Professional Documents
Culture Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
KANTARU RAJEEVARU
Memorial on Behalf of Appellant/ 1
NAVJEEVAN LAW COLLEGE, NASHIK
TABLE OF CONTENT
Sr. Page
Table of Contents
No. No
1 Index of Authorities 3-4
2 Statement of Jurisdiction 5
3 Statement of Facts 6-7
4 Statement of Issues 8
5 Summary of Arguments 9
6 Arguments Advanced – Appellant 10-12
7 Prayer Clause – Appellant 13
8 Arguments Advanced – Respondent 14-16
9 Prayer Clause – Respondent 17
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. STATUTES –
B. PROVISIONS-
Article 14 - 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.
Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and children.
Article 17- Abolition of Untouchability
The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955- Definition not provided in
Constitution or Any Act.
Section 7(1)(d) in The Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955- Clause 24
defining untouchability. It was omitted by the Joint Committee.
Article 25- Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion (Individual F.R) -
Subject to Public order, Morality and Health.
Article 26 - Freedom to manage religious affairs(Group
F.R)- Temple authority manages their religious
institution that they can create rules
Article 137 and Rule made under Article 145 of
The Constitution of India. Order 47 SC Rules
C.BOOKS-
D. WEBSITES:
i) www.india-laws.com
ii) www.indiankanoon.com
iii) www.supremecourtofindia-caselaw.com
iv) www.Navi.com
v) www.lexsite.com
vi) www.lawofindia.com
vii) www.indianlegal.com
viii) www.lawguru.com
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has to review this
matter under Article 137 of Indian Constitution.
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. ADVANCED ARGUMENTS on
behalf of Appellant
1. Mylord, Honabale SC decides the judgment on support of
Article 15 of IC which provides that the Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth. But the customs of a temple cannot be struck down for
violating Article 15. Article 15(2) is applicable to secular public
institution, religious institutions are not within its purview.
Also the judgment's interpretation of Article 15 is not consistent
with previous Supreme Court judgments. In the case of Bijoe
Emmanuel vs State of Kerala decided on 11 August 1986, where
the Court established that religious beliefs held by persons
cannot be tested on the grounds of rationality. The Supreme
Court’s September judgment did not consider the crucial aspect
that Article 15 (2) does not cover religious places. The omission
to consider this aspect constitutes an error apparent on record.
4. Also the Bench had incorrectly applied the test for essential
practices which were laid down in the Shirur Math Case- 1954
while ruling on whether the exclusion was an essential practice.
The controversy is an internal matter and the members of the
community must decide whether or not the custom is essential
to devotees of Lord Ayyappa. The effect of the judgment is a
direction given to a religious community that they should not
hold a belief. This is an internal affair of a religion. Unless there
is a criminal law which forbids a practice, Courts cannot
interfere” The judgement of the bench is not acceptable to the
community. The judgement directed a particular religious
community to not hold a belief that had been an intrinsic part of
their religion.
5. The Hon Supreme Court did not rule on whether the custom
was an essential religious practice and that thus, the Kerala High
Court’s Sabarimala judgment which ruled that the exclusion
was an essential religious practice remains unchallenged and
final. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that devotees of Lord
Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination. The
essential religious practice test is applied at the unit of a
religious denomination. Hence, the Court was concerned with
the question of whether the practice is essential for Hinduism
writ large. Persons from other religions worshipped Ayyappa it
does not follow that the Devaswom Board does not constitute a
distinct denomination and on this particular ground, the verdict
of the Court needs to be reviewed by the Bench.
7. Prayer Clause
And/ Or
2. Pass any other order other than it deems fit in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience. And for this, the counsel on
behalf of appellant as in duty bound shall humbly pray.