the case in question is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Drishti Foundation, an NGO, before the Supreme Court of

India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The case concerns the exploitation of religious sentiments by certain
religious leaders in shivrashtra, particularly Babaram Maharaj, who engages in exploitative practices, including sexual
exploitation and manipulation under the guise of religious activities.

Jurisdiction for the case: The jurisdiction of this case lies with the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. Article 32 empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court to enforce their
fundamental rights. This provision grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear cases involving violations of
fundamental rights and provides a powerful mechanism for citizens to seek redressal for grievances related to the
infringement of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the Drishti Foundation's PIL challenging the exploitation by religious
leaders falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 32.

Article 32: This article provides individuals with the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their
fundamental rights. It is often referred to as the "Right to Constitutional Remedies" and is considered the heart and soul of
the Constitution as it ensures the protection and enforcement of other fundamental rights.In the context of the case
discussed, Article 32 would be invoked by the Drishti Foundation to seek enforcement of fundamental rights against the
exploitation by religious leaders. Articles 25 and 26 may also be relevant as they pertain to religious freedom and the
autonomy of religious institutions, which could be implicated in the case.

Basic facts of the case: Exploitation of religious sentiments: The case revolves around the exploitation of religious
sentiments by certain religious leaders in Maharashtra, such as Babaram Maharaj, who use their positions to exploit
vulnerable individuals, particularly women and children, for personal gain. Allegations of sexual exploitation: Babaram
Maharaj is accused of sexually exploiting women and children under the pretext of religious practices. He attracts followers
by posing as a god or supernatural power and engages in coercive and manipulative behavior to maintain control over
them. Legislative response: In response to public outcry following the assassination of social activist Dr. Virendra
Panhalkar, the Governor of Shivrashtra enacted the 'Black Magic Prohibition' Ordinance, aimed at banning superstitious
practices and inhuman rituals that exploit people's religious beliefs. However, exploitation continues despite legislative
measures.PIL by Drishti Foundation: Drishti Foundation, an NGO working against the exploitation of religious sentiments,
has filed a PIL challenging the activities of exploitation carried out by religious leaders like Babaram Maharaj in their Matths
and Ashrams. The PIL seeks the closure of such institutions and confiscation of their assets to prevent further exploitation.

Fundamental rights are basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens, ensuring their dignity, equality, and
freedom from discrimination. In this case, the exploitation of religious sentiments and individuals' sexual abuse by certain
religious leaders violates the fundamental rights to life, dignity, and freedom from exploitation. This exploitation
undermines the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution, necessitating legal intervention to protect
citizens' rights and welfare. Art12 to 35 Right to Equality (Articles 14-18) Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) Right against
Exploitation (Articles 23-24) Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
Whether the PIL is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India for hearing and admission? The
petitioner contends that the PIL is maintainable intervention. Given the failure of alternative remedies to address the
widespread exploitation of religious sentiments, the petitioner seeks the Court's adjudication to uphold fundamental rights
and promote social welfare." Reference case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)In this case, commonly known as the
"Judges Transfer Case," the Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and recognized the
locus standi of any member of the public, social activist, or social organization to approach the court seeking judicial
intervention in matters of public interest. The judgment affirmed the importance of PILs as a tool for access to justice and
protection of fundamental rights, thereby setting a precedent for the broad interpretation of standing in matters involving
public interest and constitutional significance. before the Supreme Court of India as it addresses matters of public
interest and constitutional significance, necessitating judicial

Whether the activities exploiting the religious sentiments of the people amount to infringement of
fundamental rights of the people of India? the petitioner asserts that the activities exploiting religious sentiments
constitute a grave infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. By manipulating beliefs for
personal gain, individuals like Babaram Maharaj violate the rights to freedom of religion, dignity, and equality, thereby
undermining the principles of social harmony and secularism enshrined in the Constitution." Reference Case: Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the expansive interpretation of fundamental
rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that
these rights are not confined to mere animal existence but encompass a wide range of freedoms essential for the full
development and expression of human personality. This case serves as a precedent for the protection of fundamental rights,
including the right to freedom of religion, against infringement or abuse.
Whether the ban on such Matths/ Ashrams would violate the fundamental rights of the people to follow
the religious faith of their choice? In addressing Issue 4, it is contended that while the ban on Matths/Ashrams aims to
prevent exploitation, it must not infringe upon individuals' fundamental rights to practice their chosen religious faith. Any
restriction imposed should be proportionate and narrowly tailored to address specific instances of exploitation while
respecting the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 25. Therefore, the ban's validity should be
assessed to ensure it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting against exploitation and safeguarding religious
freedoms." Reference Case: Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954)In this case, the Supreme Court
examined the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited the slaughter of cows, which was considered sacred by certain
religious communities. The Court upheld the law, ruling that it did not infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of
religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that reasonable restrictions on religious practices
may be imposed by the state in the interest of public order, morality, and health. This case serves as a precedent for
evaluating the constitutionality of measures that restrict religious practices while balancing the rights of individuals and the
interests of society.
Prayer: in the light of the arguments presented, cases referred and authorities cited, the counsel for the Appellant humbly
pray this Honourable Court to: 1.Allow the appeal filed; 2.The PIL filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India before the
SC is maintainable; 3.The practice of alleged activities by Baba’s which were supported by the Math’s and Ashram violates
the Art. 21, 32 and Art. 25-28 and also caused domestic violence to woman; 4.Award all such accused punishment under
Section 295A of the IPC; 5.That the defendant have violated the fundamental rights of the indigenous people and have
caused religious degradation; 6.Ban the continuation of such Math’s/Ashram that harms the religious feelings of the people
and affects the Fundamental Rights of the citizens and cause damage to poor woman and children; and/or 7.Pass any other
order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. For This Act of Kindness, the
Appellant Shall be Duty Bound Forever Pray.