IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. __/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

BAKO CHARITABLE TRUST …PETITIONER

TOM RIDDLE

VERSUS

STATE OF NORTH PRADESH …RESPONDENT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

ON SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S. NO. PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 4
2. Index of Authorities 5-7
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 8
4. Statement of Facts 9
5. Issues Raised 10
6. Summary of Arguments 11-12
7. Argument Advanced 13-23

ISSUE 1: Whether the speech made by Mr. Arya Stark is violation of 13-16
Article 19(1)(a) of constitution of Indiana
1. Freedom to express oneself freely before press is essential
element of freedom of speech and expression. 13
2. Essentiality of free political discussion for proper functioning
of democratic society. 13-14
3. Speech falsely assumed to be offensive in nature or hate
speech. 14-15
4. Speech was lacking any malicious intent or wording to
instigate riots. 15
5. Speech was made within the prescribed limits of reasonable
restriction put freedom of speech and expression. 15-16

2
 ISSUE II: Whether state of North Pradesh was justified in
withdrawing the prosecution against Ms. Arya Stark? 16-18
1. Public prosecutor can make an application for withdrawal
from prosecution as per Section 321 of CrPC. 16
2. Prosecution was withdrawal in interest of justice. 17
3. The prosecution was withdrawn from maintain public order
peace and tranquility. 17
4. The grounds of withdrawal were reasonable enough to be
justified 18

ISSUE III: Whether Place of Workship Act is applicable to Shine and

nir in question?
Shine and Nir in question comes under the exception granted in Place
of Workship Act, 1991. 18-19

ISSUE IV: Whether Place of Workship Act, 1991 is ultra vires to 20-24
constitution of Indiana?
1. Prohibition on jurisdiction of Supreme Court 20
2. Violates Fundamental rights of citizens. 20-21
3. Acts in discriminatory nature. 21-22
4. Acts is ambiguous in nature. 22-23
5. Cause obstruction in fulfilment of international treaties and 23
agreements
6. Cause hinderance in fulfilment of DPSP 23-24

9. PRAYER 25

3
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

S. No. ABBREVATIONS FULLFORM

1. & And
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. Anr. Another
4. Art. Article
5. FRs Fundamental Rights
6. HC High Court
7. Hon’ble Honorable
8. IPC Indian Penal Code
9. Ors. Others
10. p. Page
11. SC Supreme Court
12. u/Art. Under Article
13. u/s Under Section
14. v. Versus
15. w.r.t With respect to

4
 TABLE OF CASES

S. NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION P. NO.

1. In Romeh Thaper v/s State of Madras 1950, AIR 124, 13

1950 SCR 594
2. Anita Kumar v/s Govt. of J&K AIR 2016 SC 13
3803
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Information and 1195 AIR 1236, 14
Broadcasting v/s Cricket Association of Bengal & 1995 SCC (2)
Anr 161
4. Shreya Singhal v/s UOI AIR 2015 SC 14
1523
5. Zac poonen v/s Hidden Treasure Literature 2002 Cr LJ 481 15
Incorporated (Karn.)
6. A.P v/s Goverdhanlal Pitti 1995 (5) SCC 15
587, 2002 (4)
SCC 160
7. Ramjit Lal Modi v/s State of U.P. 1957 AIR 620 15
1957 SCR 860
8. Sujato Bhadra v/s State of West Bengal (2005) 3 15
CALLT 436 HC
9. Ananta Lal Sinha v/s Jahiruddin Biswas and Ors AIR 1927 Cal 16
816
10. Mohd. Mumtaz v/s Nandini Satpathy AIR 1987 SC 17
863
11. Gupta Kumar Sundas v/s State of Sikkim 2004 Cr LJ 2808 17
(2810) (Sikk)
12. Balwant Singh v/s State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 17
2265
13. Ghanshyam v/s State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 17
473 (478)
14. Union Carbide Corp v/s UOI AIR 1988 SC 18
1531
15. Tek Chand v/s Tek Chand, Supdt of Police AIR 1987 SC 18
349
16. Rahul Agarwal v/s Rakesh Jain (2005) 2 SCC 18
377
17. Sheonandan Paswan v/s State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 18
194

5
18. Satinder Kumar & others v/s Union of Indiana AIR 2007 HP 77 19
19. Kesvananda Bharti v/s State of Karnataka AIR 1973 SC 20
1461
20. Nehru Gandhi v/s Raj Narain and Ors 1957 AIR 865 20
21. Minerva Mills v/s Union of Indiana AIR 1980 SC 20
1789
22. Hasan Ali v/s Mansoor Ali (1948) 50 21
BOMLR 389
23. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v/s S.P. Sahi AIR 1959 SC 22
951
24. Deoji Maharaj v/s Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 23
Ajmer and Others 906

6
 COMMENTARIES & BOOKS USED

1. Constitutional Law of India (Dr. Narendra Kumar, 11th edition, 2022)

2. The Indian Panel Code, 1860 (Ram Jethmalani, D.S. Chopra, Volume-1, 2nd edition)
3. Indian Penal Code (RA Nelson, SK Sarvaria, Volume-2, 9th edition)

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974
4. Places of Workship Act, 1991
5. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958

LEGAL DATABASE

1. MANUPATRA
2. SCC ONLINE
3. Live Law
4. Legal service India
5. Bar and Bench
6. Legally India

REPORTS, GUIDELINES AND CONVENTIONS

1. 267th Report of Law Commission of Indiana

2. Fourth Geneva Convention 1949
3. Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict
1954
4. World Heritage Convention 1972
5. Convention for Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe 1985
6. European Convention on Protection of Archaeological Heritage 1969

7
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Whereas the petitioner has approached the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 136
of Constitution of Indiana, the respondent reserves the rights to contest jurisdiction of this
hon’ble court.

8
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.) The State of Indiana is a sovereign, democratic, republic country which has been ruled by
Nitishers for over two decades. The religious demographics of Indiana were quite diverse.
Indiana got its independence in 1947 from the Nitishers, however, prior to leaving Indiana, the
Nitishers divided Indiana into two states namely- Indiana and Bakistan. Indiana has witnessed
numerous acts of communal violence since its Independence in 1947.

2.) In 1991, the Local Priests belonging to Indo religion filed a petition at the Sanarasi Civil
Court, Sanarasi, North Pradesh to seek permission to pray in the Shanvapi Shine complex for
which they seeks an archaeological survey of the site. Despite opposition from the clerics and
followers of the Bako religion, a survey was conducted. The survey report clearly mentioned that
the debris of a nir, Indo deity idols and indo religious symbols were found inside the shine.

3.) The Bako Charitable Board challenged the proceedings pending before the Sanarasi Civil
Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Ballabad on the ground that the proceedings are violative
of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. A social worker by the name of John Snow, challenged the
constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

4.) Mee News is a popular News Channel in Indiana, which is known for its debate show i.e.
Aapki Nazar. A debate was being held on the Shanvapi Shine controversy which was attended by
Ms. Arya Stark and Mr. Genghiz. The statement made by Ms. Arya Stark that nirs have been
converted into shines as a result of suppression and it is necessary to undo the wrong, sparked
nationwide communal violence. Ms. Stark filed a Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of
Ballabad to transfer all the FIRs registered against her to the State Capital of Bucknow.
However, the state has withdrawn its prosecution which resulted in acquittal of Ms. Stark from
all criminal cases.

5.) The Hon'ble High Court of Ballabad dismissed the Petition filed by the Bako Charitable Trust
stating that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 were ultra vires the
Constitution of Indiana and allowed the Petition filed by Mr. John Snow. The Bako Charitable
Trust and Mr. Tom Riddle, who was one of the complainants in the FIR against Ms. Stark,
aggrieved by the acquittal order of Ms. Stark filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court of
Indiana.

9
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER SPEECH MADE BY Ms. ARYA STARK WAS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 19(1)(A)?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER STATE OF NORTH PRADESH WAS JUSTIFYING IN WITHDRAWING THE

PROSECUTION AGAINST Ms. ARYA STARK?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991 IS APPLICABLE ON THE SHINE AND NIR
IN QUESTION

ISSUE 4

WHETHER PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991 IS ULTRA VIRES TO

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I: THAT SPEECH MADE BY MS. ARYA STARK WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 19(1)(A)

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

➢ Speech made by Ms. Arya Stark was made within the prescribed limits of article 19(1)(a)
➢ Ms. Arya Stark's speech was just an expression of his opinions in an open public debate.
➢ Ms. Arya Starks was based on historical facts and not of such nature which can instigate
riots.
➢ Ms. Arya Stark s statement was in no way made with any malicious intent, nor was it in
any way violative of reasonable restrictions under article 19(1)(a)

II: THAT STATE OF NORTH PRADESH WAS JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING THE

PROSECUTION AGAINST Ms. ARYA STARK

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

➢ The Public Prosecutor can make an application for withdrawal from prosecution.
➢ The prosecution was withdrawn in interest of justice.
➢ The prosecution was withdrawn to maintain public order, peace and tranquility
➢ The grounds of withdrawal were reasonable enough to be justified.

III: THAT PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991 IS NOT APPLICABLE ON SHINE AND
NIR IN QUESTION

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

➢ The Shine and Nir in question (i.e. Shanvapi shine ) will be covered under the exception
stated in section 4(3)(a). Therefore, it cannot be said to be covered under Place of
worship act, 1991.

11
IV: THAT PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991 IS ULTRA VIRES TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

➢ Paces of worship Act, 1991 puts prohibition on jurisdiction of Supreme court.

➢ Places of worship Act, 1991 violates the fundamental rights under art. 25, 26 & 29 of
constitution of Indiana.
➢ Places of worship Act, 1991 is discriminatory in nature and hurts the spirit of Principles
of right to equality put under Part III of constitution of Indiana.
➢ Places of worship Act is too ambiguous in nature. There is no explanation regarding the
process of ascertainment of religious character of a place.
➢ Places of worship Act; 1991 causes hinderance in fulfilment of international treaties and
agreements.
➢ Places of worship Act, 1991 causes hinderance in fulfilment of Directive Principles of
State Policies

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I: SPEECH MADE BY MS. ARYA STARK WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE

19(1)(A)

It is humbly submitted that speech made by Ms. Arya Stark during a debate show i.e. Aapki
Nazar was not in violation of Article 19(1)(a)

1. Freedom to express oneself freely before press is essential element of freedom of speech
and expression -

[11.] Article 19(1)(a) states that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression
This means that every citizen has the freedom to openly express their thoughts and opinions.
This includes not just spoken words, but also written words, photographs, videos, banners, and
other forms of communication.

[2.] In Romeh Thaper v/s State of Madras1, it was observed that -

Freedom of speech and press lay at foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free
political discussion no public education, so essential for proper functioning of process of
popular government is possible.

2. Essentiality of free political discussion for proper functioning of democratic society. -

[3.] The democratic forms of govt., itself demand its citizens active and intelligent participation
in affairs of community. The public discussions with people’s participation is a basic feature and
a rational process of a democracy. Every free citizen has an undoubted right to lay what
sentiments he pleases before the public. Freedom to air one's view is lifeline of any democratic
institution and the attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to
democracy. Ms. Arya stark was just exercising her rights under article 19(1)(a) by expressing her
opinions and grievances related to a particular part of history.

[4.] It was held in Anita Kumar v/s Govt. of J&K2 that –

The freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under article 19(1)(a), means right to speak
and to express one's opinion or to air grievances by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or
in any other manner.

[5.] Ms. Arya stark in the debate just expressed her opinions on a sensitive topic relating to social
and moral values, which in no way seems to be hurting the sentiments of any community cause
any incitement to hatered against any community or group of people. Calling her statement as

1
Romeh Thaper v/s State of Madras 1950, AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
2
Anita Kumar v/s Govt. of J&K AIR 2016 SC 3803

13
violation of Art. 19(1)(a) will lead to snubbig the very right of a person to express her opinions
in front of public which is essential for any man to live in a democratic society.

[6.] In the case The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket
Association of Bengal & Amr.3, The SC referred to the justification given by David Feldman in
his book "Civil liberties & Human Rights" for and limits of expression.

"The liberty to express one's self freely is important for a number of reasons: -

a) Firstly, self-expression is a significant instrument of freedom of conscience and self fulfilment

b) Secondly, justification concerns epistemology. Freedom of expression enables people to

contribute to debates about social and moral values.

c) Thirdly, freedom of expression allows political discourse which is necessary in any country
which aspires to democracy.

d) Lastly, freedom of speech and expression facilitates artistic scholarly endeavors of all sorts."

3. Speech falsely assumed to be offensive in nature or hate speech -

[7.] Just because certain section of people caused law & order problem on the view represented
by Ms. Arya Stark doesn't mean her views in any way were violative of art. 19(1)(a)

A person can’t be said to have abridged his right just on the facts that his/her views were
wrongly interpreted by people causing law and order problem. In case of Shreya Singhal v/s
UOI4, Sec. 66A of the IT act, 2002, which empowered the police to arrest person for posting
offensive information on internet, including social media sites that could cause enmity, hatred,
intimidation, and host of other law & order problems. From this judgement of SC, we can
conclude that -

"A person cannot be arrested for expressing his/her views in any mode which causes law and
order problem even if those remarks are offensive in nature."

[8.] In the case of Ms. Arya stark, the remarks or opinion he made which caused riot, wasn't even
offensive in nature. Speech made by Ms. Arya Stark in no way can be interpreted as hate speech,
which is violative of rights under art. 19(1)(a). As per the 267th Report of Law Commission of
Indiana, hate speech is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in
term of race, ethnicity, gender, religious belief and the like. If, we study the "statement of Ms.
Arya Stark in isolation and not by relating it with the riots caused afterwards, we can easily infer
that there was no incitement to hatred against any particular group. Her statement was only based

3
The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v/s Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr 1195 AIR 1236,
1995 SCC (2) 161
4
Shreya Singhal v/s UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523

14
on historical facts and there was no intention to cause fear or alarm or incitement to violence.
She cant be blamed for wrongful interpretation of her words by a certain section of people.

[9.] In Zac poonen v/s Hidden Treasure Literature Incorporated 5 in Canada It was held that

"Mere doctrinal disagreement will not constitute an act of outraging or insulting anyone's
believes."

From Ms. Arya Stark's conduct of speech, we can infer that, by reclaiming old heritage, she
didn't mean to do so by violence or any unlawful conduct, but by procedure laid down in law or
through judicial orders.

4. Speech was lacking any malicious intent or wordings to instigate riots-

[10.] In order for any speech or spoken word to be constituted as violation of art. 19(1)(a) or hate
speech for that matter as per IPC Sec. 295-A, there should be a malicious intention by the
statement to cause hurt to inducement of hatred towards other people.

[11.] In case of State of A.P v/s Goverdhanlal Pitti6 it was cited that -

"Legal meaning of malice is ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive
intaking an action. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable
or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spit.”

[12.] In Ramjit Lal Modi v/s Sate of U.P.7, it was held that -

"Insult to religion or a group of people unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or

malicious intention to outrage the religious feeling of that class doesn't constitute as hate
speech."

Therefore, statement made by Ms. Arya Stark can't be said to have hurt feelings of any section
hence, statements made were within the reasonable restrictions of freedom of speech and
expression.

5. Speech was made within the prescribed limits of Reasonable restriction put freedom of
speech and expression -

[13.] In case of Sujato Bhadra v/s State of West Bengal8, which was related to to a book called
"Dwikhondito" written by Taslima naslemm contained some defamatory remarks about Prophet

5
Zac poonen v/s Hidden Treasure Literature 2002 Cr LJ 481
6
State of A.P v/s Goverdhanlal Pitti 1995 (5) SCC 587, 2002 (4) SCC 160
7
Ramjit Lal Modi v/s State of U.P 1957 AIR 620 1957 SCR 860
8
Sujato Bhadra v/s State of Bengal (2005) 3 CALLT 436 HC

15
Muhammad ( an important figure of bako community ) . In this case former Justice Alok Kumar
Bhushan stated that -

"The offending passage of book in question even if contain most harsh language against Prophet
Muhammad, can't be stated to have expressed the deliberate or malicious intention of author to
outrage religious feelings or religious beliefs of the Muslim citizens of this country."

[14.] In case of statement made by Ms. Arya Stark by her nature of conduct, her statement can't
be said to be made with malicious intent and it will not be anywhere near being of harsh
language or defamatory to any community. Therefore, it can be said that Ms. Arya Stark' s
statement can't be considered in any way to be hateful or in violation of article 19(1)(a).

II: STATE OF NORTH PRADESH WAS JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING THE

PROSECUTION AGAINST Ms. ARYA STARK

It is humbly stated that state of North Pradesh was justified in withdrawing the prosecution
against Ms. Arya Stark

1. The Public Prosecutor can make an application for withdrawal from prosecution -

[15.] According to Section 321 of CrPC, 321. Withdrawal from prosecution. The Public
Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court,
at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person
either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon
such withdrawal,-

(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of
such offence or offences;

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required,
he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:

[16.] In the present matter, the prosecuting officers who oversaw the case against Ms. Arya Stark
have filed an application for withdrawal of prosecution and received the consent of the court.

[17.] In Ananta Lal Sinha vs Jahiruddin Biswas And Ors9, it was held

"Withdrawal at the appellate stage after conviction by trial court is not contemplated"

The application for withdrawal of prosecution in the present matter was filed before the
judgement is pronounced.

9
Ananta Lal Sinha v/s Jahiruddin Biswas And Ors AIR 1927 Cal 816

16
[18.] In Mohd. Mumtaz v Nandini Satpathy10, it was held that -

"A public prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor can withdraw from prosecution even after the
charge-sheet has been filed in the case."

The prosecuting officers in the present matter has filed an application for withdrawal after filing
of chargesheet on 18th date, which resulted in acquittal of Ms. Arya Stark from all the cases.

2. The prosecution was withdrawn in interest of justice -

[19.] In Gupta Kumar Sundas v State of Sikkim11, it was held that -

"The paramount consideration is the interest of the administration of justice"

[20.] In Balwant Singh v State of Bihar12, it was held that -

"The Public Prosecutor has to make out some ground which would show that the prosecution is
sought to be withdrawn because inter alia the prosecution might not be able to produce sufficient
evidence to sustain the charge or that the prosecution does not appear to be well-founded or that
there are other circumstances which clearly show that the object of administration of justice
would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution. The ultimate guiding
consideration must be the interest of the administration of justice."

[21.] The speech made by Ms. Arya Stark was within the legitimate domain of the Article
19(1)(a). Therefore, proceeding with the prosecution will be violative of her fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression. To ensure justice, the withdrawal of prosecution was justified.

3.The prosecution was withdrawn to maintain public order, peace and tranquility- In

[22.] Ghanshyam v State of MP13, it was held that-

" Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution when there is paucity of evidence, to
further the broad ends of justice, public order, peace and tranquility."

The statement made by Arya stark resulted in nationwide communal violence because of
misinterpretation by public and sensitive religious issue of shanvapi shine complex. Therefore,
the continuance of prosecution against her would result in disturbance of public order, peace and
tranquility.

10
Mohd. Mumtaz v/s Nandini Satpathy AIR 1987 SC 863
11
Gupta Kumar Sundas v/s State of Sikkim 2004 Cr LJ 2808 (2810) (Sikk)
12
Balwant Singh v/s State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2265
13
Ghanshyam v/s State of M.P (2006) 10 SCC 437 (478)

17
4.The grounds of withdrawal were reasonable enough to be justified –

[23] Jin Union Carbide Corp V. UOI14, it was held that -

"Grounds and principles should be proper and relevant."

[24.] In Tek Chand v Tek Chand, Supdt of Police15, it was held that-

"Delayed FIR, weak chances of conviction, inadequate materials are some of the reasons for
withdrawal from prosecution."

[25.] In Rahul Agrawal v Rakesh Jain16, it was held that -

" If the case is likely to end in acquittal, continuance of the case is only causing severe
harassment to the accused, the withdrawal of the prosecution is likely to bury the dispute and
bring about harmony between the parties, the court may grant permission."

[26.] In Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar17, it was held that -

" An application for withdrawal prosecution on ground of lack of prospects of successful

prosecution in the light of evidence was allowed and confirmed by the High Court. When no
prima facie case was made out by the prosecution, withdrawal cannot be interfered with by the
Supreme Court in a special leave appeal."

[27.] The speech by Arya stark is not a hate speech as there was no intention to cause violence
and if his speech is to be seen in isolation, it does not incite violence even. It is most likely that
the case will be ended in acquittal of Ms Arya Stark. Hence, neither there is prospects of
successful prosecution nor there is any prima facie case against Ms. Stark. Therefore, withdrawal
of prosecution should not be interfered by special leave petition filed by Tom Riddle

III: PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT , 1991 IS NOT APPLICABLE ON SHINE AND NIR IN
OUESTION

It is humbly stated that Places of worship act, 1991 will not be applicable on shine and nir in
question ( i.e. Shanvapi shine )

Exception granted in the Places of worship act -

[27.] In The Places of Worship Act, 1991 Section 4(3)(a) it is stated that:

3. "Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall apply to, -

14
Union Carbide Corp. v/s UOI AIR 1988 SC1531
15
Tek Chand v/s Tek Chand, Supdt of Police AIR 1987 SC 349
16
Rahul Agarwal v/s Rakesh Jain (2005) 2 SCC 377
17
Sheonandan Paswan v/s State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 194

18
(a) any place of worship referred to in the said sub-sections which is an ancient and historical
monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 or any other law for the time being in force"

[28.] In case of Satinder Kumar & others v/s UOI18 judgement -

It was held that any structure that is more than 100 years old and satisfies the definition of being
ancient, will come under ancient monuments and archaeological act, 1958.

[29.] As per Section 2(a) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
Act, 1958 -

2.(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.

[30.] A reading of the definition clause wherein Ancient Monument is defined, clearly shows that
no declaration is required for it to be classified as an ancient monument. If the structure etc. has
been existing for more than 100 years and falls within the definition of Clause (a) of Section 2 of
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, it would be an ancient
monument. As per the survey conducted (which was legally justified because, Section 3 of
Places of worship act, 1991 neither directly or indirectly lays down any provision to stop one
from ascertaining the religious character of a place) in the Shanvapi shine, The survey report
clearly mentioned that the debris of a nir, Indo deity idols and indo religious symbols were found
inside the shine.

[31.] As per the historical records, shine was built upon the orders of Alabama by demolishing a
part of the Tashinath Nir during his reign which was centuries ago clearly verifying the fact that
remains were more than 100 years old. From these facts, we can conclude that Shanvapi sine
clearly be defined as ancient and will be covered under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Therefore, as per Section 4(3)(a) of Places Of Worship Act, 1991,
Shanvapi shine will fall outside of the ambit of Places of worship act.

18
Satinder Kumar & others v/s UOI AIR 2007 HP 77

19
 IV: PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991 IS ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIANA

1. Prohibition on jurisdiction of Supreme Court-

[32.] Places of worship act under its section 4 sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) prohibits the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court under article 32 of constitution of Indiana. Article 32 deals with
the 'Right to Constitutional Remedies'. It affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the
Constitution. This article was stated to be soul of the Indiana constitution. By prohibiting the SC
to hear petition regarding the topics related with Fundamental rights of people, this act abridges
the very basic structure of Indiana constitution.

[33.] In the case of Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Karnataka19 (under the doctrine of basic
structure) it was held that-

" No amendment to the Constitution or any law made by parliament is permissible if it alters the
basic structure or framework of the Constitution".

The basic structure is a tool or judicial innovation to ensure that the legislature does not abuse
the power given to it by constitution. The places of worship act also bars judicial review

[34.] In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and ors20.

"The Supreme Court added judicial review as a basic feature of constitution of India.”

[35.] In Minerva Mills vs UOI21, the Court held that –

"The Judges must decide the validity of the laws passed. If the Court is deprived of its power,
then controlled constitution would become an uncontrolled one.’’

[36.] Since, this act restricts the people from approaching the SC and limits the power of SC to
do absolute justice as per article 142 of constitution, it can be said that it abridges the judgement
made by honorable SC in Kesavananda Bharti case and also violates essential provisions of
constitution of Indiana Violates Fundamental rights of the citizens –

2. Violates fundamental rights of citizen-

[37.] Places of worship act by prohibiting the people from approaching the courts with respect to
suits or any other proceedings to handover the land of any temple of certain significance, is

19
Keshvananda Bharti v/s State of Karnataka AIR 1973 SC 1461
20
Indira Nehru Gandhi v/s Raj Narian and ors. 1975 AIR 865
21
Minera Mills v/s UOI AIR 1980 SC 1789

20
arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide in context of fundamental rights guaranteed by the
constitution of Indiana under art. 25 & art. 26 of Indiana constitution.

[38.] As per article 25, each citizen has freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion. And, art. 26 provides that each religious denomination has the freedom
to manage their own religious affairs.

[39.] It also violates art. 29 of Indiana constitution as per art. 29 - Any section of the citizens
residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script, or culture
of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

[40.] It is humbly submitted that Article 13(2) prohibits the State to make law to take away the
rights conferred under Part-III but the impugned Act takes away the rights under Article 25, 26
and 29 under which Indo and other communities have 'the right to restore their 'places of worship
and pilgrimages', destroyed by barbaric invaders.

[41.] In Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali22, Court held that-

"Articles 25 and Article 26 not only prevents doctrines or beliefs of religion but also the acts
done in pursuance of religion. It thus guarantees ceremonies, modes of worship, rituals,
observances, etc. which are an integral part of religion. What is the essential or integral part of
a religion has to be determined in the light of the doctrines and practices that are regarded by
the community as a part of their religion and also must be included in them."

[42.] Since, because of the Places of worship act, Indo and some other groups are being stopped
to perform essential practices in their temples by some other community, it abridges their right
under art. 25 and 26 and, violates the principles laid down in Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali
judgement.

3. Act is discriminatory in nature -

[43.] The date for deciding the religious character is arbitrary and discriminatory in the nature as,
from the time the act was enforced (with retrospective effect ) i.e. from 15th august 1947 , there
were many uncertainties regarding religious character of many places. The temples of Indo
religious group were first destroyed by he Bako rulers and then by the Nitishers, due to which
many structures including some of essential significance to Indo religion were converted into
shrines of Bako religion. It is most humbly contended that -Place of worship has been defined in
Section 2(c):

22
Hasan Ali v/s Mansoor Ali 1948 50 BOMLR 389

21
"Place of worship means a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery or any other place of
public religious worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof, by whatever name
called. "

[44.] It is submitted that only those Temples, Mosques, Churches, Gurudwara can be protected
under the Act, which were erected /constructed in accordance with the spirit of personal law
applicable to person constructing them, but religious places, erected/ constructed in derogation of
the personal law, cannot be termed as place of worship. By enforcing the act from 15/8/47, the
act in a way forbids Indo as well as some other religious groups which violates the spirit of Right
to equality as stated under Part III of constitution of Indiana.

[45.] It most humbly contended Section 5 is discriminatory as Centre while enacting the Act has
excluded birthplace of Lord sam at Bodhya but not other places like Shanvapi shine which is a
made on demolished structure of Tashinath, both of which are important deities in Indo religion
and are equally worshipped. Different treatment for similarly situated two places of worship and
pilgrimage is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to Articles 14-15.

[46.] This also violates the spirit of secularism by discriminating people of certain community to
undo the damage done to their religious places by invaders and by prohibiting them to reclaim
their holy lands through a lawful procedure. The Concept of Secularism has also been inducted
in Part IV of the Constitution which pertains to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP').
In the DPSPs, articles 38, 39, 39A, 41 and 46 imply the execution of secularism in all forms.

4. The act is too ambiguous in nature -

[47.] Section 3 of the Places of worship act states that –

" No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section
thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a
different religious denomination or any section thereof.”

[48] Nowhere in this section or anywhere in the act, either directly or indirectly, there is any
explanation how can one decide the religious character of a place. Leaving it open with too many
ways to interpret it. For instance, the Shanvapi shine which as per Bako Charitable trust board is
of Bako religion, but as per the reports of the survey conducted there, debris of nir, Indo deities
idols and Indo religious symbols were found embedded on the walls and on other structures.
Also, Indo group people consider shine to be made on demolished structure of Tashinath nir
which was demolished on the orders of a Bako ruler named Albama

[49.] In Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v/s S. P. Sahi23, it was held that -

23
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v/s S.P. Sahi AIR 1959

22
"Even if the idol gets broken or is lost or stolen, another image may be consecrated, and it
cannot be said that the original object has ceased to exist.”

[50.] In Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj v/s Board of Revenue, 13Rajasthan,
Ajmer and Others24, it was held that-

"An Idol which a juridical person is not subject to death, because the Indo concept is that the
Idol lives forever."

So, it can be equally contended that the Shanvapi shrine is Indo in nature.

5. Cause obstruction in fulfilment of international treaties and agreements -

[51.] Article 51(c) which directs the state to foster respect for international law and treaty
obligations in dealing of organized people with one another. United Nations has declared that the
citizens of free country have right to restore demolished/damaged places of worship pilgrimage
and remove signs of atrocities and slavery. There are many International Conventions on the
cultural and religious heritage viz.

(i) Fourth Geneva Convention 1949 reinforced the protection of „Places of worship which
constitute cultural - spiritual heritage of people

(ii) Statutes of United Nations and UNESCO

(iii) Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed conflict
1954

(iv) World Heritage Convention 1972

(v) Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe 1985

(vi) European Convention on Protection of Archaeological He

(vii) European Landscape Convention 2000

(viii) European Convention on Protection and Promotion of Diversity of cultural expansion

6. Cause hinderance in fulfilment of Directive Principles Of state Policy -

[52.] Art. 49 of Indiana constitution talks about Protection of monuments and places of national
importance’. It states that -

24
Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj v/s Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others AIR 1965 SC 906

23
" It shall be obligation of state to protect every monument or place or object or historic interest,
declared by or under law made by parliament to be of national importance from spoilation,
disfigurement, destruction, removal, or export as the case may be."

[53.] Since the places of worship act forbids the Indo and some other groups from reclaiming the
structures and places considered to be of significant historic importance, it forbids the state from
fulfilling its duty as stated in the DPSP which are considered to be guidelines of how a state
should function.

24
 PRAYER

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge, hold, and declare:

1. Speech made by Ms. Arya Stark was not in violation of article 19(1)(a)

2. State of North Pradesh was justified in withdrawing prosecution against Ms. Arya Stark

3. Places of worship act, 1991 doesn't apply to Shine and nir in question

4. Places of worship act, 1991 is ultra vires to constitution of Indiana

And / or

Pass any other order, direction, or relief it may deem fit, in the best interests of Fairness, Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: - ________ -----------------------

Date: - _____ February 2023 Counsel for respondent

25