LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: __ OF 2019

(A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus or any other

appropriate writs seeking directions and/or guidelines in respect of prohibition of entry of women between

the age of 10 years to 50 years in Karimala Temple, Serala)

IN THE MATTER OF

Public Spirited Lawyers Association, Serela

... Appellent

Versus

Devappa Devasom Board, Serela ... Respondents

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And his companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India

The Special Leave Petition of the Appellent above named

-Filed by the Advocate of the Appellent(s)

 INDEX

Contents Page No.

1) Index 1

2) Notice of Motion 2

3) Certificate 3

4) Urgency Application 4

5) Array of Parties 5

6) Writ Petition

a Abbreviations used 6

b Authority Index 7

c Statement of Jurisdiction 8

d Facts of the case 9

e Question of Law 10

7) Grounds 11

8) Prayer 17

Page 1 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Notice of Motion

Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed the accompanying petition along with its annexures that we are filing before

Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of the Appellents herein. The matter is likely to be listed before the

Hon’ble Court on or on any other day as per the convenience of Hon’ble Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

Through

Mr. Counsel

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLENT(S)

Dated: 23/2/2019

Place: New Delhi

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 4 of 17
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the identical coloured copies of the respective originals have been supplied to the

respective respondents.

Respectfully Submitted,

Through

Mr. Counsel

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLENT(S)

Dated: 23/2/2019

Place: New Delhi

Page 3 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Urgency Application

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India

Subject: Application for Urgent Listing of the matter

Ref.: WP (CIVIL) NO.: __ OF 2019

Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent. The ground of urgency is the fact that the Respondent

has restricted the entries of women inside the temple. Therefore, urgent intervention of the Hon’ble

Court is sought in the petition. Hence, kindly list this matter before the Hon’ble Court urgently.

Respectfully Submitted,

Through

Mr. Counsel

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLENT(S)

Dated: 23/2/2019

Place: New Delhi

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 4 of 17
 Array of Parties

1. Public Spirited Lawyers Association, Serela … Appellent No. 1

The Appellent(s) does not have any personal interest or any persona gain or private motive or any

other oblique reason in filing this Writ Appellent in Public Interest.

VERSUS

1. Devappa Devasom Board

Through the members of the Board … Respondent No. 1

2. State Government of Serela

Through its Chief Secretary, Serala Secretariat ... Respondent No. 2

3. Union of India

Through Ministry of Home Affairs … Respondent No. 3

All the respondents being the appropriate ministry dealing with safeguarding the fundamental rights of

the citizens. Further, the Respondents referred to hereinabove are “State” within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution and hence amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Appellent espouses the cause of safeguarding the fundamental rights of the equality before the law,

law seeking protection of promotion of women and children, right against the practice of untouchability

in any form, right to life and liberty, practice of religion under article 14, 15(3), 17, 21, 25 respectively

and striking down the laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the citizens religious under article

13 of the Indian Constitution.

Page 5 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Abbreviations

Sr. Abbreviation Full form

1 Hon’ble Honourable

2 UOI Union of India

3 SC Supreme Court of India

4 Mah. Maharashtra

The Serela Hindu Places of Public Worship

5 The 1965 rules/ act
(Authorisations of Entry) Rules/Act, 1965

5 Sec. Section

6 v/s or v. Versus

7 Ors. Others

8 AIR All India Reporter

9 SCC Supreme Court Cases

11 Article Article

12 Anr. Another

13 Ind. India

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 4 of 17
 Authority Index

1. Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and another1[(1989) 2 SCC 145]

2. Commissioner of Police and others v Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another [(2004) 12 SCC

770]

3. Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others [(1997) 6 SCC 241]

4. Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore, 1958 SCR 895/ AIR 1958 SC 255 (Devaru case)

5. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR 2016

SC 209

6. Manoj Narula v. Union of India, 2014 (9) SCC 1

7. International obligations under CEDAW relating to Gender Justice

8. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of UP, 1997 (4) SCC 606

9. A S Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of AP 1996 (9) SCC 548

10. Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Anr (Sastri Yagnapurushadji case),

1966 3 SCR 242/ AIR 1966 SC 1119

11. Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Anr, 1966 3 SCR 242/ AIR 1966 SC

1119: Paras: 33, 35-38, 40-41

12. Bhimsaya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alias Janawwa, (2006) 13 SCC 627 in Paras 13, 21-26

13. S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board (AIR 1993 Ker 42 / O.P No. 9015 of 1990-S

decided on 05.04.1991)

14. Charu Khurana v. Union of India, 2015 (1) SCC 192

15. S. Mahendran v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kerala HC

16. State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014) 12 SCC 696, at Pg. 788

17. Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur

Mutt

18. Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju, Through Member, Juvenile Justice Board & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 390

Page 7 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Reference Materials
Books

(1) J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India

(2) M. P. Jain, India Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.

Bare Acts

(1) The Constitution of India

(2) India Penal Code, 1860

(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(4) The other relevant International Instruments on Women are:

(i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),

(ii) Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952),

(iii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966),

(iv) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966),

(v) Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1967),

(vi) Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict (1974),

(vii) Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Elimination of Violence against

Women (1995),

(viii) Universal Declaration on Democracy (1997), and

(ix) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women

(1999).

(x) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (PCRA)

Websites

(1) www.scconline.com

(2) www.thelegalhighness.com

(3) www.lawnotes.in

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 4 of 17
 Statement of Jurisdiction

It is humbly submitted that, the Appellent has appeared before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the

Writ Petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions against

the Govt. of Serela, Devappa Devasom Board to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of

10 to 50 years to Lord Devappa Temple at Serela on the grounds of Customs/ Traditions; and to declare Rule

3(b) of the 1965 Rules as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 51A (e).

Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to

enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in

the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them.

The Supreme Court of India has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India

in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution

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.

This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction of matters in which interest of the public at large is involved and the

Court can be moved by any individual or group of persons either by filing a Writ Petition at the Filing

Counter of the Court or by addressing a letter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India highlighting the question

of public importance for invoking this jurisdiction. Such concept is popularly known as 'Public Interest

Litigation' and several matters of public importance have become landmark cases. This concept is unique to

the Supreme Court of India only and perhaps no other Court in the world has been exercising this

extraordinary jurisdiction. A Writ Petition filed at the Filing Counter is dealt with like any other Writ

Petition and processed as such. In case of a letter addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India the same is

dealt with in accordance with the guidelines framed for the purpose.

Page 9 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

Facts of the case

• Karimala Temple, the abode of Swami Devappa, is one of the most famous and visited temples in the State

of Serela. It is administered and managed by Devappa Devasom Board (DDB).

• The temple is governed by the Serela Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act 1965

which authorizes the temple administration to frame rules regarding the administration of the temple.

• Lord Devappa is believed to be an eternal celibate (Naishtik Bramhachari) and hence as per the custom,

women of menstruating age are not allowed to visit the temple.

• Rule 3(b) of the Serela Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965 authorizes the

exclusion of Women of menstruating age (10 years to 50 years) from visiting the temple.

• Aggrieved by the said rule some public spirited citizens filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Serela High

Court challenging the said rule as discriminatory and hence in violation of Articles 14, 15 17 and 25. The

Devappa Devasom Board contended that the priests have the final authority to decide upon these matters as

it is a religious denomination and has rights 10 manage its own matters.

• The Serela High Court upheld the said rule and thus the exclusion of Women from visiting the temple as

constitutional and justified, as it was a long standing custom prevailing since time immemorial.

• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision. A Special Leave seeking allowance of Writ Petition is preferred

before the Apex court. Where it is referred to the Constitution Bench to decide upon the crucial issue.

• The Appellents have challenged Rule 3(b) as Violative of rights under Articles 13, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 25 of

the Constitution of India.

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 10 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Question of Law

1. Whether Rule 3(b) of The Serala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules which

authorises any religious denomination the exclusion of woman violates 14, 15(3) of the Constitution of

India?

YES: It definitely violates the said Articles

2. a. Whether exclusion of woman at Public places of worship is an essential practice of religion?

NO: It is not an essential practice of the religion.

b. Does it violate Article 25, 26?

YES: It violates the fundamental right to religious practice.

3. Whether the exclusionary practice based on the biological factor regarding menstruation of women
violates

Article 14, 15, 17, 21?

YES: It definitely violates the said Articles

4. Whether it is protected by morality used in Article 25, 26 of the Constitution of India?

NO: Since, it should be perceived as CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY and not individual

morality.

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 11 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Grounds

Issue 1: Whether Rule 3(b) of The Serala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)

Rules which authorises any religious denomination the exclusion of woman violates 14, 15(3) of the

Constitution of India?

YES: It definitely violates the said Articles

Firstly, the exclusionary practice of preventing women between the age group of 10 to 50 years based on

physiological factors exclusively to be found in female gender violates Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, for such a discrimination does not have a constitutional object. There cannot be any unreasonable

classification among women on the basis of physiological factors such as menstruation by which women

below 10 years and above 50 years are allowed. As per Article 14, any law being discriminatory in nature

has to have the existence of an intelligible differentia and the same must bear a rational nexus with the object

sought to be achieved. The object, as has been claimed, is to prevent the deity from being polluted, which

runs counter to the constitutional object of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as enshrined in the

Preamble to our Constitution. That apart, though the classification based on menstruation may be intelligible,

yet the object sought to be achieved being constitutionally invalid, the question of nexus need not be delved

into. The object of preventing deflecting of the idol from the stage of celibacy cannot be achieved from the

present classification.

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 12 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and another1 - the exclusionary practice per se violates the sacrosanct

principle of equality of women and equality before law and the burden of proving that it does not so violate

is on the respondent.

Secondly, Article 15(3) provides for protective classification with the intent to promote women and children.

But, the 1965 Rules run contrary to the said provision and are not only adversely discriminatory but also

oppressive on the other hand. Thus, the very premise of Article 13 is brought into question and the 1965

rules squarely falls within its ambit whereby making Rule 3(b) of The Serala Hindu Places of Public

Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 inapplicable by the principle of Doctrine of Eclipse.

Issue 2: Whether exclusion of woman at Public places of worship is an essential practice of religion?
Does it violate Article 25, 26?

No, exclusion of women at Public places of worship is not an essential practice of religion. The

discrimination in matters of entry to temples is neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated with Hindu religion

as the religion does not discriminate against women but, on the contrary, it accords to women a higher

pedestal in comparison to men and such a discrimination is totally anti-Hindu and anti-religious, for

restriction on the entry of women is not the essence of Hindu religion. If Karimala temple is taken as a

religious denomination, their basic tenets are not confined to taking of oath of celibacy for certain period of

pilgrimage as all pilgrims are allowed freely in the temple and there is no such practice of not seeing the

sight of women during this period.

Further, mere sight of women cannot affect one’s celibacy if one has taken oath of it, otherwise such

oath has no meaning and moreover, the devotees do not go to the Karimala temple for taking the oath of

celibacy but for seeking the blessings of Lord Devappa. Maintaining celibacy is only a ritual for some who

want to practise it and for which even the temple administration has not given any justification.

1 : [(1989) 2 SCC 145]

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 13 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The exclusion of women is not an essential practice as it does not satisfy the test of essential practice as has

been laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Police and others v Acharya Jagadishwarananda

Avadhuta and another2. The right to manage its own affairs conferred upon a religious denomination under

Article 26(b) is subject to be rights guaranteed to Hindu women under Article 25(2) (b). Based on Doctrine

of Harmonious Construction of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution reveals that neither Article 26

enables the State to make a law excluding any women from the right to worship in any public temple nor

does it protect any custom that discriminates against women and, thus, such exclusion amounts to destruction

of the rights of women to practise religion guaranteed under Article 25.

The said practices cannot be held to be the essence of religion as they had evolved out of convenience

and, in due course of time, have become crude accretions. The examples of the practices of dowry and

restriction of women from entering mosques which, although had come into existence due to certain factors

existing at the relevant time, no longer apply.

The Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the fact that

India is a party to this Convention for emphasizing that it is the obligation of the State to eradicate taboos

relating to menstruation based on customs or traditions and further the State should refrain from invoking the

plea of custom or tradition to avoid their obligation.

This Court in Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others 3 has cited that “…international
conventions must be followed when there is a void in the domestic law or when there is any inconsistency in
the norms for construing the domestic law.”

Issue 3: Whether the exclusionary practice based on the biological factor regarding menstruation of
women violates Article 14, 15, 17, 21?

YES: It definitely violates the said Articles

2 : [(2004) 12 SCC 770]

3 : [(1997) 6 SCC 241]

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 14 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

As aforementioned, not only 14 and 15(3) but, it also touches Article 17 - exclusionary practice has the

impact of casting a stigma on women of menstruating age for it considers them polluted and thereby has a

huge psychological impact on them which resultantly leads to violation of Article 17 as the expression “…in

any form” in Article 17 includes untouchability based on social factors and is wide enough to cover

menstrual discrimination against women. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 which was enacted in

furtherance of the said article is also violated, since it mandates that untouchability in all forms shall be

abolished and this kind of exclusionary practice which is neither supported by any scripture nor any custom

whatsoever is precisely an act of untouchability and which is being practiced as crude accretions only.

Furthermore it affects Article 21 as well - the exclusionary practice pertaining to women is violative of

Article 21 of the Constitution as it impacts the ovulating and menstruating women to have a normal social

day to day rendezvous with the society including their family members and, thus, undermines their dignity

by violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The term celibacy is merely abstinence from sexual intercourse

and is only symbolic for the devotees who practice it for a mandala, i.e., 48 days. Thinking that women

cannot go through the said practice is denigrating and objectifying them, which ultimately affects the right to

liberty of women.

Issue 4: Whether it is protected by morality used in Article 25, 26 of the Constitution of India?

It does not come in the category of religious, it would come within the purview of Article 12 making it

subject to Articles 14 and 15 and, hence, the State would be restrained from denying equal protection of law

and cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. Even if it is concluded that Karimala is a religious

denomination, then as per the Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore, 1958 4 (Devaru

case) case, there has to be a harmonious construction between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and,

thus, to completely deny women of the age group of 10 to 50 years from entering the temple would be

impermissible as per the Devaru case. Finally, the Appellents have submitted that in legal and constitutional

4 : [SCR 895/ AIR 1958 SC 255]

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 15 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

parlance, after coming into effect of the Constitution of India, “dignity of women” under Article 51A (e) is

an essential ingredient of constitutional morality.

The exclusionary practice in the present case cannot be justified either on the grounds of health,

public order or morality for the term “morality” used in Article 25 or 26 is not an individualized or

sectionalized sense of morality subject to varying practices and ideals of every religion but it is the morality

informed by the constitutional vision. The judgments of this Court in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala

Sangam and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 5,

Manoj Narula v. Union of India and National Legal Services Authority, 2014 6 accentuates that any

subjective reading of the term “morality” in the context of Article 25 would make the liberty of faith and

worship otiose and the exclusion of women as in the present case is a matter of institutional practice and not

morality.

5 : AIR 2016 SC 209

6 : [(9) SCC 1]

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 16 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYERS

In light of the questions presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, counsel for

the State of Maharashtra, most humbly prays that: -

A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to ensure that all women are

allowed entry into the main (Sanctum Sanctorum) Temple in Serala.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ to further to ensure that no prohibition is put on women for

their entry inside the Sanctum Sanctorum of holy Temple by any person, authority, trust or body and

further that women be allowed to perform all the rituals that any other person/devotee is allowed to

perform inside the Temple.

C. Declare the practice of prohibition on women for their entry inside the Sanctum Sanctorum of the holy

temple, and Rule 3(b) of The Serala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules,

1965 to be illegal and unconstitutional.

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 17 of 17
 LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE, PUNE FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

D. Pass an order directing immediate removal of signage/ Display boards inside or nearby the temple

showing prohibition of entry of women inside the temple.

E. Pass any such directions or order which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the above mentioned case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLENTS ARE DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER

PRAY.

Respectfully submitted,

Through

Mr. Counsel

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLENT(S)

Dated: 23/2/2019

Place: New Delhi

PETITIONER’S MEMORIAL
Page 18 of 17