Respondent

THAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 25 HAVE NOT BEEN

VIOLATED IN THE INSTANT CASE.
1.)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, practise and propagate religion”. This, however, is
subject to public order, health, morality, and other provisions relating to Fundamental Rights.The
state is not, however, prevented from making any law regulating or restricting any economic,
financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice [Art.
25(2)(a)]; or any law providing for social welfare and reform, or for throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the Hindus [Art. 25(2)(b)].

In Art. 26(a) the words establish and maintain’ go together it means therefore that when: an
institution has been established by a religious denomination then it can claim the right to maintain
the same as well. The right to maintain’ an institution includes the right to administer as well A
denomination has no right to maintain an institution which has not been established by it.

I. RIGHTS UNDER ART. 25 AREN’T AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT: The Supreme Court has
observed that "no rights in an organised society can be absolute. Enjoyment of one's right

must be consistent with enjoyment of rights also by others."1 and more so, the right to
religion has been expressly subjected to public order, morality and health as enshrined under
Article 25 (1)2 and various international instruments 3 have concurred the same. In the present
case the act of Mr. Rocky , Mr. Shresth and Mr. Gopi have indulged into an act which is
against the morality clause of the reasonable restrictions of the article 25 of the Constitution
Of India

1
Acharya Mahajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 2098: (1975) 1 SCC 11.
2
Article 25(1), Constitution of Malp.
3
Article 18(2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948; Article 9(2), European Convention for protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
 II. THE RIGHT TO RELIGION IS SUBJECT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS: A
person can exercise his religious freedom so long as it does not come into conflict with the exercise
of Fundamental Rights of others.4Enjoyment of one's right must be consistent with the enjoyment of
rights also by others. Where in a free play of social forces it is not possible to bring about a
voluntary harmony, the state has to step in to set right the imbalance between competing
interests.5The Court has further observed that "a particular Fundamental Right cannot exist in
isolation in a water tight compartment. One Fundamental Right of a person may have to co-exist in
harmony with the exercise of another Fundamental rights by others and valid exercise of power by
the State.6

In Clause (3) of Article 18 of the International Covenant, it is provided that the freedom of
religion guaranteed by that Article 18 to everyone is subject to fundamental rights of
others.7Though there is no express provision in the Indian Constitution, in identical language,
the same conclusion can be drawn from the words 'subject to the other provisions of this part'
8
It also

4
See Professor M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 349 (Samaraditya Pal, Justice Ruma Pal, 6th Ed., 2013).

5
Acharya Mahajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 2098: (1975) 1 SCC 11. See also
Church of God (full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare Association, (2000) 7 SCC 282: AIR 2000 SC 2773.
6
Part IV, Constitution of Malp.

7
Ali Akbar v. Dt. Musiff Pudukkotiar, AIR 1993 Mad 51.
8
Durga Das Basu's Commentary on the Constitution of India, 3481 (Justice Y.V Chandrachud, Justice S.S Subbramani,
Justice B.P Banerjee, 8th Ed. 2008).
follows from the general limitation to all human rights, as stipulated by Article 29(2) of
the Universal Declaration and Article 12(3) of the Covenant.

I. Article 26 gives the Freedom to manage religious affairs

Article 26(b) to manage its own affairs in the matter of religion gives the right
to religious denomination to manage their religious organization with free will
the test to prove whether a religious organization is a denomination was laid
In The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. v. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors.9 , another
Constitution Bench considering the ratio laid in Shirur Math's case explained
Sri' Venkataramana Devaru's case 10and had laid down that the words
"religious denomination" under Article 26 of the Constitution must take their
colour from the word religion and if this be so the expression religious
denomination must also specify three conditions, namely it must be (1) a
collection of religious faith, a system of belief which is conducive to the
spiritual well-being i.e., a common faith; (2) common organisation; (3) a
designation by a distinctive name. It is humbly submitted that in the present
case the TRISCO Trust satisfies all the above laid conditions so in the present
case TRISCO is a religious Denomination so it has all the rights to have its
own rules and regulations, The right to maintain’ an institution includes the
right to administer

9
In The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. v. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. [1962] 1 SCR 383
10
Sri' Venkataramana Devaru's case [1958] SCR 895