana has diverse cultural and ancient monuments spread across the length and
breadth of the republic.

3.14: The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under the provisions of The Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) Act, 1958 protects
monuments, sites and remains of national importance by giving a two-month’s notice for
inviting objections, if any in this regard. After the specified two-month’s period, and after
scrutinizing the objections, if any, received in this regard, the ASI makes decision to bring a
monument under its protection. This is provided under-

4. Power of Central Government to declare ancient monuments, etc., to be of national

importance.―
(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any ancient monument or
archaeological site and remains not included in section 3 is of national importance, it
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two months’ notice of its intention to
declare such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to be of national
importance; and a copy of every such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous
place near the monument or site and remains, as the case may be.
(2) Any person interested in any such ancient monument or archaeological site and
remains may, within two months after the issue of the notification, object to the
declaration of the monument, or the archaeological site and remains, to be of national
importance.
(3) On the expiry of the said period of two months, the Central Government may,
after considering the objections, if any, received by it, declare by notification in the
Official Gazette, the ancient monument or the archaeological site and remains, as the
case may be, to be of national importance.
 (4) A notification published under sub-section (3) shall, unless and until it is
withdrawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the ancient monument or the
archaeological site and remains to which it relates is of national importance for the
purposes of this Act.
Also, 4A provides-
[4A. Categorisation and classification in respect of ancient monuments or
archaeological sites and remains declared as of national importance under sections 3
and 4.―
(1) The Central Government shall, on the recommendation of the Authority, prescribe
categories in respect of ancient monuments or archaeological sites and remains
declared as of national importance under sections 3 and 4, and while prescribing such
categories it shall have regard to the historical, archaeological and architectural value
and such other factors as may be relevant for the purpose of such categorisation.
(2) The Central Government shall, on the recommendation of the Authority, classify
all the ancient monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared as of national
importance under sections 3 and 4, in accordance with the categories prescribed under
sub-section (1) and thereafter make the same available to the public and exhibit the
same on its website and also in such other manner as it may deem fit.]
3.15: The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (or AMASR Act)
is an act of parliament of the government of India that provides for the preservation of ancient
and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for
the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and
other like objects.

According to section 2(a) of the AMASR Act,

(a) “ancient monument” means any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place
of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of historical,
archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one
hundred years, and includes―

(i) The remains of an ancient monument,

(ii) The site of an ancient monument,

(iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient monument as may be required for
fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such monument, and

(iv) The means of access to, and convenient inspection of, an ancient monument;

3.16: According to the provisions of the AMASR Act, a structure, erection, monument, or
place of interment, any cave, rock-sculptures of national importance if it is an ancient
monument and has been in existence for not less than one hundred years and as the Tower of
Sacrifice has been in existence since Khayats time, as stated in the facts, the Tower of
Sacrifice is deemed to be of national importance as it has been in existence for a hundred
years and hence, falls under the purview of national importance as regarded under Article 49
of the Constitution of Brahmasthana. Hence, it is stated that it was the duty and obligation of
the state to protect the Tower of Sacrifice under article 49 of the Constitution of
Brahmasthana and the state has not fulfilled its duty towards the republic of Brahmasthana by
negligence of its duties which also caused the deaths of over 2000 people in the riots.