Final script

18 February 2024 21:42

Greetings of the day, the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as Your lordships,

Much obliged your lordships before proceedings with the arguments, the counsel seeks permission to briefly state the facts of the case for convince of the court.

Indeed your lordships,

In this particular case Devashya the husband and mirgyanki the wife got maaried in the year 2005 and had 2 children, devyashya served as the chief priest of vridhvashini
temple before contracting the disease due to which he got ill after which mirgyanki served as the chief priest untill the death of devyashya and after his death she followed
all the customary rituals and even after that she was removed from the position of chief priest because of her widowhood further the temple authorities released a
notification for the application for the said post and where widows were inelligble to apply, as being the sole bread earner of the family she started working as cook and
on a local harvest festival she was denied to cook the first bhog due to which she felt disheartned and insulted after which she along with other widows decided to go to
mateshwari temple but under a mistake they went to dandeshwari temple where they were denied the entry, she narrated the entire incident to her daughter and with
the help of her daughter she sent a post card to the apex seeking legal intervation and hence this matter.

If your lordships are clear as to facts of the case, the counsel seeks permission to move further with the arguments.

The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indonia as it grants power to the Supreme Court to take suo Moto cognisance of the matter on
the violation of the fundamental right. As in the present petition the intimation of the violation of the fundamental right was provided to the court by the letter as in the
case of Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar and in the case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharastra the similar mode intimation was used and to eliminate impediments to access
to justice, the Court held that a petitioner can approach the Constitutional Courts by means of a simple letter giving way to establishment of epistolary jurisdiction.

Much obliged your lordships the counsel would be dealing with issue 4, which is
Whether the act of denying the entry to the widows in the temple by dandeshwari temple authorities violate the fundamental rights ?
Your lordships the counsel would be dealing with sub-issue 1 and sub issue 2.
Which is whether the ban is violative of article 14 and 17?

Your lordships it is contented before this honourable bench that exclusionary practice of barring widow from the temple is violative of Article 14 which states that “The
State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". ((The expression ‘equality before law’ is a
negative concept as it implies an absence of special privileges that favour any individual. However, the expression ‘equal protection of law’ on the other hand, is a positive
concept as it simply means that there should be equality of treatment of individuals in similar circumstances. As held in the case of Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of
Tamil Nadu )

Further Your lordships in the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu it was held that When persons belong to the same class or that they are equal among themselves
in certain aspects, they have to be treated equally in all such matters.
further yourlordships it is submitted before this honourable bench that in the case of Dipak sibal vs punjab university it was held that as per Article 14 it was held that any
law being discriminatory in nature should have the existence of intelligible differentia and bear a rational nexus sought to be achieved.
to provide support for the said argument the counsel would like to cite the case of state of west bengal vs Anwar ali wherein the apex court laid down the test for
reasonable classification wherein 2 conditions were laid down
i. Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and
ii. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

In the instant case at hand, the classification based on marital status is not intelligible and the object sought to be achieved is in clear violation of the basic structure of the
constitution.(The term “intelligible differentia” means difference capable of being understood. the law is required to treat all individuals similarly placed in a similar
manner. The concept of intelligible differentia means that Article 14 does not imply that the law must have a universal application toward all individuals. Rather, it must be
applied to similar persons in a similar manner)

Therefore your lordships creating such a class differentia goes against the fundamental principal of equality.
Further the counsel humbly submits that in the case of Thangamani v. The Collector, Erode District 4 the court ordered that widows are allowed to enter in the temple and
there shall be no discrimination on the basis on marital status.
Further your lordships, the counsel would like bring the kind attention of the bench towards article 38 wherein it is the duty of the state to reduce inequality in terms of
income, status, facilities and opportunities amongst all sections of the Indian society.

The counsel seeks permission to proceed further that the ban is violative of article 17
It is humbly contended before the honourable bench that in the instant case there has been gross violation of article 17, in support of this argument the counsel would like
to cite the case of elephant G. rahendra v. registrar general and others, where the purview of article 17 has been extended, wherein it has been clarified that any form of
social exclusion that have their bases in ritual ideas of purity/pollution and hierarchy/subordination is violative of article 17 and your lordships the counsel would like to
draw the kind attention of bench to Para 2 of the statement of the facts where it has been mentioned that the widow went through all the customary rituals of where she
shaved off her head, gave up colourful clothes and being absent on all auspicious occasions, these customary rituals clearly depicts a practice of social exclusion of widows.

Further the counsel submits that any customary practice which infringes the fundamental rights of the individual is an invalid custom as held in the case of State Of
Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali, wherein
Chief Justice Chagla held that customs and usages are covered within the scope of Article 13 and hence, if any custom violates the fundamental rights then it would be
declared void.

Therefore the counsel on the basis of argument advanced pleads that the practice of barring the entry of women is violative of article 14 and 17.

New Section 3 Page 1