Moot Memorial Respondant

Team: 1057
LLOYD NOVICE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION -2021
Before the bench of Justices of the Honorable

SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN
The Indistan Progressive Lawyers' Collective (hereinafter IPLC)……………..APPELLANT
Versus
Union of Indistan………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
[MEMORIAL S UB M IS S I O N ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT]
__________________________________________________________________________
LLOYD NOVICE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION-2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................10
ARGUMENTSADVANCED............................................................................12
1. Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
to the exclusionary practice, which is based upon the biological factor exclusive to the
female gender amounts to discrimination and violates very core of Articles 14,15,21&17 of
the constitution?..................................................................................................................11
(A)Traditional Practice of Aloha Temple Must not be viewed in the context of Hinduism as a
monotheist religion………………………………………………………………………………….11
(B) Temple Entry Rule based upon a Fundamental Cause…………………………………..12
(c) Religious Practice is not to discriminate or demean anyone but to follow the path of celibacy
adopted by Deity Paramappa Himself…………………………………………………………….14
(D) A Female Perspective and Devotee’s perspective…………………………………………..15
(E) Value Of Celibacy Practice in Hindu Religious Ancient Books ,and in Ayurveda……..15
(F)Menstruation in Medical science and ayurveda……………………………………………..16
(G) Impact on Celibacy Practice if all women are allowed in the Temple…………………...17
(H) Characteristics of a valid custom……………………………………………………………..18
(I)No Discrimination on the grounds of Articles 14,15,17 And 21…………………………...18
(J)Concluding View of the Argument………………………………………………………20
2. Whether the petitioner is rightly justified challenging a state law that incorporates a
religious tradition based on fundamental ritual of a temple? Whether it is relevant to the
context Article 25 of the Constitution?...........................................................................21
(A)Issue of Locus Standi in Religious Matter…………………………………………………….21

(B)PIL is not qualifying the criteria of Article 32………………………………………………...22
(C) In the Context of Religious Capacity of Article 25:……………………………………………22
(D) Concluding view of the Argument:………………………………………………………………22
2
3. Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
to the exclusionary practice of excluding such women constitutes an “essential religious
practice” under Article 25 and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that
regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of
religion?.................................................................................................................................23
(A) Religion: A matter of Faith & Beliefs…………………………………………………………..24
(B) Aloha Temple-A Religious Denomination………………………………………………………24
(C)Concluding View of the Argument……………………………………………………………….25
PRAYER..............................................................................................................................26
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
1. S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram &

Ors.
2. Riju Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. State of Assam &Ors.
3. Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council &Ors.
4. Bhimashya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alia Janawwa

5. Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors.
6. Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. (supra)
7. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Swamiar Thirtha Swamiar of

Shirur Mutt (supra)
8. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
9. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors. (supra)

10. Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. v. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors.
11. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. & Ors.
12. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
13. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors.
14. Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, The Special Officer In Charge of Hindu Religious trust &
Ors.
15. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay(supra)
16. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

17. Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Incorporated v. The Commonwealth(supra)
18. Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment & Ors.
19. United States v. Edwin D. Lee

20. Robert L. Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
21. Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors.
22. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji
23. Maharaj & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
24. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors.
4
STATUTES:
 The Constitution of India
 Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
 kerala temple entry act 1965
 Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955
 Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act,1950
BOOKS REFERED:
1.V.N.SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,13th EDITION.
2.M.P.JAIN, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 7TH EDITION.
3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V.

CHANDRACHUD & S.S. SUBBRAMANI & V.R. MANOHAR & B.P. BANERJEE EDS.,
VOL. 2, 8TH EDITION. 2012
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honorable Supreme court of Indistan has the Inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 25,26 and 32 of the constitution of Indistan.
(1) Article 25 – “Practice to the religion” to appeal by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
Fundamental Rights, which include the right of every individual, religious denomination, or
sect, to practice their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective
of whether the practice is rational or logical.
(2)Article 26 –to appeal by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant the
protection provided by Article 26 as per religious denomination, or sect.
(3) Article 32 –to appeal by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, decline the
petition in such religious cases as petitioner is totally stranger to the cause, not a subscriber or
believer of Lord Paramappa and as much as no right affecting the public at large is involved.
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
The Aloha Temple is a renowned temple of Lord Paramappa, it is located in the city of
Dakshinpur,Union of Indistan It is known as a holy city due to its rich cultural heritage value.
The Lord Paramappa is worshipped in the Aloha temple by millions of his devotees on daily
basis.
The devotees of Lord Paramappa have been deeply rooted to their traditions which include
renunciation of metarilistc pleasures as a central part of their faith.
Entry of women, aged between 10 to 50 years is barred due to completing the celibacy rituals
within the temple.
Consistent with the custom of the celibacy, it is widely accepted by the devotees of Lord
Paramappa that his divinity originates from his vow to remain celibate. He is considered to be
immersed in asceticism. The core of his spiritually lies in abstinence from any sexual activity.
His followers also have faith in His path and practicing the same principles in their lives.
WRIT PETITION IN SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN
The IPLC has approached the Supreme Court of Indistan to challenge the age restriction of
women’s entry in to the Aloha temple. Among other things they have stated that such
restrictions are based on biological factor “periodical Menstruation” which is the violation of
their Fundamental Rights.
The IPLC withstand that such restriction on menstruating women is not derived from any
religious text. Also, the temple administration is only allowed to restrict entry to the sanctum
sanctorum. A general prohibition on the entry into the temple based on gender is bias and
manifestly arbitrary in the eyes of law.
7
RESPONSE FROM ALOHA TEMPLE BOARD:
The Board of Aloha Temple has given the counter reply on the assertions of IPLC by stating
that Lord Paramappa is a celibate and the restrictions which are being challenged represent the
outcome of customary beliefs followed since the inception of the temple. Furthermore, they
have maintained that menstruating women cannot abide by the strict hygiene requirements
which are to be practiced for 51 days prior to the temple visit due to physiological causes.
The head of the pujari of the temple has asserted that these customs and rituals have emerged
from ancient times and are for the welfare of the temple itself. Furthermore, he asserted that
only such persons who strictly observe the ritual purification for 51 days are eligible to enter
the temple and it is improper for menstruating women to do so.
Now, a bench of appropriate strength has been constituted to hear the petition and the
case is pending before the larger bench of Justices.
8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and
pertaining to the exclusionary practice, which is based upon the biological factor
exclusive to the female gender amounts to discrimination and violates very core of
Articles 14 &15,21 &17 of the constitution?
ISSUE 2
Whether the petitioner is rightly justified challenging a state law that incorporates a
context Article 25 of the Constitution?
ISSUE 3
Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and
pertaining to the exclusionary practice of excluding such women constitutes an
“essential religious practice” under Article 25 and whether a religious institution can assert a
claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of
religion?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1]. Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
female gender amounts to discrimination and violates very core of Articles 14,15,17 & 21
of the constitution?
The prohibition on entry imposed on those that did not fulfill the requirement of a 51-days
vratham is of a religious character and not a secular practice, and it is an essential religious
practice which is integral to the Aloha tradition and since time immemorial.
The prohibition, in addition, can be described as a religious practice that is not outside
constitutionally acceptable parameters, given that its object is not to discriminate or demean
anyone, or look down on any naturally occurring bodily phenomenon. As such, this ought to be
a right that is allowed protection under articles 25 and 26.
Religious customs and practices must not be solely tested on the touchstone of Article 14,15,17
& 21 and the principles of rationality embedded therein.
The prohibition on entry into Aloha Temple is a religious practice, fundamental and hence
essential to the religious tradition at the shrine. Without this, the religious tradition at
Aloha temple would stand desecrated out of existence.
While the prohibition does involve a classification, its object is not to discriminate or be
derogatory of women and hence the prohibition ought to pass the test of articles 14, 15, 17 and
21 and is consistent with acceptable constitutional principles.
[2] Whether the petitioner is rightly justified challenging a state law that incorporates a
In such religious cases petitioners, or subsequent interveners, who are totally stranger to the
cause cannot maintain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indistan in as much as
no right affecting the public at large is involved. The question involved is purely relating to a
particular Religion or religious practices. It is also of seminal value to note that such kind of
petitions are also not maintainable without being a worshipper/ believer/ devotee of the Religion
or practice in question; at least in a representative capacity.
10
In the context of Article 25, given that a religious need is capable of being fully
comprehended only by a subscriber to or a believer in that religion or deity & this
principle should be applied in the present case.
The right to religion and right to worship must be based on the affirmation of a belief in the
particular manifestation of the deity; and since, the matters of conscience, religious belief, and
religious practice, are among the deepest and most personal issues for the individual, there
seems to be something rather strange in one person agitating for the religious rights of another
person.
[3] Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion?
Article 25 “freedom of religious practice “is not an absolute right, as it is already given section 2
of Article 25 “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the
state from making any law. For instance, sub-Section2 (a) wearing and carrying kripans shall be
deemed to be included in the profession of Sikh religion.
Similarly, Section 2(a) also gives right to devotees of Paramappa Temple perform their
religious practice based on Deity’s Path which was followed by Deity Paramappa Himself.
In sub section 2(b) of article 25 states “throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus”. Point must be noted here section talks about
the public character, though Lord Paramappa is public character for them who have faith in His
path of Celibacy.
Therefore, Article 25 “freedom of religious practice” for women clashes with the “freedom
of religious practice” of other million of devotees who follow the path of celibacy of Deity
Paramappa.
Article 25 & 26 give right to Sikhs wearing a kripan as an emblem of their religion,
Similarly,the Practice of celibacy is an emblem of Aloha Temple , it is a root cause of the
foundation of the deity Paramappa Temple. Change in the practice of celibacy and ritual of
celibacy means the change in fundamental cause of the foundation of Aloha Temple.
Hence, the prohibition and the religious tradition at Lord Paramappa temple is entitled to get
protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
[1]. Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
female gender amounts to discrimination and violates very core of Articles 14,15,17 & 21
of the constitution?
(A)Traditional Practice of Aloha Temple Must not be viewed in the context of Hinduism as
a monotheist religion.
Before we proceed to determine the issue, it is necessary to first understand the concept of
'Hindu religion'. In defining these concepts, Dr. Radhakrishnan, in his book on Indian
Philosophy (Vol. I - page 48)1 wrote as follows:
"Though philosophic concepts and principles evolved by different Hindu thinkers and
philosophers varied in many ways and even appeared to conflict with each other in some
particulars, they all had reverence for the past and accepted the Vedas as sole foundation of
the Hindu philosophy. Naturally enough, it was realised by Hindu religion from the very
beginning of its career that truth was many-sided and different views contained different
aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of
tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view. That is
how "the several views set forth in India in regard to the vital philosophic concepts are
considered to be the branches of the self-same tree. The short cuts and blind alleys are
somehow reconciled with the main road of advance to the truth.''
When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu
religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion
does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any
one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of
religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional
features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.
In this context, moving to the specifics of the practices pertaining to the Aloha Temple, it is
defected to view the practices in the limited context of entry into the shrine or to view its
traditions in the context of Hinduism as a monotheist religion.
1. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & ANR.
12
(B) Temple Entry Rule based upon a Fundamental Cause.
The correct perspective would be to appreciate the entry rules to the Aloha Paramappa temple
in accordance with the purpose/base/fundamental for which the temple was established, i.e., a
pilgrimage to the shrine is meant to be a culmination of a special Tantric spiritual process, which
begins on the first days of the vratham and ends with a darshan of the Deity.
Entry rule is not specific to women 10 to 50 years of age but for those too who fail to bring
acceleration in the spiritual development of a pilgrim.
This acceleration is brought about in two stages: 2
(a) As the first step, the expectant pilgrim undertakes a 51-days vratham/penance (computed as
seven days to cleansing each of the five levels of the human being, with the sixth week
dedicated to cleansing the auric body, and ending on days 51 – a Tantric construct).
(b) As the second step, the pilgrim proceeds on pilgrimage carrying the traditional holy bundle,
ascending the sacred 18 steps and entering the shrine to get darshan of the deity.
This entire process is capable of being disrupted by various occurrences, both voluntary and
involuntary, but regardless of the reason for the disruption, the scriptures prohibit entry to the
shrine for all individuals that fail to perform the entire 51-days vratham.
The prohibition is meant primarily to protect the energy of the deity from disruption and
desecration, which would occur if the deity’s energy were to be exposed to an unending stream
of incompatible human energies (the theological perspective being that unless one performs the
full 51-days vratham, their energies would be incompatible with the energy at the shrine and
damaging to the deity’s energy).
The prohibition is also meant to prevent possible adverse consequences to persons that visit the
shrine without undertaking the prescribed cleansing vratham exercise.
Some of the involuntary ways the vratham could be disrupted include the possibility of a death
or birth in the family, which applies to both men and women, and or the occurrence of
menstruation, which is relevant only to women.
Given the impossibility of being able to identify those that had failed to complete the vratham
and prevent them from entering the shrine, the local state notification follows a two-step
approach.
Principally, the notifications prescribe the need to complete the vratham and disqualify those
that fail to complete the same. Thereafter, the notifications leave it to the pilgrims to self-
regulate the requirement to complete the vratham.
13
As an addition to the principal requirement, the notifications proceed to identify the one
category of individuals that were unlikely to complete the 51-days vratham, ie, women in the
menstruating age, since menstruation would normally occur at least once in a 51-days period,
thus breaking the vratham.
The Tantri, in his dream, and the Devaprashnam (both accepted processes in Keralite Tantra), in
different ways, articulate the issue faced by women of menstruating age, who for physiological
reasons could never comply with the 51-days vratham requirement.
Hence, the state notification went on to specify women in a menstruating age (i.e., between the
ages of 10-50) as a prohibited category. This is not meant to demean women, but only to
identify the one category that could possibly never comply with the religious requirement of a
vratham.
Clearly, the prohibition on entry imposed on those that did not fulfill the requirement of a
51days vratham is of a religious character and not a secular practice, and it is an essential
religious practice which is integral to the Aloha tradition and since time immemorial.
(c) Religious Practice is not to discriminate or demean anyone but to follow the path of
celibacy adopted by Deity Paramappa Himself.
The prohibition, in addition, can be described as a religious practice that is not outside
constitutionally acceptable parameters, given that its object is not to discriminate or
demean anyone, or look down on any naturally occurring bodily phenomenon. As such,
this ought to be a right that is allowed protection under articles 25 and 26.
A follow up analysis could take up the task of explaining the Tantric aspects of the Aloha
tradition and the workings of the 51-days vratham. Once that aspect is understood, it would also
be apparent that allowing individuals who had not fulfilled the need for a 51-days vratham in
large numbers would be a negative for the shrine.
Hence, if the law is changed to permit many non-compliant individuals into the shrine, the
deity would be disturbed and/or desecrated, and this specific religious tradition would
have been reformed out of existence, it would be destroyed.
2. As per‘Sthal Purana’ i.e. the ‘Bhuthanatha Geetha’-41/42days
14
Moreover, this point to be noted that as per the folk stories surrounding the Aloha temple depict
Lord Paramappa as a crusader against invading armies. He is said to have single-handedly
defeated the massive army of an evil ruler. After his defeat the evil ruler had recognized Lord
Paramappa as a divine being and had requested him to marry his daughter. But Lord Paramappa
did not accept the proposal as he had chosen for himself the life of celibacy and he himself
completed the acceleration of spiritual path by completing same 51days rituals and after that
adopted the path of celibacy and same has followed since the establishment of the lord
paramappa temple.3
(D) A Female Perspective and Devotee’s perspective
Let’s see the above from female perspective, if a man forces himself on female then it’s called
molestation or rape in extreme. That means, without women's wish if a man imposes him on her,
it’s a crime. Then if a deity wants the same, if deity is Bramhachari then why do they have to
force their self onto him. Let’s respects the Lord's wish also. In the name of modernization one
should not press one’s foot and step on someone's will and basic right. Again the question can be
arisen on the existence of “Lord Paramappa”, So the answer is same as “ He exists in the faith
of His devotees” and someone who is not a devotee should not be permitted to question on
God’s will and his Path of celibacy.
(E) Value Of Celibacy Practice in Hindu Religious Ancient Books ,and in Ayurveda
In the verse of Bhagvat Geeta4, Shree Krishna emphasizes the practice of celibacy for
success in meditation.
“BG 6.14:Thus, with a serene, fearless, and unwavering mind, and staunch in the vow of
celibacy, the vigilant yogi should meditate on me, having me alone as the supreme goal.”
Maharshi Patanjali states: brahmacharyapratiṣhṭhayam virya labhaḥ (Yog Sutras 2.38)[v9]
“The practice of celibacy leads to great enhancement of energy.”
“Ayurveda, the Indian science of medicine extolls brahmacharya (the practice of celibacy) for
its exceptional health benefits. One of the students of Dhanvantari approached his teacher after
finishing his full course of Ayurveda (the ancient Indian science of medicine), and asked: “O
Sage, now kindly let me know the secret of health.” Dhanvantari replied: “This seminal
energy is verily the ātman. The secret of health lies in preservation of this vital force. He who
wastes this vital and precious energy cannot have physical, mental, moral, and spiritual
development.” According to Ayurveda, forty drops of blood go into making one drop of
3.Moot Problem, 4. BG 6.14Bhagvat Geeta,English version
15
semen. Those who waste their semen develop unsteady and agitated prāṇ. They lose their
physical and mental energy, and weaken their memory, mind, and intellect. The practice of
celibacy leads to a boost of bodily energy, clarity of intellect, gigantic will power, retentive
memory, and a keen spiritual intellect. It creates a sparkle in the eyes and a luster on the
cheeks.”
(F)Menstruation in Medical science and ayurveda
In the same context, as per medical Science5 “Menstrual blood isn’t women’s average
everydays blood.” “The menstrual Blood flow contains disintegrated endometrial tissue,
vaginal secretions, cervical mucus, and the unfertilized egg” and that is why in Hindu Dharma
Grantha calls it Impure Blood.”Point to be noted It is “Impure Blood”, not “Impure women”.
Therefore as per medical science and ayurveda Science ,women with menstruation issues are
not qualifying for the ritual of celibacy.
Moreover, Ayurveda recognizes menstruation as a physiological process and like other
physiological process, it is also governed by the actions of the Doshas.
In Hindu Vedas and in many religious text book ,Women forbade to practice the religious ritual
during periodical Menstruation ,reason is not superstitious in nature but practical and Scientific
in nature.
As per the Ayurveda, menstruation is a state of Agnimandya- a state of weakened internal
fire- as a result of which menstruating woman experiences decrease in appetite. To remedy
this and rekindle the digestive fire, certain diets, which are simple and easily digestible, are
prescribed to be maintained during Shodhana procedure. The diet mentioned during
menstruation (meal made of ghee, Shali rice, etc.) is one such diet. Sticking to this diet along
with other elements of Rajaswala Paricharya like not sleeping during days time, not doing
exercises and activities of physical exertion, not anointing the body, etc. will help in rekindling
the digestive Agni of the menstruating women and thus prevent unpleasant physiological
conditions that may arise due to weakened digestive fire.
As per Medical science too,During Mensuration days some women feel tired, abdominal
pain, legs pain, etc, So if the women goes to temple, is she won’t be able to concentrate on
worship and on god. Also if she does, incase by chance she moans with pain for a second
that distracts other devotee’s concentration, because we human cannot ignore someone in
pain, that’s humanity. Inside temple, there are many rituals to perform which involves
significant movement, like sitting, standing, waiting in queue for long, bending over,
standing on knees, etc. I don’t know if a woman feels it comfortable to do during menses.
Yoga is also not practiced during menses. There are hormone changes in their body which
16
affects their mental health (some get more angry, some so sad on the verge of crying) there
are a lot of hormones involved especially a hormone called PHEROMONE(which exists in
all organisms in ants it used to detect food ,in human each one gives a unique smell) due to
the variation of this there exists a temperature change in genital area which is irritating
for some women. The other normal women who also secrete this hormone will affect the
menses women, so the women who experience period when they are in the midst of crowd
their health will be affected. Also in temples the energy flow (positive) which exists during
poojas affect them, some women will be very weak during periods which in turn causes
more effects. And the smell, we all know although the menstrual fluid after coming in
contact with outside air causes the foul smell, and this odour can distract other devotees
who are sitting or doing meditation in temple.
Furthermore, The Ayurvedic text, Charak Samhitā states: śharīra mādhyaṁ khalu dharma
sādhanam [v11] “The body is the vehicle for engaging in religious activity.” If the body
becomes unwell, then spiritual pursuits get impeded too. The Ramayan states: tanu binu
bhajana veda nahiṅ varanā [v12] “The Vedas do not recommend that we ignore the body,
while engaging in spirituality.” In fact, they instruct us to take good care of our body with the
help of material science.
As per the above mentioned fact of hindu Dharma Grantha, the restriction on women on
religious practices was made on various reasonable ground of spirituality & health
welfare.
(G) Impact on Celibacy Practice if all women are allowed in the Temple:
Allowing Women of 10 to 50 Years old in the temple will abolish the practice of 51 days of
celibacy which is a fundamental cause of the Temple, Celibacy is a good practice in Ayurveda
and it has been proven to all world, It is not an ill practice like Sati, It is a good practice of
devoting our 42days of life to God Himself.
Point to be noted ,”There are more than 1000 other temple of lord Paramappa in the state
which is open for all including women ,Only The Aloha temple was established to fulfill its
fundamental cause to attain spirituality via route of celibacy and to follow the path showed by
the Deity Paramappa.
5. Physiology, Menstrual Cycle,Dhanalakshmi K. Thiyagarajan; Hajira Basit; Rebecca Jeanmonod.
17
Hinduism always talks about Prakruti(Female) and Purush(Male) and many incident
when Prakruti is proved superior. But at the same time everyone must understand
whenever they visit some place, they have to follow the rules of that place, if they don’t like
the rules then visiting or not visiting is their choice. If in girls’ hostel boys are not allowed
then we respect hostel decision, or if a girl doesn’t like to wear jeans and prefers saree then
we respect her decision. We do not force them to do otherwise (to allow boys in girls’
hostel) in the name of modernization. So if the individual or institution has a basic
constitutional right to 'change' something, similarly they have right to 'not change'
something and people must respect their decision.
(H) Characteristics of a valid custom

As per the judgments of Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council &Ors. 6,
Bhimashya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alia Janawwa7, and Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya
Gupta & Ors.8.
The custom and usage of restricting the entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years
followed in the AlohaTemple is pre-constitutional. As per Article 13(3)(a) of the
Constitution, “law”includes custom or usage, and would have the force of law.
The characteristics and elements of a valid custom are that it must be of immemorial existence,
it must be reasonable, certain and continuous. The customs and usages, religious beliefs and
practices as mentioned above are peculiar to the AlohaTemple, and have admittedly been
followed since centuries.
The exclusion of women in this Temple is not absolute or universal.It is limited to a particular
age group in one particular temple, with the view to preserve the character of the deity. Women
outside the age group of 10 to 50 years are entitled to worship at the AlohaTemple. The usage
and practise is primary to preserve the sacred form and character of the deity.
In case of Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. (supra)wherein it was
observed as follows:“The Gods have distinct forms ascribed to them and their worship at
home and in temples is ordained as certain means of attaining salvation.”
(I)No Discrimination on the grounds of Articles 14,15,17 And 21
Issues such as discrimination, reasonable classification, presumption in favour of the law etc,
have been ruled on by the courts extensively. For the present analysis, the following principles
in constitutional law are relevant:
6. (2006) 4 SCC 748, 7. (2006) 13 SCC 627,8.(2008) 13 SCC 119
18
(i) Differential treatment need not per se violate Article 14, provided there is a nexus between
the classification and the object under consideration. To be unconstitutional, there should be no
reasonable basis for the differentiation.
(ii) However, to pass the test of permissible classification, a couple of conditions need to be
fulfilled: (a) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential, but this does not
mean that the classification should be scientifically perfect and logically complete; and (b) the
differential must have a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
(iii) Only a person who is aggrieved by the alleged discrimination can move a valid challenge,
though this principle has been diluted in the case of PILs for secular situations.
(iv)There is a presumption in law that favours constitutionality of legislative action. This
presumption in favour of constitutionality is capable of being rebutted only with (a) intrinsic
evidence – where discrimination is writ on the face of the rule/statute; or (b) extrinsic evidence –
the petitioner adducing evidence to show discrimination.
(v) The burden of proving discrimination is on the person claiming discrimination.
Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits differential treatment of persons on the ground of
‘sex’ alone. The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified age-group
but in the deep-rooted belief of the worshippers that the deity in the Aloha Temple has
manifested in the form of a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’. Moreover, the matter of issue can be
raised by the devotee itself.
Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and liberty, which has been held by the
courts to include the right to live with dignity. Considering the above analysis and the objective
of the prohibition at Aloha Temple, it is a stretch for anyone to claim that the prohibition was
meant to demean or bring ridicule to the phenomenon of menstruation or to women of
menstruating age.
The plea of the Petitioners with reference to Article 17, was wholly misconceived. The object
and core of Article 17 was to prohibit untouchability based on ‘caste’ in the
Hindu religion. No such caste-based or religion-based untouchability is practised at the Aloha
Temple.
Article 11 of the Draft Constitution corresponds to Article 17 of our present Constitution9. A
perusal of the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 11 of the Draft Constitution would
reflect that “untouchability” refers to caste-based discrimination faced by Harijans, and not
women as contended by the Petitioners.
During the debates, Mr. V.I. Muniswamy Pillai10 had stated:
“…Sir, under the device of caste distinction, a certain section of people have been brought
under the rope of untouchability, who have been suffering for ages under tyranny of so-called
19
caste Hindus, and all those people who style themselves as landlords and zamindars, and were
thus not allowed the ordinary rudimentary facilities required for a human being… I am sure,
Sir, by adoption of this clause, many a Hindu who is a Harijan, who is a scheduled class man
will feel that he has been elevated in society and has now got a place insociety…”
Moreover,In case of Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore,AIR 1958,mys 85 ,it has
been noted that ,
“A fundamental difference between excluding persons from temples open for the purpose of
worship to the Hindu public in general on the ground that they belong to the excluded
communities and excluding person from denomination temples on the ground that they are
not the objects within the benefit of the foundation .The former will be hit by Article 17 and
the latter protected by Article 26.”
(J)Concluding View of the Argument:
The outcome, if the above principles are applied to the Lord Paramappa temple as follows:
There is indeed a nexus between the classification (of those that have not completed the
vratham, which includes women of menstruating age) and the object of the differentiation.
Limiting entry to the shrine to individuals that have completed the vratham is meant primarily to
preserve the energy of the deity and to prevent it from desecration.
In a religious sense, only an individual who has completed the full 51-days vratham is denied
entry into the shrine ought to have the right to bring a constitutional challenge, including as a
petitioner in a PIL. Those seeking to assert casual walk-in rights do not have locus standi.
Constitutional presumption must favour legitimacy to a religious prohibition incorporated into
state law, and the court should not strike down a state law unless the presumption is rebutted by
a petitioner in accordance with accepted constitutional principles.
One would conclude the above analysis by summarizing that the prohibition on entry into Aloha
Temple is a religious practice, fundamental and hence essential to the religious tradition at the
shrine. Without this, the religious tradition at Aloha temple would stand desecrated out of
existence.
Religious customs and practices cannot be solely tested on the touchstone of Article 14,15,17 &
21 and the principles of rationality embedded therein.
And lastly, while the prohibition does involve a classification, its object is not to discriminate or
be derogatory of women and hence the prohibition ought to pass the test of articles 14, 15, 17
and 21 and is consistent with acceptable constitutional principles.
9. “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The

enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.”
20
Draft Constitution of India, Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India
(Manager Government of India Press, New Delhi, 1948) available at
http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/966/7/Fundamental%20Rights%
20%285-12%29.pdf
10 Statement of Shri V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Constituent Assembly Debates (November 29,1948)
[2] Whether the petitioner is rightly justified challenging a state law that incorporates a
The above also brings us to the issue of who can challenge a state law that incorporates a
religious tradition. Hence, the legal ability of any Hindu to challenge the prohibition in Aloha
Temple ought to consider the challengers’ personal subscription to belief in the tradition under
challenge.
It must be noted that there are numerous cases where the religious practices or matters
relating to a religion are questioned in the petition, but the same is primarily attached to
academic objections by non-devotees, seeking rights not vested in them, and hence, not
maintainable.
it can be suggested that the loosening of standing rules of PIL was intended to ensure the
representation of those who could not represent themselves, and not to transform the Court into
a super-legislature, where any social question might be agitated by any person, even if being a
total stranger to the case but for more than 70 years of Aloha history no such issue has been
raised from any devotee who are subscriber or believer of Deity Lord Paramappa.
(A)Issue of Locus Standi in Religious Matter:
Locus standi was never an issue in the past since in all relevant court judgments, the petitioners
were seeking enforcement of the right as a personal right. In all those examples, the petitioners
personally subscribed to the religious practice which they were seeking to protect, and in fact,
the petitioners were priests or managers of religious shrines and were trying to protect their right
to lead worship or manage those religious institutions.
And, in such religious case petitioners, or subsequent interveners, who are totally stranger to the
cause cannot maintain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indistan in as much as
no right affecting the public at large is involved. The question involved is purely relating to a
particular Religion or religious practices. It is also important to note that such kind of petitions
are also not maintainable without being a worshipper or believer or devotee of the Religion or
practice in question, at least in the capacity of a representative.
It is not true in the context of the present case since the petitioners, although they may fall
within the general description of the term “Hindu”, cannot be said to be subscribers or
believers in the Aloha religious temple.
21
(B)PIL is not qualifying the criteria of Article 32:
Thus, It is important to consider above such points while deciding on religious questions at the
behest of association/interveners who are “involved in social developmental activities,
especially activities related to the upliftment of women and helping them become aware of their
rights”, and who do not actually subscribe to the faith, as the same does not satisfy the condition
to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 even if the same might be glazed as being a PIL
aimed at serving the larger public good.
(C) In the Context of Religious Capacity of Article 25:
In the context of Article 25, given that a religious need is capable of being fully
comprehended only by a subscriber to or a believer in that religion or deity & this
principle should be applied in the present case.
The right to religion and right to worship must be based on the positivity of a belief in the
particular manifestation of the deity, and since, the matters of conscience, religious belief, and
religious practice, are among the deepest and most personal issues for the individual, there
seems to be something rather strange in one person agitating for the religious rights of another
person.
For example, a Christian is not to be permitted to challenge practice in Islam. In case of N.
Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board &Ors., the Supreme Court has ruled that
“worshippers lay great store by their rituals and ceremonies, and whatever other people, not
of the faith, may think of these rituals and ceremonies, they are part of the Hindu religious
faith and cannot be dismissed as either irrational or superstitious.”
Hence, it is essential that anyone challenging the prohibition on entry into the Aloha temple be a
subscriber or believer to the practices and tradition being followed at Aloha temple. It would be
a travesty if a non-believer or non-subscriber in the specific religious customs and tradition at
the Temple can challenge its practices merely because they are a one kind of “Hindu”.
(D) Concluding view of the Argument:
To conclude on the issue of freedom under Article 25, and the related locus standi issue, it
would be fair to think of the right as being available to a believer or subscriber of a specific
tradition, and not a right available to Hindus across different religious traditions.
The principles of PIL ought to apply to the extent that the challenger, being a
believer/subscriber, is viewed as a representative of other believers/subscribers. The mere fact
that the challenger is a Hindu ought not to be sufficient to give locus standi since there are many
22
traditions and faiths that have been merged together to create the Hindu religion. For instance,
Sikh is also considered Hindu in a legal context but no other Hindus are allowed to keep
“Kripan” of any size other than Sikhs.
[3] Whether the beliefs of the Petitioners as contended in the Writ Petition and pertaining
regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion?
Article 25 “freedom of religious practice “is not an absolute right, as it is already given section 2
of Article 25 “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the
state from making any law. For instance, sub-Section2 (a) wearing and carrying kripans shall be
deemed to be included in the profession of Sikh religion.
Similarly, Section 2(a) also gives right to devotees of Paramappa Temple perform their
religious practice based on Deity’s Path which was followed by Deity Paramappa Himself.
In sub section 2(b) of article 25 states “throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus”, a public character must be denoted in terms of
people who having faith in that public character.
Therefore, Article 25 “freedom of religious practice” for women clashes with the “freedom
of religious practice” of other million of devotees who follow the path of celibacy of Deity
Paramappa.
Furthermore, Article 25 should be read along with Article 26.Article 26 guarantees such
rights to an organized body of individuals like religious denominations or any section of
them ,Article 26(b) gives right to manage its own affairs in matter of religion. Both Article
25 and article 26 protect matters of religious doctrine or belief as well as acts done in
pursuance of religion-rituals , observances, ceremonies and modes of worship.
(A) Religion: A matter of Faith & Beliefs:
In case of Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Swamiar of shirur
Mutt,11 The Supreme Court Said,
“Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individual or communities and it is not necessarily
theistic. There are well known religions in india like Buddhism and Jainism which do not
believe in God or in any intelligent first Clause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a
system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as
conducive their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing
else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its
23
followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and mode of
worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observation
might extend even to matters of food and dress.”
As per the judgment in Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. v.State of Mysore & Ors. case
(supra), religion, in this formulation, is a much wider concept, and includes:
• Ceremonial law relating to the construction of Temples;

• Installation of Idols therein;
• Place of consecration of the principle deity;
• Where the other Devatas are to be installed;
• Conduct of worship of the deities;
• Where the worshippers are to stand for worship;
• Purificatory ceremonies and their mode and manner of performance;
• Who are entitled to enter for worship; where they are entitled to stand and worship; and, how
the worship is to be conducted.
Similarly, as per the above statement of Supreme Court, Practice of Celibacy and its rituals are
integral part of Aloha Temple because it is a fundamental value since inception of the Temple.
(B) Aloha Temple-A Religious Denomination:

The words ‘religious denomination’ in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their color from
the word “religion”; and as per this, the expression ‘religious denomination’ must satisfy three
conditions as given in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors. :
(1) It 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,
(2) common organization, and
(3) designation by a distinctive name,
As per the Judgement of Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. v. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors12., and
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. & Ors13.,
“Religious maths, religious sects, religious bodies, sub-sects or any section thereof have been
held to be religious denominations.”
(C)Concluding View of the Argument:
This set of beliefs and faiths of the Lord pramappa devotees, and the organization of the
worshippers of Lord Paramappa constitute a distinct religious denomination, having distinct
practices.
24
Article 25 & 26 give right to Sikhs wearing a kripan as an emblem of their religion. In the
similar context, Practice of celibacy is an emblem of Aloha Temple , it is a root cause of the
foundation of the deity Paramappa Temple. Change in the practice of celibacy and ritual
of celibacy means the change in fundamental cause of the foundation of Aloha Temple.
Hence, the prohibition and the religious tradition at Lord Paramappa are entitled to get
protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of Indistan14.
11. 1954 SCR 1005,

12. (1962) 1 SCR 383 : AIR 1961 SC 1402,
13. (2014) 5 SCC 75,
14. Constitution of India,
25
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly requested that this Honorable Court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:
1. That the beliefs and practices are essential & integral parts of Aloha Paramappa
Temple.
2. That to continue with the Celibacy Practices with the same ritual as per the guidance
given in Hindu Vedas ,Purana and Bhagvat Geeta without any change.
3. That the Article 25 of individual’s “right to worship’ clashes with millions of

devotee’s “right to worship”, therefore it should be declined.
4. That the places of public worship shall be open to Hindus of all sections and classes
is not absolute, but subject to the right of a religious denomination to “manage its
own affairs in matters of religion.”
5. That the Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for want of standing. The
grievances raised are non-justifiable at the behest of the Petitioners and Interveners
involved herein.
6. That the limited entry restriction on the entry of women during the notified age group
does not fall within the purview of Article 17 of the Constitution.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honorable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Respondent shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TEAM: 1057
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Moot Memorial Respondant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial Respondant

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Moot Memorial Respondant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team: 1057

LLOYD NOVICE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION -2021

Before the bench of Justices of the Honorable

The Indistan Progressive Lawyers' Collective (hereinafter IPLC)……………..APPELLANT

[MEMORIAL S UB M IS S I O N ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT]

(A)Issue of Locus Standi in Religious Matter…………………………………………………….21

1. S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram &

2. Riju Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. State of Assam &Ors.

3. Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council &Ors.

4. Bhimashya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alia Janawwa

7. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Swamiar Thirtha Swamiar of

8. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

9. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors. (supra)

11. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. & Ors.

15. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay(supra)

16. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

19. United States v. Edwin D. Lee

1.V.N.SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,13th EDITION.

2.M.P.JAIN, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 7TH EDITION.

3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V.

(1) Article 25 – “Practice to the religion” to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(2)Article 26 –to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(3) Article 32 –to appeal by the Supreme Court.

WRIT PETITION IN SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN

This acceleration is brought about in two stages: 2

2. As per‘Sthal Purana’ i.e. the ‘Bhuthanatha Geetha’-41/42days

3.Moot Problem, 4. BG 6.14Bhagvat Geeta,English version

5. Physiology, Menstrual Cycle,Dhanalakshmi K. Thiyagarajan; Hajira Basit; Rebecca Jeanmonod.

(H) Characteristics of a valid custom

6. (2006) 4 SCC 748, 7. (2006) 13 SCC 627,8.(2008) 13 SCC 119

9. “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The

• Ceremonial law relating to the construction of Temples;

(B) Aloha Temple-A Religious Denomination:

11. 1954 SCR 1005,

3. That the Article 25 of individual’s “right to worship’ clashes with millions of

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

You might also like