T - 01 Petitioner Memorial

T-01
HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVRAJ V. PATIL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2020
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

UNDER ART. 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA, 1950
IN THE MATTER OF
ART. 25, 26 AND PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA,
REVIEW PETITION NO. _____ / 20__
State Government of Cherala…….……..………………….…......…….……PETITIONER

V.
Union of Aryavarta …..…..……..………..………………….……..... RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVARAJ V. PATIL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... ix
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………….xi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE. .......................... 1
[1.1] The petitioners have locus standi in the present petition .......................................... 1
[1.2] There is a substantial question of law involved ........................................................ 2
[1.3] There has been a blatant and substantial miscarriage of justice. ............................... 2
ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER

ARTICLES 25 AND 26 AND PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SWEEP
OF THE EXPRESSION ‘PUBLIC ORDER<MORALITY AND HEALTH’ UNDER
ARTICLE 25(1) ..................................................................................................................... 3
[2.1] Interplay between Articles 14,15,25 and 26 holds right to religion as superior ..... 3
[2.2] Morality under Article 25 refers to Religious Morality ............................................ 5
ISSUE 3: TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’ OR

‘CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY’ IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. ............................... 6
[3.1] Morality stems from religion..................................................................................... 6
[3.2] No- interference of a secular state. ............................................................................ 6
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO THE ISSUE OF A

PARTICULAR PRACTICE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RELIGION OR
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR
SHOULD THAT BE LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF
THE SECTION OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP. ................................................................. 7
ii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
[4.1] It is violative of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta ................................... 8
[4.2] The determination of an essential religious practice is a matter of acquaintance and

expertise. ................................................................................................................................ 9
ISSUE 5 WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF A RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATION ARE AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION UNDER
ARTICLE 26 ........................................................................................................................ 10
[5.1] Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta ........................................................ 10
[5.2] Judicial practice of protecting essential religious practices. ................................... 11
ISSUE 6: WHAT WOULD BE THE PERMISSIBLE EXTENT OF JUDICIAL

RECOGNITION TO PILS IN MATTERS CALLING INTO QUESTION RELIGIOUS
PRACTICES OF DENOMINATION OR A SECTION THEREOF AT THE INSTANCE
OF PERSONS WHO DO NOT BELONG TO SUCH RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION? 12
[6.1] The petitioners of PIL lack locus standi.................................................................. 12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................ 14
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Actual Term
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Bom Bombay
Cl. Clause
Co. Company
Const. Constitution
Gau Gauhati
KB King’s Bench
Mad Madras
Ors Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of police,(1983) 4 SCC 522 ............... 9
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujurat,AIR
1974 SC 2098......................................................................................................................... 4
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam.V. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu ,(2016) 2 SCC 725. ........... 7, 9
Amanullah.v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 1871. ..................................................................... 1
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539. ....................... 13
Archcon v. Sewda Construction Co, AIR 2005 Gau 58. .................................................... 1, 13
Aruna Roy v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCALE 408. ................................................................ 7
Ashraf v Commissioner, 2013 (3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 566. .......................................................... 12
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala,1990 Supp SCC 515(1). .................................................... 5
Brahmachari Sidheshwar Shai v. State of West Bengal ,AIR 1995 SC 2089, Ramaswami
Mudaliar v. Commr., H.R.E., AIR 1999 Mad 393 ................................................................ 8
Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.. .............. 2
Common Cause-A Regd. Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979. ................................ 3
CST V. Pine Chemicals Ltd., 1995 1 SCC 58. .......................................................................... 2
Dayanand v. Nagaraj, AIR 1976 SC 2183. ................................................................................ 2
Durgah Committee,Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402. ..................................... 11
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India,AIR. 1981 SC 344. .................................... 13
Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638. ............................................................. 8
Haryana State Industrial Development Corpnn. Ltd v. Mawasi,AIR 2012 7 SCC 200. ........... 1
Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1681. ........................................... 2
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala,(2018) 4 KLT 373á............................ 13
Jehovah's Witnesses v. The Commonwealth ,1943 CLR 116. ................................................ 11
Mahanagar Ghaziabad Chetna Munch v, State Of U.P. Through Principal, 2007 (2) AWC
1113...................................................................................................................................... 12
Mahant Ram Kishan Dass vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 1576. ..................................... 4, 5
R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ,[1924] 1 KB 256. ..................................................... 2
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Amtulay, AIR 1984 3 SCC 684 ................................................................. 3
Ramchandra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Ori 5........................................................................ 8
Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461. ...................................................... 10
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, .................................................................... 7
v
S.P. Gupta v. President Of India , AIR 1982 SC 149. ............................................................. 13

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149. .................................................................... 12
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,1981 Supp SCC 87 ...................................................................... 1
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India ,(1983) 1 SCC 51....................................................................... 12
S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda ,(1996) 6 SCC 734. .............................................................. 13
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC); ............................................. 2
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay,AIR 1962 SC 853. ........................ 4
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877. ........................................................ 2
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC
606.......................................................................................................................................... 8
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore,AIR. 1958 SC 255. .................................... 10,13
State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84 ...................................................... 5
State of Karnataka v. T. R. Dhananjay,1995 6 SCC 254. .......................................................... 1
Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath v Union of India, (WP-C No. 33240/2018). ............. 12
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853. .................................. 4
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282. .......................................................... 8,10,11
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v State of Rajasthan, (1964) 1 SCR 561. .......................... 11
Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore,AIR. 1958 SC 255 .................................................. 4
BOOKS
James F Childress;John Macquarrie ,The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics,1986 ... 6
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,(8th edn.,2018). ....................................................... 4, 5,10
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Aryavarta Const.art.25,cl.1. ....................................................................................................... 4
Aryavarta Const.art.25,cl.2. ..................................................................................................... 10
Aryavarta Const.art.25. ............................................................................................................ 13
Aryavarta Const.art.26,cl.b. ................................................................................................. 8, 10
Aryavarta Const.art.137. ............................................................................................................ 1
vi
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES

Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by Krishna Chandra
Sharma. .............................................................................................................................. 5, 6
Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by M. Ananthasayanam
Ayyangar. ............................................................................................................................ 5,6
ARTICLES
The Definition of Morality, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 17/04/2002,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NormDefiMora ................................ 6
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Moot Propisition,para 7. .......................................................................................................... 11
Moot Proposition,para 4............................................................................................................. 4
Moot Proposition, para 3.......................................................................................................... 11
vii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of The
Constitution of Aryavarta, 1949 and Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure:
137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court

“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under
Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced
or order made by it.”
Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Review
1. Application for review of judgement
“(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from no appeal
has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by
him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”
viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Rishyamala temple in the state of Cherala in the South Aryavarta is peculiar for its
customary practices. The deity of the temple, Dharmashastra being in a state of
'Naistikha Brahmachari' (one who has vowed to remain eternally celibate), does not
come in contact with women who are capable of reproduction. Hence, the temple has a
restriction on women aged between ten and fifty years from entering the temple. This
customary practice is not followed in any other temple of Dharmashastra other than
Rishyamala because the deity there is not in a state of eternal celibacy.
2. The practice had been legislatively protected under Rule 3(b) of the Cherala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 by the state government
of Cherala. In 1991, the Division Bench of Cherala High Court upheld the ban on
female entry stating its prevalence from time immemorial. It had further held that only
the chief priest was empowered to decide on traditions.
3. Several campaigns started across the country, pointing out the 'menstrual
discrimination' and 'impurity of women' practiced in the temple. A women's right
association 'Break the Barriers Organisation' filed a PIL in the Supreme Court
challenging the practice and seeking a direction to allow entry of women into the temple
without age restrictions.
4. A five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Aryavarta in 2018, in a 4:1
ratio, ruled in favour of allowing women of all ages to enter the temple. The Court
remarked that devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination. It held that Any custom
or religious practice if it violates the dignity of women by denying them entry because
of her physiology is unconstitutional and exclusionary practices are contrary to
constitutional morality.
5. It further clarified that the word “morality” is to be taken to mean “constitutional
morality” and since “gender justice” is an integral part of constitutional morality,
denominational practices that go against gender justice are not protected by Article
26(b). The Court struck down Rule 3(b) which authorized the restriction as ultra vires
of both Section 3 and Section 4 of the Cherala Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965.
6. The judgement created a furore among the people who took to the streets and organised
mass movements to show their discontent and dissatisfaction. The Government of
ix
Cherala could not execute the order due to the protests. There was a clear sense of
regression amongst the devotees and people of South Aryavarta. Considering the
political ramifications of the protests, the Government of Cherala decided to file a
review petition in the Supreme Court.
7. The Supreme Court to instil public confidence and effectuate the principle underlying
Article 145(3) of the Constitution referred the matter to a larger Bench.
8. All laws of Aryavarta pari materia to the laws of India.
x
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO
EQUALITY AND THE SWEEP OF EXPRESSION ‘PUBLIC ORDER, MORALITY AND
HEALTH’ AS UNDER ART. 25(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 3: TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’ OR
‘CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS
PRACTICES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 5: WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATIONS AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION UNDER ART. 26.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 6: EXTENT OF JUDICIAL RECOGNITION TO PILs IN MATTERS OF
RELIGIOUS PRACTICES FILED BY PERSONS NOT BELONGING TO SUCH
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION.
xi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The present petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta as the
petitioners have locus standi due to violation of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, there
exists a substantial question of law. Moreover, there has been a blatant and substantial
miscarriage of justice.
ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO

EQUALITY AND THE SWEEP OF EXPRESSION ‘PUBLIC ORDER, MORALITY
AND HEALTH’ AS UNDER ART. 25(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Right to Religion under Article 25 and 26 and the fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of
the Constitution holds Right to Religion as superior to Right to Equality as all freedoms must
exist in harmony and Right to Equality has to be interpreted differently in matters of religion.
Furthermore, morality under Article 25 refers to religious morality.
ISSUE 3: ‘TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’

OR ‘CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY’.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that morality stems from religion as
this has been stated by philosophers and therefore, the expression morality must be considered
to be morality of a religious denomination. Furthermore, there should be no interference of a
secular state in religions which done would cause violation of the Constitution.
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS

PRACTICES.
The court cannot enquire into essential religious practices as it shall be violative of Article
26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta which guarantees right to manage religious affairs.
Furthermore, the determination of essential practices must be left exclusively to the religious
heads as they possess requisite expertise and are acquainted with norms of the denomination.
xii
ISSUE 5: WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATIONS AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION UNDER ART.
26.
Essential Religious practices are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26 as the right
to manage its own affairs of a religious denomination is extended to religious practices as well.
Furthermore, the Judiciary follows a practice of protecting essential religious practices of a
religion.
ISSUE 6: EXTENT OF JUDICIAL RECOGNITION TO PILs IN MATTERS OF

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES FILED BY PERSONS NOT BELONGING TO SUCH
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that PILs in matters calling into
question religious practices of denomination when filed by person not belonging to that
religious denomination must not be permissible as they lack locus standi and if continued to do
so will open floodgates of PILs in the court.
xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the review petition is maintainable under
Article 137 of the Constitution of Aryavarta. The same is proved by three-fold argument [1.1]
The petitioners have locus standi in the present petition, [1.2] There is a substantial question
of law involved, and [1.3] There has been a blatant and substantial miscarriage of justice.
[1.1] The petitioners have locus standi in the present petition.
1. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available to a person
who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected
interest.1 Under Art. 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has power to review any
judgment pronounced or order made by it.2
2. However, this jurisdiction is exercisable in accordance with, and subject to, any
parliamentary legislation and rules made by the court itself under its rule making power.3The
court decides upon the locus standi for each case on the basis of its own unique set of facts and
circumstances.4 The person filing review petition for espousing public interest5 must stand on
entirely different footing than one praying for a review as mere appeal6.
3. In the present case, Supreme Court ruled that the customary practice of ban on female entry
as unconstitutional and hence struck down the Rule 3(b) of the State Legislative Act. This has
violated their fundamental right to manage and administer their affairs in matters of religion.
Moreover, the review petition is filed by the petitioner in public interest as any judgement
altering the religious belief or customary practice shall affect the public at large. Therefore, the
petitioners have locus standi since they have been directly affected by the order of the court,
and their fundamental right is violated.
1
Archcon v. Sewda Construction Co, AIR 2005 Gau 58.
2
Aryavarta Const.art.137.
3
Haryana State Industrial Development Corpnn. Ltd v. Mawasi,AIR 2012 7 SCC 200.
4
Amanullah.v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 1871.
5
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,1981 Supp SCC 87
6
State of Karnataka v. T. R. Dhananjay,1995 6 SCC 254.
1
[1.2] There is a substantial question of law involved
4. The Supreme Court has laid down that ‘substantial’ question of law must be debatable, not
previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing
on the decision of the case, if answered either way.7
5. The court accepted the review petition in a case because the assumption on which it made
certain observations in the earlier decision was shown to be unfounded. 8The court has ruled
that it is not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is
necessary to do so for the sake of justice, or the previous decision suffers from an error apparent
on the face of the record.9
6. In the present case, it is evident by the protests that the people are discontent and unfound
of the judgement as it is violative of their fundamental rights. Since, the Constitution seeks to
provide an accommodative society, any judgement in contrary to the public opinion must be
reconsidered. Moreover, Aryavarta is a diverse country with a build of various religions. Thus,
there is a requirement of a binding precedent to cater future conflicts. Therefore, the present
petition is a decision could form an essential precedent for the future application of the
principle.
[1.3] There has been a blatant and substantial miscarriage of justice.
7. In a civil proceeding, review of a court decision will lie on the following grounds of mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record;10 or any other sufficient reason for instance, there
are certain unmerited observations against the petitioner in judgment.11 Applying the principles
of natural justice, Supreme Court is bound to give a reasoned judgment as justice must not only
be done, but it must appear to be done12.
8. The court has emphasized that the basic fundamental of the administration of justice is Ex
debito justitiae, i.e. if a man has been wronged, so long as it lies within the human machinery
of administration of justice, the wrong must be remedied.13In a review petition14, the court
7
SantoshHazari v. PurushottamTiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC);Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. &
Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
8
Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1681.
9
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.
10
CST V. Pine Chemicals Ltd., 1995 1 SCC 58.
11
Dayanand v. Nagaraj, AIR 1976 SC 2183.
12
R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy,[1924] 1 KB 256.
13
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Amtulay, AIR 1984 3 SCC 684
14
Common Cause-A Regd. Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979.
2
reversed its previous judgment on the ground that it suffered from patent error of law resulting
in serious miscarriage of justice.
9. The Hon’ble court while explaining the scope of inherent power of the SC to review de hors
Article 137 has held violation of a fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice to be
a few of them.15
10. In the present case, the court has failed to give a reasoned decision. Though the fundamental
right to practice religion of majority has been violated, the court has not reasoned as to why the
right of an individual is placed on a higher pedestal. With such an order passed by
misinterpretation, it has violated fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article
25 and 26 of the Constitution.
11. Therefore, the review petition is maintainable on application of the principles of natural
justice and under the ambit of Article 137 as there has been gross miscarriage of justice.
In view of the above stated contentions, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble court that the
present petition is admissible and maintainable on grounds of requisite locus standi,
involvement of substantial question of law and gross miscarriage of justice.
ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER

ARTICLES 25 AND 26 AND PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SWEEP
OF THE EXPRESSION ‘PUBLIC ORDER, MORALITY AND HEALTH’ UNDER
ARTICLE 25(1)
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Right to Equality has not
been violated as [2.1] Interplay between Articles 14,15,25 and 26 holds Right to Religion as
superior to Right to Equality. [2.2] Morality under Article 25 refers to religious morality.
[2.1] Interplay between Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 holds right to religion as superior.
The same is done by a two-fold contention [2.1.1] All Freedoms must exist in harmony, [2.1.2]
Right to equality has to be interpreted differently in matters of religion freedom.
15
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Amtulay, AIR 1984 3 SCC 684
3
[2.1.1] All Freedoms must exist in harmony

12. In an organized society no rights can be absolute.16 The fundamental rights contained in
Part III are not water-tight compartments. 17One fundamental right of a person may have to co-
exist in harmony with the exercise of another fundamental right.18
13. Furthermore the fundamental rights under Article 26(b) is not subjected to preservation of
civil rights and its only limitations are those expressly mentioned by the Article itself i.e. public
order, morality and health and those mentioned by cl. 2 of Article 25.19 There cannot be any
inroad made which directly affects the freedom of religion.20 Article 25(2) which throws open
to all section of Hindus cannot obliterate the essential religious practices21
14. In the present case the women aged ten to fifty years are restricted from entering the temple
as the Dharmashastra devotees believe that their deity who is eternally celibate will be
disturbed.22 The restriction of women has not violated public order, morality or heath. Further
if Article 25(2)(b) is applied to this practice it will obliterate the practice as it is an essential
religious practice connected to the deity. The fundamental right of equality must be examined
with the fundamental right of religion. The right to religion of the thousands of pilgrims visiting
the Rishyamala temple must be considered before terming their practice as unconstitutional.
The entry of women into the temple will directly affect the pilgrims’ right to religion.
[2.1.2] Right to equality has to be interpreted differently in matters of religious freedom

15. Article 25(1)23 enables all citizens to practice and propagate their religion. The restriction
of religious freedoms to make way for social reforms is only intended for those laws which do
not invade the basic and essential practices of religion guaranteed under the Operative
portion of Article 25.24
16. The court stated that if a rule takes away the right of a religious denomination such as to
destroy or completely negative the right of the religious denomination for even the survival of
the religious institution, the question may have to be examined in a different light. 25 The
question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or
16
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujurat, AIR 1974 SC 2098.
17
Mahant Ram Kishan Dass vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 1576.
18
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,(8th ed.,2018).
19
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853.
20
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujurat ,AIR 1974 SC 2098
21
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR. 1958 SC 255
22
Moot Proposition,para 4.
23
Aryavarta Const.art.25,cl.1.
24
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay,AIR 1962 SC 853.
25
Mahant Ram Kishan Dass vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 1576.
4
sentiment but if the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or
practice of the religion it attracts the protection of Article 2526
17. In the present case the religious belief of the pilgrims visiting the Rishyamala temple is that
their deity is a Naishtikha Brahmmachari (celibate) and hence the entry of women who are
capable of reproduction will disturb him27. Hence the religious practice is directly connected
to the deity. This practice is an essential part of the religion. This practice which is genuinely
and conscientiously held as part of the religion is essential for the survival of the religious
denomination. Hence this practice cannot be taken away by the court.
[2.2] Morality under Article 25 refers to Religious Morality
18. The framers of the constitution wanted to leave personal laws outside the ambit of the
constitution.28The courts do now wish to get involved in adjudging personal laws with respect
to Fundamental rights.29During the Constitutional Assembly debates the following was stated
“Religion as such is the basis of all morality, all social and ethical values and all human
Institutions.”30. “Religion is the basic foundation of any society; all morality, and all good
principles have to be traced to religion.”31It is evident that the members of the Constitution
Assembly believed that the basis of morality is religion.
19. In the present case it is evident that ‘morality’ under Article 25 refers to religious morality
as the makers of the constitution believed that the basis of morality is religion. According to
the religious belief of the Dharmashastra devotees, the wishes of their deity to remain eternally
celibate must be respected and adhered to. They believe that the entry of women who are
capable of reproduction would go against their deity’s rules. The religious morality of the
devotees dictate that the wishes of the deity must be respected. Entry of women into the temple
would go against their religious morality.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted to the Supreme Court that the interplay between Article
14,14,25 and 26 holds right to religion superior and morality under Article 25 refers to religious
morality.
26
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala,1990 Supp SCC 515(1).
27
Moot Proposition, para 4.
28
State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84.
29
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,(8th edn ,2018)
30
Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by Krishna Chandra Sharma.
31
Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar.
5
ISSUE 3: TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’

OR ‘CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY’ IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the expression morality refers
to the morality of the religious denomination and its essential religious practices interfered
with. It is sought to be proved by a way of two-fold argument. [3.1] Morality stems from
religion [3.2] No- interference of a secular state.
[3.1] Morality stems from religion
20. Immanuel Kant argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality.
Those who use “morality” normatively hold that morality is (or would be) the code that meets
the following condition: all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse
it.32 It is simply impossible for people to be moral without religion or God.33 For many religious
people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of
religion or their religion is their morality.34 Various religions have their moral norms which
determine what is wrong and what is right. Religions have their holy books and their religious
writings which state good and bad.
21. Religion as such is the basis of all morality, all social and ethical values and all human
Institutions. I do not find what is wrong with religion itself35.Religion, is the basic foundation
of any society; all morality and all good principles have to be traced to religion36
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that morality cannot exist
without religion as morality comes from religion. And thus, morality in general be considered
to be that of the religious denominations.
[3.2] No- interference of a secular state.
22. The Preamble to the constitution asserted that our country is a secular one. Religious
tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups and protection of life and property and all
the places they worship are a part of secularism.37 While freedom of religion is guaranteed to
all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person
32
The Definition of Morality, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 17/04/2002,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NormDefiMora
33
Laura Schlessinger, Zuckerman, 2008
34
James F Childress;John Macquarrie ,The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics,1986
35
Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by Krishna Chandra Sharma.
36
Constituent Assembly dates, Book no. 7, 7th December 1948,Speech by M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar.
37
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1,
6
is immaterial. To the state, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of
State, religion has no place. The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing
religion and State power. Both must be kept apart.38
23. The Concept of secularism is not endangered if the basic tenets of all religions are studied
and learnt.39 Under Art. 26(b) The religious institution is allowed to manage its own affairs.
The constitution has conferred this power to the religious institutions. The protection of articles
25 and 26 is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief they extend also to acts done in
pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies
and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion.40
24. In the present case, the Rishyamala temple follows a customary practice which is followed
by lakhs of pilgrims visiting the holy place following strict religious vows for over two months.
The temple has a restriction on women aged between ten and fifty years from entering the
temple as the deity of the temple is in a state of ‘Naistika Bramhachari (eternally celibate). So,
it can be concluded that the court interfering into the matters of Dharmashastra temple called
Rishyamala temple is violative of the Article 26(b) of Constitution of Aryavarta.
It has been humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Aryavarta being a secular
country cannot violate the Article 25 and 26(b) which renders it to be unconstitutional.
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO THE ISSUE OF A

PARTICULAR PRACTICE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RELIGION OR
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR
SHOULD THAT BE LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE HEAD
OF THE SECTION OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the courts cannot enquire into the issue
of a particular practice as an integral part of the religion or religious practice. It is sought to be
proved by a way of two-fold arguments: [4.1] It is violative of Article 26(b) of the Constitution
38
id.
39
Aruna Roy v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCALE 408.
40
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam.V. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu ,(2016) 2 SCC 725.
7
of Aryavarta [4.2] The determination of an essential religious practice is a matter of

acquaintance and expertise.
[4.1] It is violative of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta
25. The term “religious denomination‟ in Art. 26 means all persons having a common faith and
organisation and designated by a distinctive name within the particular religion.41 A judicial
view has been expressed that the followers of the Hindu religion, as such, even though
numerous and divided into many sects and sub-sects, can be regarded as a “religious
denomination”. 42
26. Article 26(b) of the Constitution enumerates that every religious denomination has the right
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, which is subject to public order, health and
morality.43 The term “matters of religion‟ used in Art. 26(b) not only includes religious beliefs
but also such religious practices and rites as are regarded to be an essential and integral part of
religion.44
27. The distinction can clearly be made between Art. 26 (b) and Art. 26 (c) and (d), as the
former concerns religious functions of the religious denominations and the latter concerns
secular functions.45 Further, these secular functions have to be 'in accordance with law.'
However, no such restriction is imposed on the freedom of the religious denominations to
manage its own in matters of religion, they are only subject to public order, health and
morality.46 Thus, the religious denomination has the right to prohibit the entry of women in the
temple as this right is protected by Art. 26(b) and it cannot be taken away even by the legislature
as it is a sacred right safeguarded by the Constitution.
28. In the present case, believers of Dharmashastra at the Rishyamala temple are a religious
denomination as they have a common faith and religious beliefs that only they follow. Thus,
their rights to manage religious affairs is awarded constitutional protection under Article 26(b)
of the Constitution.
41
Brahmachari Sidheshwar Shai v. State of West Bengal ,AIR 1995 SC 2089, Ramaswami Mudaliar v. Commr.,
H.R.E., AIR 1999 Mad 393; Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997)
4 SCC 606.
42
Ramchandra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Ori 5.
43
Aryavarta Const.art.26,cl.b.
44
Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
45
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt ,AIR 1954 SC 282.
46
Id.
8
Therefore, if the secular courts inquire in any religious practices termed in religious functions
of the religious denomination, it shall be violative of the fundamental right.
[4.2] The determination of an essential religious practice is a matter of acquaintance

and expertise.
29. Article 16(5) of the Constitution states that the incumbent of an office in connection with
the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body
thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular
denomination.47 This establishes that the members of Constituent Assembly knew the
importance of a religious denomination being headed by a person professing the religion who
knows the essentiality of the religious practices and not someone who has mere moral
approach.
30. In a case of interpreting doctrine of essential practice, the question of fact whether a certain
religious practice is essential led to delayed justice and suffering of the petitioners.48 The result
was a varied judgement by two courts as interpretation based on religious doctrine becomes
subjective as two judges are vested with the authority to adjudicate on same issue in two
different territories.49
31. In the matter at hand, Rishyamala temple though being one of the nine-hundred temples of
the deity, has its own customs from time immemorial. The Division bench in 1991 was correct
in upholding the customary practice as a temple considered to be a peculiarity not to be
interfered. Only a religious head or a person having faith in the religion can value such a
practice to be considered essential and hence must not be construed otherwise. Moreover,
consistent interpretation of an expert like religious head must prevail over the varied
interpretations as religious practices must have peculiarity rather than imposition of blanket
legislations.
32. Therefore, the court must not enquire in essentiality of religious practices as it is not based
on facts of a specific case rather requires a blend of origin, evolution, ideology and belief of
the particular religious denomination which if misinterpreted would negate the purpose of the
constitutional protection provided by the makers of the Constitution.
47
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam.V. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu ,(2016) 2 SCC 725.
48
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of police,(1983) 4 SCC 522
49
Id..
9
ISSUE 5 WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF A RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATION ARE AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION UNDER
ARTICLE 26
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that essential practices are afforded
constitutional protection owing to [5.1] Article 26(b) of the Aryavarta Constitution [5.2]
Judicial practice of protecting essential religious practices.
[5.1] Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta
33. Article 26(b)50 provides every religious denomination with the right to manage its own
affairs in matters of religion. The Constitution protects not only religious opinion, but also acts
done in pursuance of religion.51If the religion is to be venerated, then the practices connected
to the religion have to respected and complied with.52The protection guaranteed by Article
26(b)53 extends to practices which are an integral part of the religion.54
34. According to Article 25(2)55 the state can make laws to provide for social reform and throw
open Hindu religious Institutions. Though Article 26(b) is subject to Article 25(2)(b) 56Social
reforms or the need for Regulations contemplated by Article 25(2) cannot obliterate essential
religious practices or their performances and what would constitute the essential part of a
religion can be ascertained with reference to the doctrine of that religion itself.57
35. In the present case the practice of restricting the entry of women aged between ten to fifty
years as the religious denomination believes that it would disturb their deity who is a
celibate.58The restriction is an essential religious practice as it is directly related to the deity
and is protected under Article 26(b) which allows the religious denomination to manage their
own affairs.. If Article 25(2) is applied to this practice the practices of the religion will be
obliterated as the practice is directly interferes with the deity.
50
Aryavarta Const.art.26,cl.b.
51
Commissioner,Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282.
52
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,(8th edn.,2018).
53
Supra,note 51.
54
Riju Prasad Sarm v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461.
55
Aryavarta Const.art.25,cl.2.
56
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR. 1958 SC 255
57
Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461.
58
10
[5.2] Judicial practice of protecting essential religious practices.
36. A religious denomination has complete autonomy to decide what rites and ceremonies are
essential according to the tenets of the religion and no outside authority can interfere with their
decisions in such matters.59The protection must be confined to such religious practices that are
an essential and integral part of the religion.60 In deciding the question as to whether a given
religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the test always would be whether it
is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not. 61 What constitutes the
essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that
religion itself.62
37. In a case63 the court held that the constitutional guaranteed must extent to essential religious
practices64 Hence the essential religious practices of a religious denomination are protected
under Article 26(b).
38. Aryavarta has diverse religious practices and would allow anyone to profess and practice a
religion she or he believes in and it is not for the court to interfere in such religious practices.65
The practice of now allowing women to temple constitutes an essential religious practice as it
is regarded as such by the community following the religion. Furthermore, this practice has
been followed since times immemorial.66 This practice is an essential part of the denomination
and any subtractions will change the fundamental character of the religion as the temple is
known for its customary peculiarities. Hence this practice is constitutionally protected.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essential practice of not
allowing women aged between ten to fifty years is afforded constitutional protection under
Article 26 of the constitution of Aryavarta as stated by Article 26(b) of the Constitution and
the Judicial Practice of protecting Essential Religious Practices.
59
Commissioner,Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282.
60
Durgah Committee,Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402.
61
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v State of Rajasthan, (1964) 1 SCR 561.
62
Jehovah's Witnesses v. The Commonwealth ,1943 CLR 116.
63
The Commissioner,Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282.
64
id.
65
66
Moot Propisition, para 7.
11
ISSUE 6: WHAT WOULD BE THE PERMISSIBLE EXTENT OF JUDICIAL

RECOGNITION TO PILS IN MATTERS CALLING INTO QUESTION RELIGIOUS
PRACTICES OF DENOMINATION OR A SECTION THEREOF AT THE INSTANCE
OF PERSONS WHO DO NOT BELONG TO SUCH RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a PIL in matters calling religious
practices of denominations into question at the instance of persons who do not belong to such
religious denominations is not permissible as [6.1] The petitioners of PIL lack locus standi.
[6.1] The petitioners of PIL lack locus standi
39. The words ‘religious denomination’ must be a collection of individuals who have a
system of beliefs or doctrines, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that
is, a common faith; Common organization; and Designation by a distinctive name67.
40. Furthermore, it is contended that a petition for a legal remedy can ordinarily be moved
only by an aggrieved person.68 This principle is based on theory that remedies and rights are
correlative and therefore, only a person whose own right is in jeopardy is entitled to seek a
remedy.69 A person who is bringing a petition to the court must be someone who is concerned
with the rituals and practices of the religion and has to establish his credentials as a person who
has a history of espousing such causes before superior courts in our country.70
41. Public interest litigation on each and every issue taken out by anyone at any point of time
or of any nature then it will open floodgates.71 The allowance of such PILs shall be gravely
dangerous especially for religious minorities. Locus standi rule must exercise restraint in
moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed.72
42. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available to a person
who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected
interest.73 Violation of the legal right or protected interest should be by the impugned action of
the state or a public authority.74 Thus, the persons who filed PIL lack locus standi as they are
67
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India ,(1983) 1 SCC 51
68
Ashraf v Commissioner, 2013 (3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 566.
69
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
70
Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath v Union of India, (WP-C No. 33240/2018).
71
Mahanagar Ghaziabad Chetna Munch v, State Of U.P. Through Principal, 2007 (2) AWC 1113.
72
S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda ,(1996) 6 SCC 734.
73
Archcon v. Sewda Construction Co,AIR 2005 Gau 58.
74
S.P. Gupta v. President Of India , AIR 1982 SC 149.
12
not an aggrieved party. The same is to be proved by an argument [6.1.1] Fundamental right is
not violated.
[6.1.1] Fundamental Right is not violated
44. No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right75.The Supreme Court has emphasized that “The violation of Fundamental
Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32.”76
45. Right to equality under Article 14 has to be viewed differently in matters of religion and
religious beliefs. The right to practice one's religion is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by Part
III of the Constitution, without reference to whether religion or the religious practices are
rational or not77.
46. Article 25(1) confers on every individual the right to practice, profess and propagate his
or her religion. 78The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity in
accordance with the tenets of that faith or shrine is protected by Article 25(1) of the
Constitution.79 Art. 26(b) embraces religious practices, signifies the question who are the
persons entitled to enter into a temple for worship. All the matters of religion come under the
matter of Art. 26(b). The pilgrim’s belief that women should not enter the temple as their deity
is eternally celibate is genuine and conscientious and is constitutionally protected by Article
25 and Article 26.
Therefore, it is submitted that there was no violation of fundamental rights under Part III. When
the petitioners lack locus standi which means that they do not belong to the same religious
denomination no judicial recognition is permitted. Hence, The Board was upright in the dealing
of the matter of the functioning and management of the temple and were abiding by the
customs. The object of the act and the rule thereof was to uphold the customs that have been
followed since time immemorial.
75
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
76
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India,AIR. 1981 SC 344.
77
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala,(2018) 4 KLT 373á
78
Aryavarta Const.art.25.
79
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore,AIR. 1958 SC 255.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble court that in the light of issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. DECLARE that the present Review Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
2. DECLARE that the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 and
part III of the Constitution holds Right to Religion superior to Right to Equality and
DECLARE that Morality under article 25 refers to Religious morality.
3. DECLARE that morality in this case is Religious morality
4. DECLARE that an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular
religious denomination should be exclusively determined by the head of the section of
the religious group.
5. DECLARE that essential religious practice of a religious denomination is afforded
constitutional protection under Article 26.
6. DECLARE that a PIL in matters calling into question religious practices of a
denomination at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious
denomination is not permissible.
And / Or pass any such order, direction or relief as it may deem fit in order to uphold the
principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall forever humbly pray.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Petitioner
14

T - 01 Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

T - 01 Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T - 01 Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-01

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVRAJ V. PATIL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

REVIEW PETITION NO. _____ / 20__

State Government of Cherala…….……..………………….…......…….……PETITIONER

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... xiii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE. .......................... 1

[1.2] There is a substantial question of law involved ........................................................ 2

ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER

[2.2] Morality under Article 25 refers to Religious Morality ............................................ 5

ISSUE 3: TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’ OR

[3.1] Morality stems from religion..................................................................................... 6

[3.2] No- interference of a secular state. ............................................................................ 6

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO THE ISSUE OF A

[4.1] It is violative of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta ................................... 8

[4.2] The determination of an essential religious practice is a matter of acquaintance and

ISSUE 5 WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF A RELIGIOUS

[5.1] Article 26(b) of the Constitution of Aryavarta ........................................................ 10

[5.2] Judicial practice of protecting essential religious practices. ................................... 11

ISSUE 6: WHAT WOULD BE THE PERMISSIBLE EXTENT OF JUDICIAL

[6.1] The petitioners of PIL lack locus standi.................................................................. 12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................ 14

Abbreviations Actual Term

AIR All India Reporter

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UOI Union of India

S.P. Gupta v. President Of India , AIR 1982 SC 149. ............................................................. 13

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES

137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court

Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Review

1. Application for review of judgement

“(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO

ISSUE 3: ‘TO REVIEW THE INTERPLAY OF THE EXPRESSIONS ‘MORALITY’

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE COURT CAN ENQUIRE INTO ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS

ISSUE 5: WHETHER ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF RELIGIOUS

ISSUE 6: EXTENT OF JUDICIAL RECOGNITION TO PILs IN MATTERS OF

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

[1.1] The petitioners have locus standi in the present petition.

[1.2] There is a substantial question of law involved

[1.3] There has been a blatant and substantial miscarriage of justice.

ISSUE 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER

[2.1.1] All Freedoms must exist in harmony

[2.1.2] Right to equality has to be interpreted differently in matters of religious freedom

REVIEW PETITION NO. ___ / 20