Kes'S Jayantilal H. Patel Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition

1
KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE
MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE COUSTITUTION OF INDIA.
IN THE MATTER OF
NARI MUKTI MORCHA………..
(PETITIONERS)
V.
RANGAN TEMPLE………
(RESPONDENT)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………….………………………………………….. 2
LIST OF ABBRIVATION………………………………………………………….. 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………….. 5
ISSUES INVOLVED………………………………………………………………... 6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… 7-8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………. 9-19
PRAYER OF RELIEF……………………………………………………………… 20

3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS:
BASU DURGA DAS INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Book]. - [s.l.] : LEXISNEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, 8TH ED. REPRINT 2011.
JAIN M.P. INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Book]. - [s.l.] : LEXISNEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, SIXTH ED. REPRONT 2012.

4
LIST OF ABBRIVATION
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article
ED. Edition
P. Page No.
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
u/a Under Article
v. Versus
Hon’ble Honorable
Cl. Clause
UOI Union of India
Ors Others
F.R Fundamental Rights
NMM Nari Mukti Morcha

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the violation of Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Article 32 of the Constitution states-
Art. 32 (1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings for
the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the constitution.
The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of the present
court and accepts that it has the power and authority to preside over the present case.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Rangan Temple which is located in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of
Pathanam District of Mahapeksha was established in 9th century by the Hindu
community of Bikhus which is now notified as a schedule caste.
2. Rangan Temple is renowned for lakhs of pilgrims thronging it all through the year.
3. Pilgrim trek the Jheelimala to reach the shirne, which has 18 sacred steps to worship
Lord Chinnapa after undergoing strict religious vows for 48 days.
4. There is a popular folklore surrounding the deity of the God Chinnapa. This folklore
states that Chinnapa, the king of Mahapeksha, was blessed by lord mani at the place
where this temple is located , that he would have the power to grant wishes, but
provided that he would remain celibate.
5. This folklore gave rise to an uninterrupted ban on women entering the temple since 9th
century .
6. Women aged between 10 and 50, that is those who are in menstruating age, are barred
from entering the temple.
7. There is no restriction on women to worship Lord Chinnapa in any other temple, their
entry is prohibited in this temple alone.
8. The Nari Mukti Morcha (NMM) is a NGO which is located in the neighboring state of
Mahapeksha works for the objective of gender equality.
9. The NMM came across an article published in the magazine The Vague which spoke
about this practice and tradition of Rangan Temple.
10. The NMM was outraged by this and verified the authenticity of this article and later
on got in touch with local woman of Mahapeksha and orchestrated a peaceful rally
against the unjust practice.
11. Though they agitated for several days but the temple authorities did not open the
doors to women.
12. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances the NMM ultimately
moved to the Apex Court under Art. 32 of the Indian Constitution against this ban.

7
ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India?
2. Whether the temple authorities have violated article 14 and article 15 of the
constitution of India?
3. Whether the temple authorities have violated article 21 of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether the temple authorities can protect themselves under article 25 and article 26
of the constitution of India?

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India?
Yes, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the uninterrupted ban on women’s
age group 10-50 years in Ragan Temple violates the Fundamental Right under Article 14,
Article 15 and Article 21. So, the PIL is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is
sought.
ISSUE 2
Whether the temple authorities have violated article 14 and article 15 of the constitution
of India?
Yes, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Article 14 and Article 15 of the
constitution of India have been violated on account of inequality and discrimination against
the women of particular age group( those who go through menstruation). Thus it is submitted
that Article 14 and Article 15 which is Fundamental Right have been violated.

9
ISSUE 3
Whether the temple authorities have violated article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Yes, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution which is Right to life have been infringed on the account that Right to Life is
based on human dignity and personal liberty which is violated because of prohibition of
women of particular age group in the temple.
ISSUE 4
Whether the temple authorities can protect themselves under article 25 and article 26 of
the constitution of India?
No, the temple authorities cannot protect themselves under Article 25 and Article 26. As
Article 25 (1) which is freedom of conscience and Right to freely profess, practice and
propogate religion and Article 26 (b) which is subjected to Article 25 (2) (b) which is to open
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus have
been violated.

10
ISSUE 1
Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India?
The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the constitution, as Rangan Temple
authorities have violated the Fundamental Rights of the women age group 10-50 years.
Article 32(1) guarantees the Right to Move the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the constitution.
In Bodhisattwa v. subhra chakraborty1 it was held that:
“Right to access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself. Article
32 (1) provides a very important safeguard for the protection of the Fundamental Rights of
the citizen of India. Article 32 provides a guaranteed, quick and summary remedy for
enforcing the Fundamental Right because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court
without having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower to the higher
court as he has to do in other ordinary litigation”.
Petitioner submits that Rangan Temple authorities have violated Article 14 , Article 15 and
Article 21 of the women age group 10-50 years which are not allowed to enter the Rangan
Temple. Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the principle of “non-discrimination”.
In M. Nagaraj v. union of India2 it was held that:
“the right to equality has been declared by the Supreme Court as a basic feature of the
constitution”.
1
Bodhisattwa v. subhra chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, 926: 1996(1) SCC 490, common
cause, a Registered society v. union of India, AIR 1999 SC at 3020 (1999) 6 SCC 667
2
M. Nagaraj v. union of India, (2006)8 SCC 212: AIR 2007 SC 71.

11
Petitioner submits that as women age group below 10 and above 50 are allowed in Rangan
Temple along with men of all age group it is inequality for the women of age group 10-50
years , so it violates Article 14 as seen in Badappanavar3, Supreme Court held that “
Equality is a basic feature of the constitution of India and any treatment of equals unequally
or unequals as equal will be violation of basic structure of constitution of India”
Petitioner submits that Article 15 is discrimination against any citizen of India on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth , or any of them is also violated as womens
age group 10-50 years which are not allowed in temples are discriminated with men’s,
women’s age group below 10 and after 50 years.
Further Article 21 (a) which says Right to Freedom of the person , Article 21 (b) protection of
life and personal liberty and also Right to live with human dignity violates has womens are
ban in the Rangan Temple to preserve the character of deity but Fundamental Right of the
constitution is for the people, individual or group but not for the lord and deity.
3
M.G. Badappanavar v. state of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264: (2001)2 SCC 666.

12
ISSUE 2
Whether the temple authorities have violated article 14 and article 15 of the constitution
of India?
It is submitted that, Article 14 states “Equality before law The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
The benefit of “equality before law” and “equal protection of law” accrues to every person in
India whether a citizen or not.
In Faridabad CT scan center v. D.G. Health services4 the Supreme Court has observed on
this point:
“We are a country governed by the Rule of law our constitution confess certain other rights
on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and the equal protection of the
laws”
The underlying object of Article 14 is to secure to all citizen or non-citizen the equality of
status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble to our Constitution. In Ragan Temple the
women of age group 10-50 years are not allowed to worship.
The violates the object of Article 14 which is equality of status. The goal set out in the
Preamble to the constitution regarding status and opportunity is embodied and concretised in
Article 14.

4
Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, AIR 1997 SC 3801: (1997) 7 SCC 752
Also Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988,997: (200) 2 SCC 465.
13
The horizons of equality as embodied is Article 14 have been expanding as a result of the
judicial pronouncements and Article 14 has now come to have a “highly activist magnitude”.
Article 14 and Article 15 read in the light of the preamble to the constitution reflects the
thinking of our constitution makers and prevent any discrimination based on religion or
origin in the matter of equal treatment or employment and to apply the same even in respect
of a co-operation society.
It further submits that, by restricting entries of women in Rangan Temple there is inequality
between men and women. A constitution bench of the SC has declared in no uncertain terms
that equality is a basic feature of the constitution and should not be violated.
In Renu v. District5 it was held:
“The SC in the judgment states that Art.14 is an integral part of our system, each and every
state action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violated of
mandate of Art.14 of the constitution is not regular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in
view of the judgments render by the court”.
There was a folklore that the king of Mahapeksha, Chinnapa was blessed by the Lord Mani to
grant wishes provide that he would remain celibate. This folklore gave uninterrupted ban on
women of age group 10-50 years to enter the temple. While there is no restriction on men for
entering the temple. This clearly shows discrimination between women and men.Article
15(1) specifically bars the state from discrimination against any citizen of India on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
5
Renu v. District and session Judge, Tis Hazari, Civil Appeal No. 979 of 2014.
14
In Nain sukh v. state of u.p6
“ The Fundamental right conferred by this clause is conferred on a citizen as an individual

and is a guarantee against his being subjected to discrimination in the matter of his rights,
privileges and immunities pertaining to him as a citizen”.
Not allowing the women in the temple is discrimination on ground of sex of a person.
According to Article 15(2) any citizen cannot be restricted to use the place of public resort on
the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. We cannot eliminate the
temples from the place of public resort.
6
Nain sukh v. state of U.P (1953) SCR 1184.

15
ISSUE 3
Whether the temple authorities have violated article 21 of the Constitution of India?
The petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court of law that, there is uninterrupted
ban on women age between 10-50 years that is those who go through menstruation to enter
the Rangan temple since 9th century is infringing the Fundamental Right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to ‘procedure established by law’.
Article 21 assures every person Right to Life and personal liberty. The term ‘life’ has been
given a very expansive meaning.
“ By the term ‘life’ as here used , BHAGWATI. J., has observed in Fracis Coralie:
“ We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes
along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and
shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse
forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings”.
Petitioner submits that, women’s are allowed in other temples of lord Chinnapa and entry of
women age group 10-50 is not prohibited in other temples of Lord Chinnapa except Rangan
temple which banned women age group 10-50 years in temple
In Art.21 the expression ‘personal liberty’ has also been given a liberal interpretation. It does
not mean merely the liberty of the body, which is , freedom from physical restraint or
freedom from confinement within the bounds of a person. In other word, it means not only
freedom from arrest and detention, from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement, but
means much more than that.

16
In Kharak singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh7 , the minority view expressed by Subba Rao. J.
adopted the wider concept of personal liberty. The learned judge observed :
“ No doubt the expression ‘ personal liberty’ is a comprehensive one and the right to move
freely is an attribute of personal liberty. It is said that the freedom to move freely is carved
out of personal liberty and ,therefore, the expression ‘ personal liberty’ in Art. 21 excludes
that attribute. In our view,this is not a correct approach. Both are independent Fundamental
Right, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another.
The fundamental right of life and personal liberty have many attributes and some of them are
found in Art. 19. If a person’s Fundamental Right under Art. 21 is infringed , the state can
rely upon a law sustain the action; but that cannot be a complete answer unless the said law
satisfies the test laid down in Art.19(2) so far as the attributes covered by Art. 19(1) are
concerned. In other words, the state must satisfy that both the Fundamental Right are not
infringed by showing that there is a law and that is does not amount to a reasonable
restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the constitution".
It is submitted that, Art. 19 is also violated as freedom of women age 10-50 years to move in
the Rangan temple is banned, which violates Art. 19 (1)(d) which states Right to move freely
throughout the territory of India.
7
Kharak singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh

17
ISSUE 4
Whether the temple authorities can protect themselves under article 25 and article 26 of
the constitution of India?
It is humbly submitted that, Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is about
Right to Freedom of Religion. Article 25(1) guarantees to every person and not only to the
citizens of India , the “ freedom of conscience” and “the right freely to profess, practice and
propogate religion”. This , however, is subject to public order, health, morality, and other
provisions relating to Fundamental Rights.
In Rangan Temple. Women’s of age group 10-50 years are not allowed in the temple is
violating these Fundamental Right under Art.14 and Art.15. As it is discriminating the
women of age group 10-50 years not only against men but also against the women who are
above 50 years and below 10 years.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India8 B.P. Jeevan Reddy . J, observed :
“While the citizens of this country are free to profess, practice and propogate such religion,
faith or belief as they choose, so far as the state is concerned which is , from point of view of
the state, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To it all are equal and all are
entitled to be treated equally”
Further it is submitted that, according to Article 25(2)(b) , the state can throw open Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all sections of the Hindus. Article 25(2)(b)
enables the state to take steps to remove the scourge of untouchability from amongst the
Hindus.
8
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918
18
The word “public” here includes any section of the public. Public institutions would thus
mean not merely temples dedicated to the public as a whole, but even those which are
founded for the benefit of sections thereof, and denomination temples would thus fall within
the scope of this clause.
It is submitted that, the right of the religious minority under Art. 26(b) is not only subject to
“public order, morality and health”, but also to Art. 25(b), which is , “providing for social
welfare and reform…”
The words ‘religious institutions of public character’ in Art. 25(2)(b) include an institution
belonging to a religious denomination and such an institution can thus be throen open to all
sections of the Hinus under Art. 25(2)(b). On the other hand, the term ‘religion’ in Art. 26(b)
embraces religious practice which signifies that such questions as who are the person entitled
to enter into a temple for worship, where they are entitled to stand and worship, how the
worship is to be conclude, are all matters of religion coming within the purview of Art. 26(b).
This means that denomination has a right to exclude persons from participating in the
worship according to the tenets of the institution concerned. There thus arises a conflict
between these two constitutional provisions. In the interests of harmonizing these provisions,
it becomes necessary to read the one subject to the other.
In Sri Venkataramana v. state of Mysore9 it was held:
The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act removed the disability of Harijans from
entering into Hindu public temples. The trustees of a temple contended that it was a private
temple and so it was outside the scope of the Act. The Supreme Court rejected the plea. The
court ruled that the right of religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matter of
religion under Art. 26(b) were subject to and controlled by a law protected under Art25 (2)
(b).

9
Sri Venkataramana v. state of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255: 1958 SCR 895.
19
The Supreme Court has summed up the relevant law as follows in Sri Jagannath10 :
“Although the state cannot interfere with freedom of a person to profess, practise and
propogate his religion, the state, however, can control the secular matters connected with
religion. All activities in or connected with a temple are not religious activities. The
management of a temple or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple can be
controlled by the state. If any law is passed for taking over the management of a temple it
cannot be struck down as violative of Article 25 or Article 26 of the constitution. The
management of the temple is a secular act”
10
Sri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani, AIR 1997 SC 3839,
3853 : (1997) 8 SCC 422.
20
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble court
be pleased to:
1. Allow the present petition.

2. Hold the temple authorities liable for violation of Fundamental Right of women age
group from 10-50.
3. Order and direct the temple authorities to take corrective measures to allow women of
all age group in the temple.
And pass any other order in favor of the Petitioner which this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Kes'S Jayantilal H. Patel Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kes'S Jayantilal H. Patel Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition

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

Kes'S Jayantilal H. Patel Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE COUSTITUTION OF INDIA.

NARI MUKTI MORCHA………..

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… 7-8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………. 9-19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

BASU DURGA DAS INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Book]. - [s.l.] : LEXISNEXIS

JAIN M.P. INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Book]. - [s.l.] : LEXISNEXIS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Article 32 of the Constitution states-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Bodhisattwa v. subhra chakraborty1 it was held that:

In M. Nagaraj v. union of India2 it was held that:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Renu v. District5 it was held:

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Nain sukh v. state of u.p6

“ The Fundamental right conferred by this clause is conferred on a citizen as an individual

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

KES’S JAYANTILAL H. PATEL INTRA COLLEGIATE