Team Code- 109

MANAV RACHNA LAW AND TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL MOOT

COURT
5th AMITY INTRA COMPETITION,
MOOT 2022
COURT COMPETITION, 2022
2021

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Under Article 32 of Constitution of Indriyana
P.I.L.No:______/2022

In the matter of

Sadda Hakk (NGO)….…………………………………………. (PETITIONER)

VERSUS
State of Ambrela Pradesh………..………………………………… (RESPONDENT)

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES

OF THE SUPREME COURT

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….....05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………....07

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………08

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………….10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….......11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………13

1. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION OR
NOT?.................................................................................................................................13
1.1. Lack of Prerequisites Quintessential For P.I.L………………………………………13
1.2. The Maintainability of a Writ Petition Which Is Co-Related To The Existence and
Violation of a Fundamental Right is not always be confused with Locus to bring
a proceeding under Art. 32 of Constitution of Indriyana……………………………14

2. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM

TO PROFESS, OR PRACTICE OF RELIGION MENTIONED UNDER ARTICLE
25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA, 1950, AND WHETHER THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 295A OF
INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT?..............................................................15
2.1. Non-Absoluteness of Art. 25…………………………………………………………15
2.2. School’s Regulations are not violative of Article 25…………………………………16
2.3. School authorities are not punishable under Section 295A of Indriyana Penal Code..17

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

3. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?................................................................................................................................19
3.1.School has not violated Right to Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the
Constitution of Indriyana rather it promoted the same ……………………………….19
3.2.School has not violated Right to Freedom as construed by Article 19 of the
Constitution of Indriyana……………………………………………………………..21

4. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?.........................................................................23
4.1. Do publications in the media subconsciously affect the Judges?.................................23
4.2. The Fourth Pillar and the Reasonable Restrictions…………………………………..24

PRAYER FOR RELIEFS………………………………………………………………….27

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
ANR Another
ART. Article
AIR All India Reporter
CRILJ Criminal Law Journal
ORS Others
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union Of India
V. Versus
WLN Weekly Law Notes
W.P. (C) Writ Petition (Civil)

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. ACTS & STATUTES

q Constitution of India, 1950
q Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

B. LEGAL DATABASE
q Manupatra
q SCC Online

C. BOOKS
q Shorter Constitution of India By D.D. Basu (Ed. 15th)
q Indian Penal Code By Rattanlal & Dhirajlal (Ed. 34th)
q Indian Constitutional Law By M.P. Jain (Ed. 8th)
q Indian Penal Code By S.N. Mishra (Ed. 22nd)

D. CASE LAWS

ISSUE 1.

1. Hindi Hitarakshak Samiti v. Union of India 13

2. General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad and other 14

3. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Registered) Sindri and others v. Union of 14

India and others
ISSUE 2.

4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 16

5. Santosh Singh v. Union of India 16

6. Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao vs Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao 16

7. Prayag Das vs. Civil Judge Bulandshahr 16

8. Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. 16

9. Ramji Lal v. State of U.P 17

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

10 Harnam Das v. State of U.P 18

11. Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 18

12. Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar 18

ISSUE 3.

13. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerela 21

14. Sir. M. Venkata Subba Rao By its Secretary v. Sir. M. Venkata Subba Rao by its 21
Correspondent
15. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwaranda Avadhuta 21

16. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 22

18. Amna Bint Basheer & Another v. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), 22
New Delhi & Another
ISSUE 4.

19. Reliance Petrochemicals v. Proprietor of Indian Express 22

20. PC Sen 23

21. John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida 23

22. Nebraska Press Association v. Hugh Stuart 23

23. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal 24

24. M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal 24

25. Rao Harnarain v. Gumori Ram 24

26. Bijoyananda v. Bala Kush 24

27. Harijai Singh v. Vijay Kumar 25

28. Saibal v. B.K. Sen 25

29. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi 26

30. Sahara India Real Estate v. Securities and Exchange Board of India 26

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana, the
memorandum for the Respondent in Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) filed by Petitioner under
Art. 321 of the Constitution of Indriyana. However, the Respondents seek permission of this
Hon’ble Court to contend the maintainability of this Public Interest Litigation.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

1
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
7

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

‘ STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the facts of the present case
are summarised hereunder:-

BACKGROUND
1. Indriyana is a developing democratic country in the Asian Continent. It is the second-most
populous country in the world. It consists of 28 States and 9 Union Territories. The
diversity in cultural aspects like religion, language, traditions etc. is truly a remarkable
feature.
2. Taking inspiration from the Constitutions of the major democracies of the world, the
Constitution of Indriyana was wisely drafted by the members of its Constituent Assembly.
Democracy, Equality and Secularism are the essence of the Constitution. It encompasses
the values of Human Dignity and Equality. It guarantees to its citizens certain Fundamental
Rights - the scope of which is considerably enlarged by the dynamic judgments of the
Supreme Court of Indriyana.
3. In Indriyana, the majority of legal orders are built on a hierarchical system of legal actions,
with the Constitution at the top. A State's laws and other legal actions must be consistent
with Constitutional ideals. According to the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950, the State has
specific responsibilities towards its citizens, including but not limited to the protection of
basic rights, and the Supreme Court of Indriyana serves as a right preserver. If a statute or
other legal measure established by the State is in conflict with the Fundamental Rights of
the citizens guaranteed under Indriyana Constitution, the Supreme Court, as a guardian,
shall declare it null and void to the extent of inconsistency with the provisions.

RELEASE OF CIRCULAR
4. On 7 March 2002, All Boys Kristian Convent School a Minority run School (as per Article
29 and 30 of Indriyana Constitution) released a Circular asking all the students to follow
the new Regulations framed by the new administration of the School, one of which
mentioned that every student should have a military haircut, failing which they would not
be allowed to sit for the Final Term Examination. On 12 March 2022, two students from
Eleventh Grade were barred from entering the School premises as they were wearing
Turbans.

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

INTERVENTION BY THE NGO

5. A lot of people of the same community came forward with similar experiences across the
nation, which an NGO, named “Sadda Hakk”, noticed and approached the aggrieved
parties. Sadda Hakk is an NGO that operates at pan Indriyana level. It is an unparalleled
socio- cultural organization of minorities and poor class of the nation. The purpose of the
NGO is to legally defend civil liberties and the democratic rights of the people.

SCHOOL’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT

6. The School released an official statement stating that the educational institutions are secular
public places and are meant to impart knowledge and wisdom employment, good health
and contribute to nation building, and not to follow essential and non-essential religious
practices. The School further added that the administration has not framed any Regulation
with the intent to hurt any one’s religious sentiments and it believes that it was essential to
introduce a common dress code in order to promote the secular character of educational
institutions and bring forth uniformity amongst the students. Seeing the issue gaining
prominence, some news channels also started a media trial. This further enraged the social
media community as they demanded a written apology from the School authorities.

NGO APPROACHES THE APEX COURT

7. Sadda Hakk filed a PIL on 31 July 2022 on behalf of the aggrieved in the Apex Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, demanding the right to wear Turban in School premises and
it also alleged that the School Regulations were violative of Article 25 of the Constitution
which protects "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion." The NGO in the PIL further argued that the act created a mass hysteria in the
minds of the community and the School authorities should be held liable for the same.
Further, it demanded that the School authorities should be punished under Section 295-A
of the Indriyana Penal Code, 1860, for hurting religious sentiments of the aggrieved parties
and their community. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for 25th
August, 2022.

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana is presented with following issues:-

ISSUE 1.SUE 1.

Whether the P.I.L. is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indriyana under appropriate jurisdiction or not?

ISSUE 2.

Whether the School Regulations are violative of Freedom to Profess, or \

Practice of Religion mentioned under Article 25 of the Constitution of
Indriyana, 1950, and whether the School authorities can be held liable under
section 295A of Indriyana Penal Code, 1860 or not?

ISSUE 3.

Whether the School has violated the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and
19 of the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950?

ISSUE 4.SUE 1.

Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in order to stop the Media
Trial or not?

10

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE
JURISDICTION OR NOT?

The Respondents humbly submit that this P.I.L. is not maintainable because it lacks the
prerequisites which are quintessential for a P.I.L. This Hon’ble Court in multiple judgments
has held that P.I.L. under Article 32 is maintainable only when there is a direct infringement
of Fundamental Rights and violation of Fundamental Rights is a sine qua non. But in the present
case the direction issued by the School was bona fide in nature whose sole aim was to promote
discipline and secularism so no violation of Fundamental Rights prima facie. The action of
School was justified as it was done to bring about uniformity amongst the students without
granting special perks to a particular group of students. Apart from this it’s vital that the
maintainability of a writ petition which is co-related to the existence and violation of a
fundamental right is not always to be confused with the locus to bring a proceeding under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indriyana.

II. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF

FREEDOM TO PROFESS, OR PRACTICE OF RELIGION MENTIONED
UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA, 1950, AND
WHETHER THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 295A OF INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT?

The Respondent humbly submit that regulations of the School are in no manner violative of
freedom to profess or practice of religion and neither they are liable under Section 295A of
Indriyana Penal Code, 1860. The argument behind it is that the decision of the School was
based on bona fide intent and did not carry any deliberate or malicious motive, since it was
done with the sole objective of discipline which is considered as cornerstone of every
educational institution. The steps taken by the School were necessary to prevent malpractices
in the examination and if it is not done so it might put rest of the students in state of
disadvantage, so in order to ensure applicability and uniformity of the rules over all the students
equally it was quintessential decision.
11

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

III. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?
The Respondent humbly submit that there has been no infringement of Right of Equality under
Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of Indriyana as no right is absolute in its terms and
application, even the Fundamental Rights. Sometimes infringement of these rights to bring
about social welfare is totally justified. The fact that the School rolled out such directions was
to prevent any sort of malpractices and promote secularism by ensuring uniformity amongst
the students without giving any undue advantage to a particular segment of students. While the
directions issued by School was not to hinder upon the Right to Equality but to promote it.

IV. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?

The Respondent humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court should intervene in the impugned
Media Trial since it is used as a medium to lead astray in the minds of the public at large.
“Presumption of innocence until proven guilty” is a principle deeply embedded in the Laws of
Land but practices like Media Trial totally contradict it and pronounce their own verdicts before
the Court. If this is not put to halt at the very onset, it might cause irreparable damage to the
reputation of the School, since the steps taken by it were bona fide and aimed at catering
discipline. Media Trial on this issue will not just create a havoc in the public but also put the
School in a bad light. Although Media has Freedom of Press but the fact that it is not an absolute
right cannot be ignored specially when its detrimental to justice.

12

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE
JURISDICTION OR NOT?.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

1.1. LACK OF PREREQUISITES QUINTESSENTIAL FOR P.I.L.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant matter is not maintainable
before the Court of Law. The Petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to maintain the matter
before the apex Court.
No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The
violation of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non for the exercise of the right conferred by
Art. 32. In the given case, the educational institution has just specified the dress code for the
students, so that the uniformity in the institution could be maintained and hence no
Fundamental Right has been infringed. In addition to this, a person acquires a locus standi,
when he has to have a personal or individual right which has been violated or threatened to be
violated. Since, no right of petitioner has been infringed, he has no locus standi before the
Hon’ble Court.

As said in the case Hindi Hitarakshak Samiti v. Union of India2— By the Hon’ble Apex
Court--
“We are of the opinion that the prayers sought for herein are not such which can be
appropriately, properly and legitimately dealt with under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees enforcement of fundamental rights. It is well-
settled that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an important
and integral part of the Indian Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua
non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court. In order to establish the

2
(1990) 1 SCJ 617 AIR 1990 SC 851: (1990) 2 SCC 638
13

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

violation of a fundamental right, the Court has to consider the direct and inevitable
consequences of the action which is sought to be remedied or the guarantee of which is sought
to be enforced.”

In the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad and
others3, in a writ application filed by terminated workman of Sugarmills Co-operative Society,
Supreme Court again considered the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 and
held as under: “that it is only in the circumstances when the authority or the person performs a
public function or discharges a public duty that Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked."
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.

1.2. THE MAINTAINABILITY OF A WRIT PETITION WHICH IS CO-RELATED TO

THE EXISTENCE AND VIOLATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IS NOT
ALWAYS TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE LOCUS TO BRING A PROCEEDING
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA

In case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Registered) Sindri and others v. Union of
India and others4, in which it was observed that the maintainability of a writ petition which is
co-related to the existence and violation of a fundamental right is not always to be confused
with the locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. And also it
was made clear that lest there should be misapprehension, a clear distinction is to be kept
between fundamental right to enforce fundamental rights and the interest sufficient to claim
relief under this Article.
Moreover, in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 32 of the Constitution to approach this
Court directly, it has to be shown by the petitioner as to why the High Court has not been
approached, could not be approached or it is futile to approach the High Court. Unless
satisfactory reasons are indicated in this regard, filing of petition in such matters directly under
Art. 32 of the Constitution is to be discouraged. Hence, it is submitted that the petition
submitted before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable and thus should be rejected.

3
Appeal (civil) 5466 of 2002
4
AIR 1981 SC 344
14

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

II. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE TO

FREEDOM TO PROFESS, OR PRACTISE OF RELIGION MENTIONED
UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA , 1950 AND
WHETHER THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 295A OF THE INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT ?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

2.1. NON-ABSOLUTENESS OF ARTCILE 25

Article 25 reads: "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of
this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practise and propagate religion."

This right, however, is not absolute. The opening words of Article 25(1) make this right
subject to public order, morality and health, and also to the other provisions of Part III of the
Constitution. This would mean that the right given to a person under 25(1) can be curtailed or
regulated if the exercise of that right would violate other provisions of Part III of the
Constitution, or if the exercise thereof is to in consonance with public order, morality and
health. In the present case scenario, the action of the School was to promote public order and
discipline in the School because without these basic tenets the purpose of education remains
unfulfilled. Every coin has two sides if the Constitution has granted the Fundamental Right to
Freedom then it has also layed down the grounds under which it can be compromised to an
extent. The restriction imposed by the School was neither excessive nor unreasonable.
The School’s direction was necessary to uphold the mandates of ideas of Secularism as well
wherein it did so with the holy grail of securing a sense of uniformity in the students and not
giving and special perks or relaxation to a particular group or class just because that group
belongs to a different religion. The School’s direction were not just to uphold the mandates of
discipline but also the Constitution and therefore, it seems unreasonable to deduce that it has
violated Art. 25 of the Constitution of Indriyana in any manner whatsoever.

15

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

2.2. SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE NOT VIOLATIVE UNDER ARTICLE 25

Hon’ble Supreme Court Case, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,5 wherein it was held that,
“…mixing up of religion with secular activities, is only based on the broad policy of equal
treatment of all religion and maintaining neutrality of public functionaries.”
In regard to the liberty given to parents to choose the value and type of education to be imparted
to their child, Hon’ble Court stated that, though the Constitution protects the said liberty, the
State has not lost its power to regulate the curriculum of education to ensure guidance in the
making of true citizens on the foundation of ideals of Constitution.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Singh v. Union of India6, referred to education as an

important instrument towards the development of the individual as well as an instrument in
nation-building. It is further opined that the acceptance of plurality and diversity of ideas,
images, and faith is a result of education.

In Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao vs Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao7, The challenge in this case was
prescribing a dress code for the teachers. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court
while dismissing the challenge said:-

“that the teachers are entrusted with not only teaching subjects prescribed under the syllabus,
but also entrusted with the duty of inculcating discipline amongst the students, they should set
high standards of discipline. Dress code, in our view, is one of the modes to enforce discipline
not only amongst the students, but also amongst the teachers.”

Prayag Das vs. Civil Judge Bulandshahr8, The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court said,

“In our opinion the various rules prescribing the dress of an Advocate serve a very useful
purpose. A uniform prescribed dress worn by the members of the Bar induces a seriousness of
purpose and a sense of decorum.”

5
(1994) 3 SCC 1
6
(2016) 8 SCC 253
7
Writ Appeal No.661 of 2000
8
AIR 1974 All 133
16

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

“This decision is not much relevant although it gives some idea as to the justification for
prescribing uniform, be it in a profession or in an educational institution.

Ø As stated in the book Law, Religious Freedoms and Education in Europe9

“The wearing of a prescribed uniform for school children of all ages is a near-universal
feature of its educational system, whether in state schools or in private (fee-paying) schools”

Ø AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE’, 2nd Edition. (1973), Volume 68, edited by The

Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company states:

“In accord with the general principle that school authorities may make reasonable rules and
regulations governing the conduct of pupils under their control, it may be stated generally that
school authorities may prescribe the kind of dress to be worn by students or make reasonable
regulations as to their personal appearance”

The Apex Court in Modern Dental College10, construed the term ‘Education’ to include
‘curricula’ vide paragraph 123. The word ‘curricula’ employed in section 7(2) of the Act needs
to be broadly construed to include the power to prescribe uniform. Under the scheme of 1983
Act coupled with international conventions to which India is a party, there is a duty cast on the
State to provide education at least up to particular level and this duty coupled with power
includes the power to prescribe school uniform.

2.3. SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ARE NOT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 295A OF

INDRIYANA PENAL CODE

One of the basic requirements of Section 295A IPC is a deliberate and malicious act. As
observed by-
The Apex Court in Ramji Lal v. State of U.P.11 Section 295A does not penalise any and
every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religions or religious belief of a class of citizens,

9
MYRIAM HUNTER-HENIN, LAW, RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS AND EDUCATION IN EUROPE 47
(Routledge 2011)
10
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4060 OF 2009
11
1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860
17

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

which are perpetuated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious
feelings of that class. Insult to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any
deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class are not
encompassed by the provision. It is obvious that one who alleges malicious and deliberate act
on the part of another has to prove it.

In the case of Harnam Das v. State of U.P.12Where any newspaper, or book or any document
appears to the State Government to contain any seditious matter or any matter which promotes
or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens
of India or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of
any such class, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under
section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
(In this case the parents posted about this incident on various social media platforms and this
enraged the social media audience and in no time it went viral)

In Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.13 the Hon’ble Court held that the
prosecution must prove that the accused had committed the offense with guilty intention. An
assessment of the mind is conducted to check whether the act was intentional or not.
In this case the it was clearly mentioned that the administration has not framed any regulation
with the intent to hurt anyone’s religion sentiments.

In Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar,14 an FIR was lodged against

Mahendra Singh Dhoni. The image of Dhoni was portrayed as Lord Vishnu in the magazine
with a heading “God of Big Deals” which had led to the insult of the religious sentiment of
people belonging to the Hindu Community. The Hon’ble Court held that the accused is liable
under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if he intentionally hurts the religious
sentiment of the people belonging to other religions. The allegations mentioned in the report
did not meet the ingredients of the offense. And, so the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed an
order to quash the FIR against him.

12
1961 AIR 1662, 1962 SCR (2) 371
13
(2007) 5 SCC 1
14
(2017) 7 SCC 760
18

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

Conclusion

The Respondents humbly submit that there has been no violation of either Article 25 or Section
295A as per the abovementioned contentions. Since the direction issued by the School was
with a bona fide intent and did not have any deliberate or malicious intent. The direction was
issued to cater discipline which in no manner can be termed as mala fide. The fact that only
three Sikh students studying in that School were subjects of such restriction and not the Sikh
community in general should not be ignored and is enough to clarify that there was no intent
to outrage any religious sentiments per se.

III. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

3.1. THE SCHOOL HAS NOT VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION RATHER IT
PROMOTED THE SAME

Article 14 talks about Equality before Law and provide that “The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

The edifice of Article 14 derives its essence from the Preamble which speaks of Equality of
Status and Equal Opportunity. The principle of Equality forms the basic tenet of Article 14 and
is conferred on the people within the territory of India through two primary guarantees.
Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Laws. Though both these guarantees
appear to be similar, they have an inherent difference. While one is dynamic and philosophical
in concept, the other speaks of application of Laws. However, Article 14 would fail to achieve
its objective if operated on a single limb. Equality of Law and Equal Protection of Laws are so
intricately woven into each other in the most legal sense, that it would be unthinkable to
imagine that one guarantee would continue to be silent at a time when the other is hit by
violation of Principle of Equality.

19

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In the words of George Orwell, a famous writer, “If liberty means anything, it means the
right to tell people what they don’t want to hear”.
The aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution states that while it commands the State not to deny
to any person ‘equality before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection
of the laws. Equality before law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept
of ‘equal protection of the laws’ requires the State to give special treatment to persons in
different situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character.
Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated equally, whilst
un-equals would have to be treated equally.

Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc, (1) All citizens shall
have the right-
(a) To freedom of speech and expression;
(b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) To form associations or unions (or co-operative societies);
(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
Article 19 (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

To treat all citizens equally is the basic concept of liberalism and Article 14 ensures the same
to our citizens. The liberty of any person is directly connected to the equality that an individual
is getting in the society. Equality before Law basically means that all persons should be treated
equally no matter whether they are poor or rice, male or female, upper caste or lower caste.
This. State cannot provide any special privileges to anyone in the country. It is also known as
legal equality.

Equal Protection of the Laws is one of the positive concepts of Equality. Equal Protection of
law is incurred in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Act of the US constitution. According to
this principle, everybody who resides in India should be treated equally and will get equal
protection of the law. It guarantees all people inside the territory of India should be treated
equally and the State cannot deny it.

20

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

3.2. THE SCHOOL HAS NOT VIOLATED RIGHT TO FREEDOM AS CONSTRUED

BY ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION

In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerela15, the Hon’ble Court held that, Whenever the
Fundamental; Right to freedom of conscience and to profess, practice and propagate religion
is invoked, the act complained of as offending the Fundamental Right must invoke, the act;
complained of as offending the Fundamental Right must be examined to discover whether such
act is to protect public order, morality and health, whether it is to give effect to other provisions
of Part III of Constitution or whether it is authorized by a law made to restrict any economic,
financial, political or secular activity which may be associated with religious practice or to
provide social welfare and re-form. It is the duty and function of Court to do so.

The rational of prescribing for dress code by the board is to avoid malpractices in the
examination. The prescription as above is not by invoking an interest of public order or morals
of society. The public order is one which would affect community or public at large. When
prescription of a dress code is essential part of religion that right can be negated only in
circumstances referred under Article 25(1). The attempt of the board to ensure transparency
and credibility of the examinations cannot be ignored by the Court.

Practical difficulty cannot be an excuse to honour the fundamental rights. Therefore, the Board
must permit all the Candidates who on basis of religious practices want to wear head scarf or
full-length dress to appear for the exam.

In the case of Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao by Its Secretary v. Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao by
its Correspondent16, An interesting question of imposition of a dress code and fine for its
violation by the Matriculation School came before the Hon’ble high Court of Judicature at
Madras. The Hon’ble Court in its judgment dismissed the petition. It was held that it is justified
for the School authorities in order to maintain high standards of discipline.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police V. Acharya Jagadishwaranda

Avadhuta17 supra also stated that in dealing with the question of freedom of religious practices,
it needs to be focused if such practices are essential to maintain the identity of a person to

15
1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518
16
Writ Appeal No.661 of 2000
17
(2004) 12 SCC 770
21

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

profess his faith in the religion he practices and if not allowed, whether it would result in wrath
of the injunctions of the religious doctrine he professes.

In the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji V. State of Rajasthan & Ors18, the Hon’ble Court
observed that, on the other hand the State of Rajasthan urged that the Nathdwara Temple was
a public Temple and the Tilkayat was no more and no better than its manger. As such, he had
no substantial beneficial interest in the property of the temple. The contention that the
Tilkayat’s fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (f) have been contravened by the Act was
denied.

In the case of Amna Bint Basheer and Another V. Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE), New Delhi and Another19, the Hon’ble Court held that the rationale for prescribing
dress code by the Board is to avoid malpractices in the examination. The prescription as above
is not by invoking an interest of public order or morals of the society. The public order is one
which would affect community or public at large. The morality pertaining to conscience or
moral sense of the prescribed standards of the society.

Therefore, the Board cannot restrict the claim of any similarly situated persons. It is only when
a claim is based on a positive liberty, the relief being granted by the Court should be restricted.

In the case of Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao, Matriculation Higher Secondary School Staff
Association rep. by its Secretary, V. Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao, Matriculation Higher
Secondary School, rep. by its Correspondent20, the Hon’ble Court held that in the view of the
fact that teachers are entrusted with not only teaching subjects prescribed under the syllabus,
but also entrusted with the duty of inculcating discipline amongst the students, they should set
high standards of discipline and should be a role model for students. The Court would be very
slow to interfere in the matter of discipline imposed by the management of the school only on
the ground that it has no statutory background.

18
1963 AIR 1638, 1964 SCR (1) 561
19
WP(C).No. 6813 of 2016 (B)
20
Writ Appeal No.661 of 2000
22

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

IV. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

4.1. DO PUBLICATIONS IN THE MEDIA SUBCONSCIOUSLY AFFECT THE

JUDGES?

In view of the above contention, it is crucial for this Hon’ble Supreme Court to assess whether
the ongoing Medial Trial against the School Authorities can ‘unconsciously’ influences Judges
and whether the Judges as human beings are not suspectable to such indirect influence, at least
subconsciously or unconsciously?
In the case of Reliance Petrochecmicals V. Proprietor of Indian Express21, the Hon’ble Court
observed that, “if one carefully analyses the judgment, the basis of view that such action on
part of the newspaper tends to interfere with the course of justice”. The words “tends to
interfere with the course of justice” used by the Supreme Court in the said case are quite
significant.

In another case PC Sen22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “No distinction is, in our
judgment, warranted that comment on a pending case or abuse of a party may amount to
contempt when the case is triable with the aid of a Jury and not when it is triable by a Judge or
Judges. It appears that it was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Judges are likely to
be “subconsciously” influenced.

In the case of John D. Pennekamp V. State of Florida23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred
to the observations of Justice Frankfurter, who stated that, The Judiciary could not function
properly if what the press does is reasonably calculated to disturb the judicial judgment in its
duty and capacity to act solely on the basis of what is before the Court. The judiciary is not
independent unless Courts of Justice are enabled to administer law by absence of pressure from
without, or the presence of disfavor.

21
1989 AIR 190, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 212
22
AIR 1970 SC 1821, 1970 CriLJ 1525, 1969 2 SCR 649
23
328 U.S. 331 (1946)
23

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

24
In the case of Nebraska Press Association V. Hugh Stuart where the American Supreme
Court vacated a prior-restraint order passed by the trial Judge in a multiple murder case while
that case was pending, on the ground that the view of the trial judge that Jurors are likely to be
influenced by the press publications was speculative. The US Supreme Court stated that the
trial Court should have resorted to alternative remedies such as- change of venue,
postponement of trial, a searching of the voir dire of the Jury panel for bias, and sequestration
of jurors before passing a restraint order.

The New South Wales (NSW) Law Commission referred to an article by S. Landsman and R.
Rakos, “ A Preliminary Inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on Judges and
Jurors in Civil Litigation”, which concluded that there is no empirical data to support or refute
the assertion that Judicial officers are not likely to be significantly influenced by media
publicity. Furthermore, the article mentioned that we cannot forget the Common Law laid
down in R V. Sussex Justices: Exparte McCarthy: “Justice should not only be done, it should
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

4.2. THE FOURTH PILLAR & THE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

In Union of India V. Naveen Jindal25, it was clearly held that the US. First Amendment is in
absolute manner, whereas the right under Article 19 (1) (a) can be restricted as permitted in
Article 19 (2) (a), echoing what was stated in Reliance Petrochemicals (Supra).

In M.P. Lohia V. State of West Bengal26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted interim bail to
the accused and while passing the final orders, referred very critically to certain news items in
the Calcutta magazine. The Court deprecated; two articles published in the magazine in a one-
sided manner setting out only the allegations made by the woman’s parents but no referring to
the documents filed by the accused to prove that the lady was a schizophrenic. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed “These types of articles appearing in the media would certainly
interfere with the course of administration of justice. The Court deprecated the articles and

24
427 U.S. 539
25
(2004) 2 SCC 510
26
(2005), 2 SCC 86
24

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

cautioned the Publisher, Editor and Journalist who were responsible for the said article against
“indulging in such media trial when the issue is sub-judice”.

Hon’ble Punjab High Court in Rao Harnarain V. Gumori Ram27, stated that ‘Liberty of the
press is subordinate to the administration of justice. The plain duty of a journalist is the
reporting and not adjudication of cases’.

The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Bijoyananda V. Bala Kush28 observed that, “the
responsibility of the press is greater than the responsibility of an individual because the press
has a larger audience. The freedom of the press should not degenerate into a license to attack
litigants and close the door of justice, nor can it include any unrestricted liberty to damage the
reputation of respectable persons.”

In Harijai Singh V. Vijay Kumar29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the press or
journalists enjoy no special right of freedom of expression and the guarantee of this freedom
was the same as available to every citizen. The press does not enjoy any specific privilege or
immunity from law”.

The view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.C. Sen (Supra) was that Judges and Jurors are likely
to be influenced and that view in the Anglo-Saxon law appears to have been preferred by the
Supreme Court in Reliance Case (Supra), that Judges are subconsciously influenced by several
forces was also the view of Justice Cardozo and of various Law Commissions.

In Saibal V. B.K. Sen30, the Hon’ble Court stated that “It would be mischievous for a
newspaper to systematically conduct an independent investigation into a crime for which a man
has been arrested and to publish the results of the investigation. This is because, trial by
newspapers, when a trial by one of the regular tribunal is going on, must be prevented. The
basis for this view is that such action on the part of the newspaper tends to interfere with the
course of justice”.

27
AIR 1958 P H 273, 1958 CriLJ 952
28
AIR 1953 Ori 249
29
Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 1995
30
AIR 1959 Cal 106, 1959 CriLJ 172
25

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In the case of State of Maharashtra V. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi31, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that a trial by press, electronic media or by way of public agitation is the very
anti-thesis of rule of law and can lead to miscarriage of justice. A Judge is to guard himself
against such pressure.

In Sahara India Real Estate V. Securities and Exchange Board of India32, the Hon’ble Court
observed that, protecting speech is the US approach. The First Amendment does not tolerate
any form of restraint. In US, unlike India and Canada which also have written Constitutions,
freedom of the press is expressly protected as an absolute right. Therefore, the in US, any
interference with the media freedom to access, report and comment upon ongoing trials is
prima facie unlawful. Prior restraints are completely banned. If an irresponsible piece of
journalism results in prejudice to the proceedings, the legal system does not provide for
sanctions against the parties responsible for wrongdoings.

Conclusion
In the present case, the Media Trial has given unwanted prominence to the issue and put the
School in a bad light claiming that the Authorities have discriminated against a community or
religion. However, one should not forget that the foremost purpose of any educational
institution is to cater discipline and unity amongst its students which is precisely what the
School had intended to do by releasing a Circular asking all the students to follow the new
Regulations framed by the administration of School. Furthermore, if we look at the last Census
Report which mentions that the total population of Indriyana is 1.38 billion, out of which 1.7%
is the “Turban Wearing” population which amounts to approximately 2.3 million, it will be a
far-fetched claim to say that the School Authorities had an intention to divide a community
which forms half the population. Therefore, based upon the abovementioned contentions and
the cited authorities it is most humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court should
intervene in order to stop the Media Trial before it tarnishes the image of the School completely
and detrimentally hampers the ongoing trial and make pessimistic impacts on the minds of
public at large.

31
(1997) 8 SCC 386
32
(2013) 1 SCC 1
26

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~

 5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honourable Apex Court that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that –

1. The present P.I.L. is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana under
appropriate jurisdiction.
2. The School regulations are not violative of Freedom to Profess, or Practice of Religion
mentioned under Article 25 of the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950, and the Respondents
cannot be held liable under Section 295A of Indriyana Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Respondent has not violated the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and 19 of the
Constitution of Indriyana, 1950.
4. That this Hon’ble Court shall intervene in order to stop the Media Trial.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Hold Forever Pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)

27

~Memorial on Behalf of Respondent~