Your lordship, your lady, may it please the court, My name is arti, I am

the counsel for the petitioner, I am here to submit my argument in

continuation with further issues.
Your lordship. The Executionary Practice -restriction on women’s entry
at Aloha temple,in city of Dakshinpur is totally based on women’s
bodily occurring natural phenomena that is “menstruation”, and such
kind of practices are violation of Article 17,Article 21 and Article 25 of
The constitution, apart from the article 14 & 15 which is already
submitted by my co-counsel Mr. kundan Mishra.
If the bench of Jurists permit, I would like to commence my argument.
Much Obliged!
Your lordship, Article 17 of the Constitution prohibits untouchability” in
any form” based on notion of purity and pollution. here, in this case the
exclusion of menstruating women is on the same footing as the
exclusion of the operessed classes.
Your lordship,For proving my point on Untouchability ,I would like to
Rely on The protection of civil rights Acts,1955 which criminalizes the
encouragement & incitement untouchability practices any in form.
Your lordship, I want to really emphasize the Section 3(a) and 3(B) of
The protection of civil rights Acts, Because it is fully relevant to this
case.
Section 3(a) clearly state that whoever on the ground of “untouchability”
prevents any person from entering any place of public worship or
prevents any person from worshiping they would be liable for
punishment.
Similarly, Section 3(B) states that whoever on the ground of
“untouchability” prevents any person for offering prayers in same
manner and same extent as other person is permissible to entering and
professing the same religion or any section ther of, they would be liable
for punishment.
Your Lordship, In Addition to all these section ,I want to emphasize
Section 7c of 1955 Act as well, Which states that whoever , by words
either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or
otherwise incites or encourage untouchability in any form is liable for
punishment.
Therefore, my lords, my lady, prohibiting women of particular age
group, based on menstruation cycle, based on biological & physiological
factor is a direct form of untouchability and as a counsel of the
petitioner, and being a women I condemn it fully.
Your Lordship , Further I would like to move on my next submission on
the Voilation of article 21 with your permission.
Much obliged !
Your Lordship,The executionory practice also violates the Right to
privacy under umbrella of article 21 fundamental rights of Life and
Libaerty. Your lordship I want to draw this court a kind attention on the
landmark case of K puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017, in which it
was clearly asserted at page no. 16, section 81(c) that the fundamental
right to privacy would cover at least three aspects.
First, Intrusion with an individual’s physical body
Second, Informational Privacy
And Third, Privacy of Choice
Your lordship, in this case, the Executionory practices is breaching the
right to privacy based on all the 3 aspects of K Puttswamy case
judgement.
Your Lordship, here the Restricting practice on all women devotees is an
involuntary disclosure of their menstrual status and age. And such kind
of forced disclosure of their personal and biological information is
violation of their right to dignity and right to privacy embedded in article
21.
Similarly, the execution of notions of purity is against the dignity of a
woman and it casting a stigma on woman to be considered as polluted
based on menstruation cycle. Therefore, it is a violation Article 21 and
as a counsel of petitioner I firmly oppose it for undermining the dignity
of women.
Your Lordship,I further want to move towards my final submission on
the violation of article 25, with your permission.
Much Obliged!
Your Lordship, Article 25(1) guarantees to every individual, either
Citizen of Indistan or any foreigner to freely profess, practice and
propogate their religion.
Moreover, your lordship, Right to worship is not only a fundamental
constitutional right but also It is a religious right to every individual
Because God never differentiate His child whoever he/she/it may be.

We all are equal in the eyes of God like as we are equal here in the eyes
of Law and natural justice. Therefore your lordship entering in the
temple and to practice and profess their religion it is an essential aspects
of women’s and this rights must be given to them as other devotees
getting.
Additionally, Your Lordship,I want to submit that this derogatory
executionory practice is not qualifying the criteria of Section 2(a) and
2(b) of the Article 25 as the restriction of women’s entry in a temple is
neither an economic ,financial , political or any secular activity nor it is
concerned with any social welfare cause, respectively.

Your Lordship, the most ancient scripture ,Rigveda provides ample

evidence to prove the concept of equality of women with men, Many of
the Vedic rishies were women like Gargi, Apala,Ghosha & the great
Maitreyi, who adopted the path of spiritual knowledge.

Point to be noted my Lordship, There is no such written evidence or

scripture in Hinduism where it is mentioned that women are not
allowed to worship in the temple because of their menstruation
cycle.

with due respect, If the Court satisfied with the argument I would like to
move further for my closing statements.

Your Lordship, People get the actual rights when they don’t need to say
that it is a woman’s right or men’s right, there must be only one right
that is human rights.

To Conclude my argument here, I as a counsel of petitioner respectfully

appeal this Court to find the “executionary Practice” is violative to
Article 14,15,17, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

Your Lordships, if the bench has any questions, the Counsel will be
pleased to answer them. And if the bench asks, the Counsel will
move to prayer which is already a part of the record at a last page of
the memorial.
ARTICLE 26-Religious Denomination:

In Shirur Math's case (AIR 1954 SC 282, The Durgah Committee, Ajmer and Anr.
v. Syed Hussain Ali and ors. And S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And
Others.and dictionary meaning of denomination in Oxford was approved. It reads
as under : --

"A collection of individuals classed together under the same name, a religious sect
or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive
name."

The Petitioners contend that a religious denomination must have the following
attributes:
• It has its own property & establishment capable of succession by its followers.
• It has its distinct identity clearly distinguishable from any established religion.
• It has its own set of followers who are bound by a distinct set of beliefs, practises,
rituals or beliefs.
• It has the hierarchy of its own administration, not controlled by any outside
agency.
It was contended that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious
denomination under Article 26 as they do not have a common faith, or a distinct
name. The devotees of Lord Paramappa are not unified on the basis of some
distinct set of practises.

Every temple in India has its own different set of rituals. It differs from region to
region. A minor difference in rituals and ceremonies does not make them a
separate religious denomination.
The devotees of Lord Paramappa do not form a religious denomination since the
tests prescribed by this Court have not been satisfied in this case.

It was further submitted that there are no exclusive followers of this Temple except
general Hindu followers visiting any Hindu temple.
Even if the Aloha Temple is taken to be a religious denomination, the restriction on
the entry of women is not an essential religious practise.

The prohibition on women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the
temple does not constitute the core foundation of the assumed religious
denomination. Any law or custom to be protected under Article 26 must have
Constitutional legitimacy.

Essentials for a Valid Custom as per Hindu Law

1. Reasonableness: The custom must be reasonable. It should not affect the society
in any way. It should satisfy the principles of Natural justice. If a custom is
unreasonable, then it is not valid and will not become a law For e.g. if a custom
recognizes that a woman can marry more than one man, it is unreasonable and will
not become a law.

2. Conformity: The custom should be in conformity with the established law of the
land. If a custom is inconsistent with the law of the land, then it is invalid. For e.g.
slavery is an offence under the Indian Penal Code, if a custom recognises slavery,
then such custom is invalid.

3. Opinion: The public must feel that the particular custom is beneficial for them.
They must think that such a custom is a binding rule of the community and it
should not be of individual choice.
4. Observance: A mere practice of custom will not become law. It must be
observed freely and voluntarily.

5. Immemorial Antiquity: The origin of the Custom should be from time

immemorial. the origin should not be traced. No living man must remember
its origin. Recent customs or modern customs are not valid customs. Fashion is
not custom. In England, a custom must have existed continuously from 1189 A.D.
to be considered valid.

6. Continuity: The custom should be followed without interruption. It must be

followed continuously.
7. Peacefulness: The custom must have been observed peacefully. In other words,
it should not be protested in any way by the public or part of the public.

8. Certainty: The custom must be certain and definite. It should not be vague. If a
custom is indefinite, then it is invalid.

9. Consistency with Other Customs: The custom should not be opposed to other
customs. Suppose two different customs exist which are inconsistent to each other,
then both the customs are invalid.