S.N.B.P.

LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

S.N.B.P LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT, 2019-20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDOSTAN

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Special Leave Petition)

(Under Article 132 and 136 of the Constitution of Indostan)

Special Leave Petition arising out of the final judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Mahadeshamin arising out of the Writ Petition No. 2019

1. Women Advocate Association

2. Justice for Women .... Appellant

Vs.

Lord Shivappa , Indu Temple Trust Board .... Respondent

Most Respectfully Submitted Before The Honourable Justice And His Companion Judges Of
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan.

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

Name: Sanober Tehseen Siddiqui

Class: III LL.B (Roll No. 1)

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 2

____________________________________________________________________________

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ... 3

____________________________________________________________________________

3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 4

____________________________________________________________________________

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ... 5

____________________________________________________________________________

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ... 6, 7

____________________________________________________________________________

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ... 8

____________________________________________________________________________

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...9, 10

____________________________________________________________________________

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ... 11 – 19

____________________________________________________________________________

9. PRAYER ... 20

____________________________________________________________________________

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 21

____________________________________________________________________________

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

List of Cases

1. Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1972 SC 1586

2. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and

another (2016) 2 SCC 725

3. Pramatha Nath Mullick vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064

4. Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta 1969 AIR 1089

5. Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar 1999 AIR SCW 1878

6. Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501

7. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra

Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 AIR 282

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
CR.P.C Criminal Procedure code, 1973
Act The Indian Penal Code, 1860
AIR All India Reporter
Art Article
Ed. Edition
US United States
i.e. That is
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Report
Sec Section
V Versus
Vol Volume
Viz. Which is

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Special Leave Petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court at Mahadeshamin in Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners under the
Article 226 of the Constitution of Indostan upholding the restriction imposed on women aged
above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Lord Shivappa and offering worship at
Lord Shivappa Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial. That
the restrictions imposed by the Temple Trust Board is not violative of articles 14, 15. 25 and
26 of the Constitution of Indostan, besides that such restriction is also not violative of the
provisions of Indu Place of public worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 since there is
no restriction between one section and another section or between one class and another class
among the Indus in the matter of entry to a temple whereas the prohibition is only in respect
of women of a particular age group and not women as a class.

The Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Appellant before this Hon’ble Supreme Court
by virtue of 1Article 132 & 2Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

_________________________________________________

1
Article 132 of The Indian Constitution;

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the
territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, [if the High Court certifies under article
134A] that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

(3) Where such a certificate is given, 3 *** any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the
ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided
2
Article 136 of The Indian Constitution;

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Indu Temple of Lord Shivappa is located on the Sahyadri Mountain in the State of
Mahadesham in Indostan. Numerous pilgrims visit the temple throughout the year. Pilgrims
trek through the Sahyadri Mountain to reach the temple which has 24 sacred steps to worship
Lord Shivappa after undergoing strict religious vows for 36 days.

The temple imposes a ban on girls and women aged between above 10 and below 50, i.e.
females who are likely to be in their menstruating age from entering the temple. There is no
other temple in Indostan which has similar restriction on the basis of gender from entering a
temple.

“Women Advocate Association” approached the Hon’ble high Court of Mahadesham against
such gender bias, seeking a direction from the Hon’ble High Court to allow women an entry
into the temple without any restrictions. Another group of women who head the “Justice for
women” campaign also seeks the Hon’ble High Court’s direction to stop the selective gender
discrimination for the entry in Lord Shivappa Temple.

The above named petitioners under the Article 226 of the Constitution of Indostan contended
before the Hon’ble high Court of Mahadesham that discrimination in matters of entry into the
Lord Shivappa temple was neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated in Indu religion. Any
such discrimination on the grounds of gender r was totally anti-Indu. The religious sentiments
could only restrict entry into the sanctum and could not prohibit entry into Lord Shivappa
temple in general thereby discriminating on the grounds of gender.

The Temple Trust Board maintained the stand that the ban was in accordance with century’s
old tradition as Lord Shivapppa was a Bramhchari (one who vowed to remain a celibate) and
maintained distance from women. Another contention of the Temple Trust Board was that the
women could not bear the physical hardship, severity and days of celibacy like men could,
hence the selective ban on entry of women in the temple was justified.

The Hon’ble High Court of Mahadeshamin its judgement held that:

1. “The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy
hills of Lord Shivappa and offering worship at Lord Shivappa Shrine is in accordance with
the usage prevalent from time immemorial.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

2. Such restriction imposed by the Temple Trust Board is not violative of articles 14, 15. 25
and 26 of the Constitution of Indostan.

3. Such restriction is also not violative of the provisions of Indu Place of public worship
(Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 since there is no restriction between one section and
another section or between one class and another class among the Indus in the matter of entry
to a temple whereas the prohibition is only in respect of womenof a particular age group and
not women as a class.”

The Original Petitioner hereby prefers an Appeal against the Verdict of The Hon’ble high
court in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Following issues had been raised for consideration before this Hon’ble Supreme court in the
instant matter;

1. Whether the ban which is exclusively based upon a biological factor to the female gender
amounts to ‘discrimination’ and thereby violates the Article 14, 15 and 17 of the constitution?

2. Whether the ban on women’s entry into Lord Shivappa temple violated the provisions of
Article 25?

3. Whether the devotees of Lord Shivapppa constitute a separate denomination?

4. Whether rule 3(b) of Indu Place of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) rules, 1965 is
Ultra Vires the Indu place of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) Act, 1965 and if intra
vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution?

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether the ban which is exclusively based upon a biological factor to the
female gender amounts to ‘discrimination’ and thereby violates the Article 14, 15 and
17 of the constitution?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Deity has a legal personage
only for the purposes of suing and to be sued. It necessarily follows that the belief that there
exists Lord Shivappa as a living person translates to the said living Deity enjoying rights
under Article 25(1) and his devotees enjoying rights under Article 25(1) and the Temple
enjoying rights under Article 26(b). Since the Deity is a living person under the law, the
Deity, and his devotees, has a fundamental right to practice his faith and his vow of Naisthika
Brahmacharya under Article 25(1).

B. Whether the ban on women’s entry into Lord Shivappa temple violated the
provisions of Article 25?

It is humbly submitted to this court that this is fundamentally flawed since the rights under
Article 25(1) are expressly subject to other provisions of Part III which includes the rights of
a religious denomination under Article 26. Therefore, unless a case of blatant and
unreasoned discrimination is made out, the rights of individuals are subject to the rights of a
religious denomination where a place of worship (public or private) qualifies as a
denominational religious institution within the meaning of Article 26. Further, even where a
public place of worship does not attract Article 26, the rights of individuals under Article
25(1) are still subject to the rights of other individuals under Article 25(1) to preserve the
traditions and usages of the religious institution, especially those traditions and practices
which are central to the character and identity of the place of worship.
_________________________________________________________________________
C. Whether the devotees of Lord Shivapppa constitute a separate denomination?

The Respondent most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court that it is irrefutable that
the Indu Temple, its practices, the faith of the devotees in the Deity of Lord Shivappa and the
right of the devotees to worship the Deity, all are premised and must be necessarily traced to
the very belief that there exists a Deity called Lord Shivappa at the Indu Temple which is His
Abode, whose eternal celibate nature is inseparable from the Deity himself and informs every

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

religious practice and ritual associated with the Temple and every practice and ritual
observed by the devotees of Lord Shivappa.

D. Whether rule 3(b) of Indu Place of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) rules,
1965 is Ultra Vires the Indu place of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) Act,
1965 and if intra vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of Part III of the
Constitution?

The Respondent most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court it is evident that the
competent authority under Section 4(2) (i) of the 1965 Act which has the power to frame
regulations for the Lord Indu Shivappa Temple is the Temple Trust Board. In view of the
non-application of Rule 3(b) to the practices of the Lord Indu Shivappa Temple and the mis-
appreciation of the basis of the Temple's practice by the Appellant view. That rule 3 (b) of
Indu Place of Public Worship (Authorization of entry) rules, 1965 is intra vires and not
violative of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

__________________________________________________________________________

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. WHETHER THE BAN WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY BASED UPON A

BIOLOGICAL FACTOR TO THE FEMALE GENDER AMOUNTS TO
‘DISCRIMINATION’ AND THEREBY VIOLATES THE ARTICLE 14, 15 AND 17
OF THE CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Deity has a legal personage
only for the purposes of suing and to be sued. It necessarily follows that the belief that there
exists Lord Shivappa as a living person translates to the said living Deity enjoying rights
under Article 25(1) and his devotees enjoying rights under Article 25(1) and the Temple
enjoying rights under Article 26(b). Since the Deity is a living person under the law, the
Deity, and his devotees, has a fundamental right to practice his faith and his vow of Naisthika
Brahmacharya under Article 25(1). This aspect of the issue warrants expert evidence from
subject-matter experts who can assist the Hon'ble Court in appreciating the significance and
practicalities of the practice of Naishthika Brahmacharya. Unfortunately, a summary
approach has been adopted by the Appellant in this regard, which has resulted in the
assumption that the sole and true basis of the bar observed in the Temple is the notion of
impurity associated with menstruation. That it is important that a discussion on the effect of
removing menstruation from the analysis and examining the constitutional sustainability of
the practice of the Temple based solely on its nexus to the celibate nature of the Deity. This is
a material and patent error since if the practice of the Temple is justified based on the celibate
character of the Deity, it could not have been treated as discriminatory since there exist
several gender-specific Temples and practices in the vast and diverse canvass of the Hindu
faith which are beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. To judge the practice of one Temple by
the standard of another Temple or another faith such as Sikhism or Bahaism is to alter the
identity of the Hindu faith. None of the reformative levers in the Constitution were meant to
be exercised to alter the identity of any faith. It is evident that the Impugned religious practice
is based on observance of Naishtika Brahmacharya by the Deity at the Shivappa Temple, and not
on notions of menstrual impurity, and (b) given the form of the Deity at the Temple and its
celibate nature, the Impugned religious practice is an essential part of the Temple‟s fundamental
charter of faith and constitution.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

In 1Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1972 SC 1586, this Hon‟ble Court had discussed in
detail the significance of Agama Shastras which apply to the religious aspects of a Temple.
Following are the relevant extracts from the said judgement which squarely apply to the issues
which arise for consideration in the Petition at hand:
“Worshippers lay great, store by the rituals and
whatever other people, not of the faith, may think about these rituals and ceremonies, they
are a part of the Hindu Religious faith and cannot be dismissed as either irrational or
superstitious”.....

Any State action which permits the defilement or pollution of the image by the touch
of an Archaka not authorised by the Agamas would violently interfere with the religious faith
and practices of the Hindu worshipper in a vital respect, and would, therefore, be prima facie
invalid under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.”…

The above highlighted portion is an endorsement of the rights of the members of the Respondent
organization as Temple Board who support the traditions of the Temple, including the Impugned
religious practice. The primacy of the Agama Shastras was reiterated by this Hon’ble Court again
in 2Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
(2016) 2 SCC 725, which was a judgment relating to appointment of Archakas to the Madurai
Meenakshi Temple. Extracted below are the relevant portions of the said Judgement:

“Any apprehension that the determination by the court of an essential religious practice itself
negatives the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 will have to be dispelled on the
touchstone of constitutional necessity. Without such a determination there can be no effective
adjudication whether the claimed right it is in conformity with public order, morality and
health and in accord with the undisputable and unquestionable notions of social welfare and
reforms.”….

Not only does the judgement clarify that the rights under Articles 25 and 26 extend to religious
practices, it also clarifies the recognition of the primacy of Agamas in Article 16(5) in matters of
appointment to religious offices.

________________________________________

1
Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1972 SC 1586

2
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another (2016) 2 SCC 725

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

B. WHETHER THE BAN ON WOMEN’S ENTRY INTO LORD SHIVAPPA

TEMPLE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 25?

As submitted earlier, the Deity of the Temple has a legal personage under Indian law, which
has been recognized in several judgements by several High Courts prior to 1947 and by this
Hon‟ble Court post 1947. Among the earliest judgements to recognize this position is the
judgement of the Bombay High Court in 3Pramatha Nath Mullick vs Pradyumna Kumar
Mullick (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064. Extracted here are the relevant portions of the judgement:

“8. One of the questions emerging at this point is as to the nature of such an idol, and the
services due thereto. A Hindu idol is, according to long established authority, founded upon
the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by Courts of law, a "juristic
entity." It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are
attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with
all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the
estate of an infant heir, It is unnecessary to quote the authorities; for this doctrine, thus simply
stated, is firmly established.

The said position was endorsed and reiterated by this Hon‟ble Court in 4Yogendra Nath
Naskar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta 1969 AIR 1089. Extracted below are the
relevant portions:

We are accordingly of opinion that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word
'individual" under section 3 of the Act and can be treated as a unit of assessment under that
section...

The said position was again endorsed in 1999 by this Hon‟ble Court in 5Ram Jankijee Deities
v. State of Bihar 1999 AIR SCW 1878, wherein it held as follows:

“The court while deciding the issue ought to look into the records as to the purpose for which
the matter has been placed before the court. We are rather at pains to record here that judicial
discipline ought to have persuaded the learned Single Judge not to dispose of the matter in the
manner as has been done, there being no reference even of the earlier order.

___________________________________
3
Pramatha Nath Mullick vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064
4
Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta 1969 AIR 1089
5
Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar 1999 AIR SCW 1878

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 13

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

Before proceeding with the matter any further apropos the judgment under appeal, it would be
convenient to note however that Hindu law recognizes Hindu idol as a juridical subject being
capable in law of holding property by reason of the Hindu Shastras following the status of a
legal person in the same way as that of a natural person. The Privy Council in the case of
Pramatha Nath Mullick vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick & Anr LR 52 IA 245 observed…”

Therefore, it is evident from the above that judgements that Lord Shivappa too has the
character of a juristic person under Hindu law as recognized by this Hon‟ble Court.
Consequently, the Deity enjoys rights as a person under Article 25(1), 26 and 21. The Deity
as the Owner of His Abode enjoys the right to privacy under Article 21, which includes the
right to preserve his celibate form and the attendant restricts that apply to him under his vow
of Naisthika Brahmacharya. It is the will of the Deity which is being preserved by the
Temple through the traditions it observes, which is effectively the object of Article 26.
Finally, the Deity has the right to follow His Dharma, like any other person under Article
25(1) and the State is duty bound to protect his Faith. In light of this, clearly the Petitioner’s
rights under Article 25(1) cannot prevail over the Deity’s rights. In fact, they must be
necessarily subservient to the rights of the Deity.

C. WHETHER THE DEVOTEES OF LORD SHIVAPPPA CONSTITUTE A

SEPARATE DENOMINATION?

In this regard, the judgement of the Kerala High Court again assumes relevance since it
contains a detailed discussion and finding on this precise question, which has not been
challenged thus far. The High Court concluded that devotees of Lord Shivappa constitute a
denomination on the basis of this Hon’ble Court’s judgement in 6Raja Bira Kishore Deb v.
State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501 wherein it was held that the identity of a religious
denomination consists in the identity of its doctrines, creeds and tenets and these are intended
to ensure the unity of the faith which its adherents profess and the identity of the religious
views are the bonds of the union which binds them together as one community. After
discussing the judgments of the Supreme Court on the definition of a religious denomination
from Paragraphs 15 to 21, the High Court concluded as follows:
______________________
6
Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

“a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of

deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion.
No outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of such religious
denomination. Article 26(b) gives complete freedom to the religious denomination to manage
its own affairs in matters of religion. The only restriction imposed by that article is that the
exercise of the right is subject to public order, morality and health. The freedom of
conscience and freedom to speak, profess and propagate religion guaranteed under Article
25 of the Constitution is subject not only to public order, morality and health, but also
subject to the other provisions of Chapter III. It necessarily implies that the right to freedom
of religion guaranteed under Article 25 is subject to the freedom to manage religious affairs
guaranteed under Article 26(b) of the Constitution.”

Given the distinct identity of the Temple, the traditions it subscribes to and the clear markers of
identity which devotees have to observe as Shivappa devotees during the period of observance
of the vow and the visit to the Temple, there can be no denying the fact that Shivappa devotees
do in fact constitute a religious denomination for the purposes of Article 26. As regards the
interplay between the public character of the Temple and its denominational rights under
Article 26, it is humbly submitted that the two aspects are not mutually destructive. While the
Temple has a public character, in the sense that it is not a private Temple, its rights under
Article 26 to expect and enforce adherence of its traditions by devotees who visit the Temple
stand undiluted. Had that not been the case, it would mean that all religious institutions which
have a public character or which are public places of worship do not have rights under Article
26, which would be a patently ludicrous and untenable position to take. Simply stated, there is
nothing in Article 26 which gives the impression that the inherence and enjoyment of
fundamental rights under Article 26 by a religious institution of a religious denomination is
subject to it not being a place of public worship. Clearly, public or private character does not
affect Article 26 so long as the requirement of religious denomination is satisfied.

D. WHETHER RULE 3(B) OF INDU PLACE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP

(AUTHORIZATION OF ENTRY) RULES, 1965 IS ULTRA VIRES THE INDU PLACE
OF PUBLIC WORSHIP (AUTHORIZATION OF ENTRY) ACT, 1965 AND IF INTRA
VIRES, WHETHER IT WILL BE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF PART III
OF THE CONSTITUTION?

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 15

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

In 7The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha

Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 AIR 282. The Shirur Mutt decision makes it abundantly
clear that while Article 26 is subject to the reformative lever (if reform is indeed called for
based on evidence) provided to the Executive under Article 25(2) (b), nowhere does it hold
that the rights of religious denominations under Article 26(b) are subservient to rights under
Article 25(1). In fact, while rights under Article 26(b) are subject to Article 25(2) (b), rights
under Article 25(1) are subservient to Article 26. Had this not been the case, all
denominational rights of religious institutions and their traditions can be reduced to nothing
in one fell swoop citing Article 25(1), which was never the intention of the framers of the
Constitution since that would defeat the very object of vesting rights in denominations under
Article 26. In fact, while the seven-Judge Bench in Shirur Mutt harmonized the interplay
between Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26, it did not consciously do so with respect to Articles
25(1) and 26 because its devastating effects on the identity of religious denominations were
clear to the Bench. The consequence of rendering rights of denominations under Article 26
subservient to Article 25(1) would lead to the following consequences:
a. If a Temple has a practice of strictly not allowing non-vegetarian food to be offered or
distributed as prasad within its premises, a lone individual could trump that practice by citing
his right to offer non-vegetarian food as prasad to the Deity or distribute non-vegetarian food
to devotees within the Temple.
b. It would be possible for a Muslim to distribute food and alcohol, which is not considered
halal, to devout Muslims within a Mosque.
c. It would be possible for a Sikh to offer prasad laced with tobacco and non-jhatka meat at a
Gurudwara.
d. In the context of the Indu Temple, it would be possible for Hindu men who do not observe
the 41-day vow, to also claim a right of entry and worship at the Temple.
Clearly, not only would the religious beliefs and practices of religious institutions be
infringed by an untrammeled exercise of Article 25(1), it would also affect the rights of
observant devotees and faithful under Article 25(1), which is precisely what the Seshammal
judgement addresses.
______________________
7
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shirur Mutt 1954 AIR 282

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

In the absence of being able to demonstrate discrimination on the basis of gender, it is not
possible to cite Article 15(3) to trump rights under Article 26 and the rights of observant
devotees under Article 25(1). Since the Impugned religious practice of the Indu Temple is
based on the eternally celibate character of the Presiding Deity, and not on notions of
menstrual impurity unlike the position of the trustees of the Haji Ali Dargah, there is no
evidence of discrimination which has been placed before the Court for the Court to be able to
invoke the remedial mechanisms under Article 15(3) or 25(2)(b). Even if the Proviso to
Section 3 of the Indu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965 or Rule
3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965 had
not been provided for, Article 26 would continue to apply to protect the denominations rights,
beliefs and traditions of the Temple. The presence of these provisions only strengthens the
position of the Temple. The reliance by the Petitioner on the prohibition against
untouchability under Article 17 is a desperate and baseless attempt to overcome the hurdles
posed by the settled law on Articles 25(1), 25(2)(b) and 26. Article 17 has no application
legally since it specifically applies only to the practice of untouchability based on caste or
religion, not gender, which is evident from the promulgation of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955. To expand the scope of this provision to include the impugned religious practice
in Indu temple is to ignore the legislative history of the Article. Further, to read Article 17 to
cover the restrictions imposed by the Section and Rule under challenge, it is first necessary
for the Petitioner to demonstrate that the framework of Articles 25 and 26 is, at the first
instance, insufficient to resolve the question of the constitutionality of the Impugned religious
practice. This is evidently not even the Petitioners‟ own best case. That apart, in the facts of
the instant Petition, there is no evidence to suggest that the Impugned religious practice is
based on gender-based untouchability or notions of impurity associated with the
physiological process of menstruation. On the contrary, the Impugned religious practice is
based solely on the eternally celibate nature of the Deity at the Temple. Therefore, the
reliance on Article 17 holds no water.
The reliance on Article 14 by the Petitioner is the crux of the matter because what is being
sought by the Petitioner is a mechanical and blinkered approach to gender equality which is
blind to, deaf to and unconcerned with the rights of any other individual or institution. The
Petitioner is not even concerned with the implications of such an approach to Hindu religious
institutions where women rightly have exclusive spaces. This is a textbook case of cutting the

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 17

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

head to fit the hat, which brings an Anglican, Abrahamic and monocultural approach to Indic
traditions whose sheer diversity and appetite for nuance is unmatched anywhere in the world,
which is precisely what Article 26 was intended to protect, preserve and perpetuate. Clearly,
the Petitioner seeks subversion of the Constitution using Constitutional values as the means
to achieve the said object in the name of gender equality. Therefore, the religious practices of
the Indu Temple do not warrant this Hon’ble Court’s intervention since no evidence has been
led by the Petitioner to invite the intervention of the Court.

Conclusion;

i. It is submitted that the fundamental question as to whether the Appellants have even
remotely professed faith in the Deity whose Temple they wish to enter and whose very
traditions they question. In other words, in a place of worship where entry is contingent on
the presumption that anyone who wishes to enter necessarily believes in the Deity and the
religious practices which give effect to the Will of the Deity, that if the judgement is
otherwise it will facilitate the entry of (a) those who have no faith in the Deity as well as (b)
those who are intent on desecrating the Temple with the support of the State as is evident
from the aftermath of the various other judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court sharing the
same cause of action..
ii. That this Petition has only strengthened the hands of those who are interested in making a
public statement by entering the Temple against its practices as opposed to a personal
expression of their faith in the Deity. The worldwide reaction of the female devotees of the
Deity, especially from the State of Mahadeshamin, it has established that no women or man
who is a true devotee of the Deity is even remotely interested in violating the religious
practices of the Temple which has been in existence for time immemorial. Further, given the
long and unbroken history of the Temple and its practices, any aberrations which are the
consequence of State indulgence of influential individuals, cannot lead to the conclusion that
there is no established practice in the first place. In other words, an exception proves the rule
and not the absence of one. Importantly, nowhere has it been established through positive
evidence that the number of infractions is so significant so as to question the basis and
legitimacy of the practice of the Temple.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 18

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

iii. It is finally submitted that each of the above facts and arguments clearly make out a strong
case for in favor of the Temple board and no interim reliefs may be granted to the petitiones
as prayed since desecration of the Temple is an irreparable infraction of the rights of the
Deity, the Thanthri/Priest, Temple board and the Devotees, who put faith in the Deity, His
Will and the sanctity of His Abode, namely the Temple. It is humbly submitted that those
who do not believe in the Temple and its practices do not have a right of entry
notwithstanding its status at a public place of worship, since their rights are subservient to the
rights of the Deity and rights of those who believe in the Temple and its practices. It is
humbly submitted that if the practices of the Indu Lord Shivappa Temple cannot be legally
protected, it would mean that religious practices of Temples dedicated to Female Deities such
as the Kamakhya Temple in Assam, the Mannarsala Temple, the Chengannur Bhagavathy
Temple and the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala too cannot be protected since these
Temples place restrictions on entry and participation of men. This would lead to reductio ad
absurdum since the Petitioner’s erroneously conflates diversity with discrimination.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 19

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

PRAYER

Therefore, In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court:

• It is therefore prayed that the main application viz. Special Leave Petition as well as
interim applications for reliefs if any filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed
with exemplary cost saddled on the Petitioner.
• The constitutional validity of rule 3(b) of Indu Place of Public Worship
(Authorization of entry) rules, 1965 and the Indu place of Public Worship
(Authorization of entry) Act, 1965 to be upheld in pursuant of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of Indostan.
• That the Hon’ble Court may please allow the respondent to make any amendments in
the prayers and reliefs sought in the present reply or submit additional prayers as and
when required.
• Kindly pass such other suitable orders as may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of
justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for this act of kindness
and justice, the above named Respondent as in duty bound shall ever pray.

The Respondent additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may make any such order or
orders as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
matter.

And for this act of kindness, the Respondent as is duty bound shall ever humbly pray.

All of which is most respectfully submitted on behalf of,

Filed on: ____/_____/2020 Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 20

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES REFERRED

• The Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013

• The Constitution of India, 1949
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS REFERRED

• Dr. N. V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (8th Ed)

• Durga Das Basu, Introduction to The Constitution of India (22nd Ed)

DICTIONARIES & LEXICON

• Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (10 ed. 2014)

• P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary (4 ed. 2012)

INTERNET SOURCES AND DATABASES

• www.manupatra.com
• www.scconline.com
• www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
• www.manupatra.com
• www.lexisnexis.com
• www.livelaw.in

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 21