R CLSGIBS07

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BRAHMASTHAN

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BRAHMASTHAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 333 OF 2019

The Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association
……PETITIONER(S)

Versus

The State of Rajputra and Ors. ..……RESPONDENT(S)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF BRAHMASTHAN

1
R CLSGIBS07

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7,8
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 11-19
8. PRAYER 20

2
R CLSGIBS07

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

CEDAW The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women
CoB Constitution of Brahmasthan

Edn. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ors. Others

P Paragraph

PIL Public Interest Litigation

S. Section

Sd/ Signed

Supp. Supplementary

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

3
R CLSGIBS07

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS REFERRED

Sr. No. Case Laws Footnote
1. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v.State of Kerala & Ors AIR 1987 SC 5, 15
748.
2. Budhan Chowdhry v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045. 11
3. Century Spinning & Manufacturing v. The Ulhasnagar- 10
Municipal, (1970) 2 SCR 854.
4. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri 3,14,17,19
Lakshimdra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC
282.
5. Commissioner Of Police & Ors v. Acharya J. Avadhuta, (2004) 18
12 SCC 770.
6. Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, 2
(2000) 6 SCC 715.
7. Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1. 1
8. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, 6
Calcutta & Ors. , 1955 SCR (1)1284

9. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State Of Kerala, 7,20,21

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006.
10. Kunj Behari Lal Butail And Ors v. State Of Himachal Pradesh 24
And Ors, (2000) 1 SCR 1054.

11. Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748. 8

12. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. The State Of Bombay, AIR 16
1962 SC 853.
13. Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors.v. State of Mysore & Ors 4
(1958) SCR 895.

14. State of West Bengal v. Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited, 9

(2010) 4 SCC 453.

4
R CLSGIBS07

STATUTES REFERRED
 The Constitution of India, 1950.
 The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
 The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965.
 The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965.

CONVENTIONS REFERRED
 The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)

BOOKS REFERRED
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1067 (Lexis Nexis, 6th edn., 2010).

THESIS REFERRED
 Radhika Sekar, The Process of Pilgrimage: The Ayyappa Cultus and Sabarimalai
Yatra (1987) (Research thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario).

WEBSITES REFERRED
 Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
 Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
 Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
 SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
 Indian Kanoon, http://www.indiankanoon.com

5
R CLSGIBS07

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO: 333 OF 2019.

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Brahmasthan. The respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this court in the present
matter.

6
R CLSGIBS07

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
1. The State of Rajputra, situated in the south western part of Brahmasthan is a highly
populated state with diverse mix of culture, tradition and religion. A temple of great
antiquity, called 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' is situated in the north eastern part of
Rajputra on the banks of river Satpura. The temple is also considered as 'religious
denomination' of its own and is renowned for lakhs and lakhs of pilgrims reaching
throughout the year to worship Lord Kalyugvardhan after undergoing 51 days strict
religious vows and penance while trying their maximum to help others, following celibacy,
teetotalism, controlling anger, and seeing everything around them as Lord Kaliyugvardhan.

2. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' is usually considered to be a staunch celibate god. There are
18-sacred steps that lead to the sanctum sanctorum. Rajputra women aged between 10 and
50, which is those who are in menstruating age are barred from entering the temple in
accordance to the Hindu traditions and customs. The Hindu Community of Rajputra
believes that if women of menstruating age visit the temple then it will destroy the sanctity
of the diety. The temple’s security staff and policemen restrict the women from entering
the temple.

3. According to the priests of the temple, this custom had to be followed for the welfare of the
temple and on violation, a "purification ceremony" at the 18-sacred steps that lead to the
sanctum sanctorum, was performed. The last ceremony took place in January 2010, after a
34-year-old woman almost climbed 18 steps which led to the 'sanctum sanctorum'.

CONTENTIONS

4. 'The Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association' approached the Supreme Court of

Brahmasthan seeking a direction to allow entry of women into 'The Satpura
Kaliyugvardhan' temple without age restrictions. It has also been claiming that the present
restriction on women's entry is a discrimination on the basis of sex and is a clear cut
violation of their fundamental rights enshrined under The Brahmasthan Constitution and
thus right to worship diety of once choice is being violated here by the Board. They also
contended that the discrimination which is prevailing in matters of entry into the temple

7
R CLSGIBS07

was neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated with Hindu religion, as nowhere else in
Brahmasthan other than 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' one can see such restriction which
is totally anti-Hindu.

5. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' Temple's Management Board, which maintains the board has
contended that the right to restrict the entry of women folks is protected under the The
Brahmasthan Constitution. They also stated that it is not possible for women to put up with
the days of celibacy like men and that the restriction is in accordance with a usage from
time immemorial and not discriminatory under the CoB.

6. 'The Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association' pleaded before the court to uphold the right
to equality that is being guaranteed by the Constitution of Brahmasthan by allowing the
entry of women of all age groups into 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple. They also
claimed that there are certain news feeds to prove that there were few instances where
woman have entered the sanctum sanctorum of the temple with the permission of 'The
Satpura Kaliyugvardhan Temple's Management Board'.

8
R CLSGIBS07

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following issues are most humbly presented before this Hon’ble court for
adjudication with due respect:

ISSUE 1: Whether the present PIL filed in this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article
32 is maintainable or not?

ISSUE 2: Whether the restriction on women’s entry in the temple is violative of the
fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of Brahmasthan?

ISSUE 3: Whether the restriction imposed on women’s entry is protected by Article 25

and 26 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan?

ISSUE 4: Whether Rule 3 (b) of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is valid?

9
R CLSGIBS07

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the present PIL filed in this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32
is maintainable or not?

The present writ petition of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable before this Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Brahmasthan as there has been no infringement of fundamental rights and
the petitioner is not being affected by the restriction imposed on women of menstruating ages.
The temple does not come under the ambit of ‘state’ or ‘other authorities’ and is not subject to
fundamental rights.
ISSUE 2: Whether the restriction on women’s entry in the temple is violative of the
fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of Brahmasthan?

The age restriction on women’s entry in the temple is practiced in accordance to customs and
traditions which is law. The ban is not violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under the
Constitution of Brahmasthan as the classification is not based on sex, does not promote
untouchability and is not violative of Article 14, 15, 17 and 21.

ISSUE 3: Whether the restriction imposed on women’s entry is protected by Article 25

and 26 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan?

It is humbly submitted by the respondents that the restriction on women’s entry is protected by
Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution since firstly, the ban is an essential religious practice and
forms an important part of the denomination. It is done in the pursuance of religious belief and
is part of the temple’s freedom to practice religion. Secondly, the devotees have the right to
manage their own affairs.

ISSUE 4: Whether Rule 3 (b) of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is valid?

Rule 3(b) of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules,
1965 is a rule which has been made by virtue of the Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965. This rule is valid as it is not ultra vires The Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965. It also does not go against any
constitutional limits.

10
R CLSGIBS07

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the present PIL filed in this Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 is maintainable or not?

1. It is being most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this PIL filed
under Article 32 of the CoB is not maintainable. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Art. 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental Right has been infringed.1 Thus, where
there is no infringement of Fundamental Right or scope for enforcement of any
Fundamental Right, the writ petition is not maintainable on the fragile ground.2 In the
present case, no fundamental rights have been infringed, rather the temple is only exercising
its freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution.
2. In several precedents such as Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri
Lakshimdra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt3, Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors.v.
State of Mysore & Ors4, Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.5, etc., wherein
the violation of Articles 25 & 26 were in question, the case arose against State action and
was not rendered in the form of a PIL.
3. This Court held in previous cases that that the only persons who can impugn any given
piece of legislation under Article 32 are those who are aggrieved thereby.6 The Petitioners
have not stated that they are followers of Lord Kalyugvardhan, who are being aggrieved by
the practises followed in the The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple. It has to be adjudged
amongst the worshippers of a particular religion or shrine, who are aggrieved by certain
practises which are found to be oppressive or pernicious.7 The petitioners are not being
aggrieved by the restriction as they are just social activists and the Hindu women who are
restricted from entering the temple are not even a party to the case.

1
Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1.
2
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715.
3
AIR 1954 SC 282.
4
(1958) SCR 895.
5
AIR 1987 SC 748.
6
Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors. , 1955 SCR (1)1284
7
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State Of Kerala, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006.

11
R CLSGIBS07

4. The petitioners have contended that The Satpura Kalyugvardhan Temple is ‘State’ under
Article 12 and is subject to the violation of fundamental rights. The Satpura Kalyugvardhan
Temple is maintained by the The Satpura Kalyugvardhan Temple Board. It does not receive
any funds from the Consolidated Fund of Brahmasthan, and thus it does not come under
the ambit of ‘State’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. Article 290-
A of the CoB cannot be construed in a manner which affects the right of the temple which
is protected by its denominational character and Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution. Since,
the Board is not part of the state, then fundamental right cannot be enforced against it.
5. This Hon’ble Court has itself imposed a self-restraint in its own wisdom on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Art. 32 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective
adequate alternative remedy in the form of Art. 226 of the Constitution, although this Rule
is a Rule of convenience and discretion rather than a Rule of law. 8 The petitioners have
challenged the validity of Rule 3 (b) of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. But, where writ petition is challenging the
Constitutional validity of any provision, then the petitioner should file a writ petition before
High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.9
6. The Supreme Court has the power to exercise its judicial discretion and decline to exercise
or use its extraordinary power to dismiss a writ petition in limine , when the claim of the
petitioner is frivolous or prima facie which may not be tried in a petition under article 32
10
the dismissal of the writ can be done. The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss the
petition as the petition is frivolous in nature. The nature of the writ can be termed as
frivolous in nature as the petitioner wants to distort the foundation of The Satpura
Kaliyugvardhan' Temple and its celibate god Lord Kalyugvardhan. The very essence of the
restriction is the protection of the celibate form and to maintain the traditions and precepts
of the teachings of the religious denomination. Hence, it is submitted that the petition
submitted before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable and thus should be rejected.

8
Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748.
9
State of West Bengal v. Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 453.
10
Century Spinning & Manufacturing v. The Ulhasnagar- Municipal, (1970) 2 SCR 854.

12
R CLSGIBS07

ISSUE 2: Whether the restriction on women’s entry in the temple is violative

of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of
Brahmasthan?

The age restriction on women’s entry in the temple is practiced in accordance to customs and
traditions and is not violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under the CoB.

7. The restriction being imposed by the temple is in accordance with a usage from time
immemorial and centuries old tradition. Article 13(3) (a) of the Constitution states that
“law” includes custom or usage, and would have the force of law. Therefore, the ban
imposed by the temple which is based upon custom and tradition is law and hence, must be
practiced. The ban is not violative of fundamental rights as said by the petitioners.
8. The petitioners have contended that the right to equality of women under Article 14 is being
violated by the restriction imposed by the temple. Art. 14 in matters of religion or religious
practices applies with people who are affected by it and as discussed in Issue 1, the
petitioners are just social activists and not devotees of the same faith.
9. To attract the operation of the equal protection clause, it is necessary to show that the
classification is not based on an intelligible differentia, and that the differentia does not
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.11 It is difficult to classify
religious matters on the basis of this test as the restriction being questioned for violating
principles of equality is itself a right of the worshippers of the temple under Articles 25 and
26 of the constitution.
10. In cases of religion and religious practices, rationality is based on faith and belief.
According to the belief of the devotees, the rationality behind such a restriction is based
upon the celibate status of Lord Kalyugvardhan.
A research thesis supporting the antiquity and strict adherence of the rule of celibacy and
restriction of women of menstruating ages in a similar temple has been cited below.
“The rule of celibacy is taken very seriously and includes celibacy in thought and action.
Ayyappas are advised to look upon all women older than them as mothers and those
younger as daughters or sisters. Menstrual taboos are now strictly imposed…. Sexual
cohabitation is also forbidden. During the vratam, Ayyappas not only insist on these taboos
being rigidly followed but they go a step further and insist on physical separation. It is not

11
Budhan Chowdhry v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045.

13
R CLSGIBS07

uncommon for a wife, daughter or sister to be sent away during her menses if a male
member of the household has taken the vratam.”12 The devotees of Lord Kalyugvardhan
also, are only allowed to enter the temple if they have observed penance and followed the
customs. Thus, it is essential for the devotees to follow the rules which form part of their
belief.
11. The restriction is based on age and not on the basis of sex since females below the age of
10 and above the age of 50 are allowed entry into the temple. Women as a class are not
being restricted from entering thus, such a ban is not violative of Article 15. Article 17 is
for untouchability on the basis of caste and the exclusion of women of a particular age
group does not constitute as social exclusion of a class. “Treating of persons as
untouchables either temporarily or otherwise for various reasons, e.g., suffering from an
epidemic or a contagious disease, or social observances associated with birth or death, or
social boycott resulting from caste or other disputes do no come within the purview of Art.
17. Art. 17 is concerned with those regarded untouchables in the course of historic
developments.” 13
Therefore, Article 17 and untouchability is in respect to caste based
prejudices and not against women as contended in this case.
12. The restriction is not imposed for creating any stigma against women of menstruating ages
and has no intention of violating the dignity of women but the only aim of such a restriction
is to uphold the austerity and sanctity of the temple. Thus, the restriction on the entry of
women between the ages of 10 and 50 is not violative of Article 14, 15, 17, and 21.

12
Radhika Sekar, The Process of Pilgrimage: The Ayyappa Cultus and Sabarimalai Yatra (1987) (Research thesis,
Faculty of Graduate Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario).
13
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1067 (Lexis Nexis, 6 th edn. , 2010).

14
R CLSGIBS07

ISSUE 3: Whether the restriction imposed on women’s entry is protected by

Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan?
It is humbly submitted by the respondents that the restriction on women’s entry is protected by
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution since firstly, (1) the practice is done in the pursuance of
religious belief and essential and secondly, (2) the devotees have the right to manage their own
affairs.

3.1Practice is done in pursuance of religious belief and is essential

13. Article 25 of the Constitution grants freedom to all persons not just of religious opinion to
but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion. 14 If the belief is genuinely and
conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Art. 25 but subject, of course, to the
inhibitions contained therein.15 As regards the provision of Art. 25(2)(b), which talks of
throwing open of Hindu temples for all, it has been expressly held that it was not intended
to enable the legislature to "reform", a religion out of existence or identity.16
14. It has also been recognised that what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily
to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself 17. The test of
determining an essential religious practice, as laid down by the Apex Court, is to find out
whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking
away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that
religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.18
15. In the present case, the devotees of “Satpura Kalyugvardhan” temple are considered a
religious denomination of their own. The restriction on entry of women by the temple is
closely interlinked with the belief that the Satpura Kalyugvardhan is a staunch celibate god
and entry by the women of menstruating ages will destroy the sanctity of the deity and is
therefore an essential practice of the said denomination. The belief is strongly linked to the
peculiar or special character of the deity of the religious denomination and it is also the
belief that such a practice is essential for the welfare of the temple. Removal of such a

14
Supra note 3.
15
Supra note 5.
16
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. The State Of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853.
17
Supra note 14.
18
Commissioner Of Police & Ors v. Acharya J. Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770.

15
R CLSGIBS07

practice would deprive the denomination of its essence or the fundamental crux on which
the belief and faith of devotees is built.
16. It is further submitted that Art. 25(2)(b) would not be relevant to the case in hand as the
clause does not deal with denominations and their places of worship, as it has expressly
been dealt with in Art. 26. Further, assuming without accepting that the clause applies to
the Satpura temple, the said provision is, in any case, not intended to reform the religion
out of its existence in any case. In the present case, removing the restriction will amount to
obliterating the crux on which the faith of the devotees is based.
17. As regards Article 25(1), at the outset, the whole crux of the denomination rests on the
peculiarity related to the celibacy of the deity and the belief that entering of women of
menstruating ages will destroy the sanctity of the devotee. This is the most fundamental
belief of the denomination which is shared by both men and women devotees alike which
number in lakhs, and hence the restriction has not been questioned by them as it is related
to an essential part of their faith. In that respect, the restriction on entry of women is a part
of the faith of both male and female devotees which is protected by Article 25(1). The
present suit has been brought forth by a third party, which does not profess any faith in the
said denomination.
18. Further, it is humbly submitted that praying in the Satpura Kalyugvardhan temple which
has been averred by the petitioners to be a right granted under Art. 25(1) is subject to the
denominational rights, and is further not an essential part of the doctrine of the
denomination itself. In contrast to this, the belief related to women and celibacy is the
integral part of the denomination. It is submitted that through harmonious construction
between safeguarding the beliefs of devotees as well as protecting the essence of the
religious denomination, the restriction on entry of women is covered and protected by
Article 25.

3.2 Devotees have the right to manage their own affairs

19. Article 26 is a right which is available to religious denominations and grants them freedom
to manage their own affairs, among other things such as the right to administer property
according to law. However, it has been expressly recognised by this Court that
administration is something which can be validly regulated by law made my legislature,
whereas the right to manage affairs in terms of religion is a fundamental right which no
legislature can take away. In the same case, the observation was made that the Constitution

16
R CLSGIBS07

protects not just religious beliefs but also acts done in pursuance of it.19 Further, admittedly,
Art. 26 is subject to public order, morality and health, it is not subject to any other provision
of Part III.
20. In the present case, the practice comes under the right of denomination to manage its own
affairs as it is a practice sanctioned by the faith itself. The restriction cannot be challenged
on the grounds of violating the other fundamental rights as the Article is not subject to other
provisions of Part III.
21. Article 26 is also subject to “public order, morality and health”. Discussing morality and
denominational rights in the case of Young India Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala,
Justice Indu Malhotra, in her judgement, dissented from the majority and recognised the
impugned community to be a religious denomination. She then expressly stated that
“Judicial review of religious practises ought not to be undertaken, as the Court cannot
impose its morality or rationality with respect to the form of worship of a deity. Doing so
would negate the freedom to practise one’s religion according to one’s faith and beliefs. It
would amount to rationalising religion, faith and beliefs, which is outside the ken of
Courts.”
22. Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Court that care should be taken in applying
“morality” to religious practices as it ought not to be arising from Part III of the Constitution
or even the Court’s idea of morality. While talking of morality, the Courts generally
consider it to imply “constitutional morality”20 which itself holds within it the freedom to
practice and profess one’s religion and belief. In the present case, the public morality of the
masses is not affected by the restriction, nor is it against the morality of the devotees
themselves who are part of the religious denomination. The constitutional right of religious
denomination is not to be subjected to the morality of an individual, a section21 or even an
organisation, as in the present case and is hence protected under Article 26.

19
Supra note 17.
20
Supra note 7.
21
Ibid.

17
R CLSGIBS07

ISSUE 4: Whether the rules of maintenance of temples of Rajputra are

valid?

23. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Rule 3(b) is valid as it is well within the limits of
the parent Act as well as within the Constitutional limits itself. Rule 3(b) of The Rajputra
Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is a rule which has
been made by virtue of the Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of
Entry) Act, 1965, a law which seeks to throw open Hindu temples to all, in consonance
with Art. 25(2) (b) of the Constitution of Brahmasthan.
24. Section 3 of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act,
1965 provides that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law
for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue
of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is
open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all sections and
classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be
prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from
worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any religious service therein, in the
like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may
so enter, worship, pray or perform.”22
25. However, the proviso to Section 3 clearly mentions that “in the case of a place of public
worship which is a temple founded for the benefit of any religious denomination or
section thereof, the provisions of this section shall be subject to the right of that
religious denomination or section, as the case may be, to manage its own affairs in
matters of religion.”
26. According to Section 3 proviso, the said Section mandating for throwing open of temples
to all does not apply to religious denomination per se but is subject to right of denomination
under Art. 26. In the present case, the Section 3 will not apply to the Satputra
Kalyugvardhan temple, which is a denominational temple and has imposed the restriction
in consonance with managing its affairs in the matter of its religious belief.
27. Section 4 of The Rajputra Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965,
gives power to make rules for the proper maintenance and order in public places of worship
and the impugned Rule 3(b) has been made in virtue of this Section and it states that

22
The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965, Section 3.

18
R CLSGIBS07

“(b)Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to
enter a place of public worship” shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of
public worship.”23
28. It is submitted before the Honourable Court that Rule 3(b) of The Rajputra Hindu Places
of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, is subject to the provisions of the
Act, from which it has derived its legitimacy and existence. This Rule, which is a form of
statutory recognition of a practice being followed in Satpura temple, is not contrary to
Section 3 of The Rajputra Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act,
1965 since Section 3 is not applicable to religious denominations.
29. It is admitted that the proviso to Section 4 postulates that no discriminatory rules may be
made; however, since an exception has already been created by Section 3 itself which
postulates that religious denominations need not throw open their temples to all Hindus,
the proviso to section 4 will not be applicable in the present case.
30. It has been duly recognised that if the rule making power is not expressed in a usual general
form, it shall have to be seen if the rules made are protected by the limits prescribed by the
parent Act.24 It is submitted humbly that Rule 3(b) is not ultra vires The Rajputra Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965 as it is well within its ambit,
nor is it ultra vires the Constitution since it is in consonance with the right to manage
religious affairs guaranteed by the Constitution itself and is hence, completely valid.

23
The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965, Section 4.
24
Kunj Behari Lal Butail And Ors v. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors, (2000) 1 SCR 1054.

19
R CLSGIBS07

PRAYER

In light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, the counsel
for the appellants humbly prays to the Hon'ble bench of Supreme Court to declare:

1. That the PIL filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan is not maintainable,
2. That the restriction is not violative of Article 14, 15, 17, 21, of the Constitution of
Brahmasthan ,
3. That the restriction is an essential religious practice and the temple has the right to manage
its own affairs,
4. That Rule 3(b) of The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry)
Rules, 1965 is valid.

AND/OR
Pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsels for the respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

Place – BRAHMASTHAN Respectfully Submitted

Sd/-________________
(Counsel for the respondents)

20