Jurisprudence Philosophical Moot

BBA. LLB (2015) A

In the Supreme Court of Murky

Orhan & Ors…………………………………… (Appellants)

v.

The State of Murky………….(Respondent )

In 1995 the State of Murky passed the ‘Preservation of Secularism and Equality of Students Act’ (the
Act) which banned the wearing of headscarves, turbans, crosses and other religious symbols by
students, teachers, and staff in educational institutions. Orhan, the President of the student union of
the University of Murky along with a few other students filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Anatal, a province within Murky, challenging the Act. Their challenge was on the grounds that the
Act violated the right to freedom of religion, right to privacy, and the right to liberty of the citizens of
Murky. All these rights were guaranteed as fundamental rights under the Constitution of Murky.

In its decision in 1998, the High Court of Anatal held that the Act was constitutionally valid. It held
that the right to liberty and the right to freedom of religion had reasonable limitations on them. The
limitation on dresses in educational institutions was reasonable since the state had a compelling
interest in maintaining equality among students. On the right to privacy, the court held that there
was no previous law on such a right applicable to clothing, and thus indeed it was unclear whether
such a right even existed under the Constitution of Murky. This decision was not challenged in the
Supreme Court of Murky.

In 2000, the state of Murky passed the ‘Decency Act’ (DA). The DA mandated that citizens could not
wear revealing dresses wither at public or at home. Such dresses included dresses that revealed skin
above the knee, above the elbows, and any part of the body below a person’s neck. It also included
dresses that were ‘figure hugging’. The validity of the PDA was challenged again by groups of citizens
including Orhan and his friends before the High Court of Anatal. They argued again that the PDA
violated the right to liberty and privacy. The High Court of Anatal struck down parts of the PDA that
controlled what people wore inside their houses. It declared that the right to life with dignity
included the right to privacy and the state had no interest in controlling what people wear inside
their houses as that was their private sphere. The court however ruled that the law was valid
regarding public places as this was within the reasonable restriction of public morality.

1
Orhan and his friends have appealed to the Supreme Court of Court of Murky challenging this
judgment. They argue that the DA is invalid even in relation to the public sphere as it violates
people’s right to liberty.

The state of Murky argues that the High Court decision must be overturned because this is judicial
law making by courts. There is no right to privacy mentioned in the constitution, and as was declared
in the earlier case on the Preservation of Secularism and Equality of Students Act, 1995 there is no
law on the right to privacy and clothing.

Orhan and others argue that the court was right in declaring that the right to privacy applies and
there is no case of judicial overreach here. They however also argue that the courts could not have
declared that wearing revealing courts in public was in the interest of public morality.

You are required to represent the Appellant and the Respondent with only philosophical arguments.
These philosophical arguments must engage with the literature discussed in the course. You are free
to use any other philosophical material of your choice. You are also free to use the bare text of the
Constitution. You are not, however, allowed to use any statute or judicial decision.

The laws of Murky including its constitution are identical to those of India.