May it please the court.

Your honour, today I will be making one submission on behalf of

thePetitioner in the instant matter of IRAVANCORE BOARD VERSUS UNION OF DIANA

Your I will be honour speaking for 8 mins ,for due paucity of time if I may address the bench to
show me a signal at the fourth minute. Much obliged

Facts…….

Your honour, the counsel one would be dealing issue 2 first as the second issue deals with the
maintainbilty of the present review petition and is of the grave necessasity for the matter for
which the counsel are being presented today

The issue two and my co counsel would be dealing with issue 1 and issue 3.

With the prior permission of the bench, the counsel would like to proceed with issue 2 first.
Much obliged.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH REGARD TO

RELIGIOUS PRACTICE VIS-A-VIS FREEDOM TO PRACTICE ONE’S RELIGION AS
ENVISAGED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

Dr. M.P. Jain has observed: Judicial Review is the power of the Courts to decide the
constitutionality of Legislative act in a case instituted by aggrieved person.

The petitioner humbly submits that , Article 137 of the Constitution of Diana provides that
subject to provisions of any law made under Article 145,, the Supreme Court has the power to
review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Moreover Article 372 (1) establishes the judicial review of the pre-constitutional legislation it is
humbly submitted that The petitioner has the right to opt for judicial review in the case at hand.
Your Honour, I will proceed to my first point of issue, SCOPE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 137 READ WITH ARTICLE 145 AND ARTICLE 372(1)

Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision
was made. It is implied to ensure that the person receives fair and just treatment and not for
ensuring that the ruling attained by the authorities is appropriate in the eyes of the Court. The
aforementioned statement was held by the apex court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union
of India and ors.

Your honour, Judicial review has become an integral part of our Constitutional system writes
Khanna, J., in Kesavananda case.

The counsel will now turn towards the next point of issue which is EXTENT OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO RELIGIOUS MATTERS:

In simple terms, Article 25 gives all persons the freedom to practice, profess and propagate
religion.

In the very famous case of The Sabarimala temple, which is managed by the Travancore
Devaswom Board Dr. Singhvi argued that the exclusion of female worshippers was justified by
the nature of the deity being worshipped. He also addressed the issue of constitutional morality
and its relevance to the rights guaranteed by Article 25.

Dr. Singhvi further contended that the Bench had incorrectly applied the test for essential
practices to Hinduism. He argued that it was wrongly focused on whether the practise was
universally practised in Hinduism, rather than being an essential practice. He further argued that
this approach could not be used to evaluate a diverse religion like Hinduism

Your honour in the case at hand , The Inbari Temple is managed by Iravancore Board and the
Apex court failed to address four grounds for review. There's no false submission in the case at
hand, nor is there a breach of constitutional morality and its applicability with regards to the
rights guaranteed under Article 25 .The test for essential practises was incorrectly applied by the
Apex Court when deciding whether an exclusion was essential practise.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in Bijoe Emmanuel the apex court held held
that the refusal to sing the National Anthem emanated from the genuine and conscientious mind
and which was safeguarded Under Article 25(1).

Article 25(2)(b) would have no application sinceThere is no blanket ban, however just a
restricted limitation, based on faith, custom and belief, which has been observed  since time
immemorial.

Your honour. Since, the practice of restricting the entry of women of ages 10-50 is a
preconstitution practice; it takes the force of law as Article 13 incorporates customs and usages.

The petitioner humbly submits that, The question regarding whether a particular practice is an
essential part of the religion or not is to be determined by the doctrines enshrined in that religion
itself there are about 1000 temples dedicated to the worship of Lord Inappa, where the deity is
not in the form of a ‘NaishtikBrahmachari’

The restriction on entry of women is a part of the essential practise of the Inbari Temple, and the
pilgrimage undertaken. It is intended to keep the pilgrims away from any distraction related to
sex, as the dominant objective of the pilgrimage is the creation of circumstances for the
successful practise of the spiritual self-discipline.

Court in the case of Rymbai, held that any practice or custom which has been followed and
continued for time immemorial without interruption becomes a custom. The restriction of entry
of women is not a universal practice but only followed in Inbari temple of Lord “ I” because its
only in Inbari temple that lord is in celibate form and not in other temples.

The counsel will now turn towards the third point of issue which is JUDICIAL
REVIEW IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 25 AND THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
THE TEMPLE:

Your honour, if I may direct your attention to Present moot proposition para 2 and 3 where it is
stated that , While it permits women to offer their prayers in the service of Lord Inappa, the
temple selectively imposes a ban on girls and women between the ages of 10 and 50 from
entering the temple. They are prohibited from entering the temple vault to do the inventory by
the temple officials.
 This restriction imposed is because it is not supposed for menstruating women to enter a place
of worship. The Inbari Temple is one of the few temples in Diana that accepts people from every
caste. Lord Inappa was a strict 'NaistikaBrahmacharya'. Therefore, denying admission to women
of a certain age group is necessary to keep the deity's celibacy intact. Moreover your honour as
highlighted that each pilgrim must live an ascetic life for 43 days before traveling to the temple
because the deity inside the temple has been consecrated and worshipped as a ‘Naistika
Brahmacharya’. Due to physiological reasons, women belonging to a particular age group are not
permitted inside the temple because they are unable to observe penance for 43 days. Moreover
your honour, in the Sabrimala review case , Shekhar Naphade made submissions in favour of a
review, arguing that the case should not have been litigated in the public domain, namely the
courts. He claimed that the dispute is an internal matter and so members of the community must
decide whether the custom is necessary for Lord Ayyappa devotees or not.

Similarly in the case at hand , the dispute is an internal matter and members of the community
must decide whether or not the custom is essential to devotees of Lord Inappa. The equality
doctrine enshrined under Article 14 doesn't abrogate the Fundamental Right ensured by Article
25 to each

Menstruating women are not the reason of the restriction. It's as a result of his brahmachari
status. Whether India is a secular nation or not is irrelevant because a place of worship is by
definition not secular and is instead a place of worship. Secularism shouldn't be incorporated to
religious sites since no one would tolerate the application of religious rationale to secular
thinking. ) If the Temple's practise is justified by the Deity's celibacy, it cannot be considered
discriminatory because there are several gender-specific Temples and practises in the vast and
diverse Hindu faith that are beyond judicial scrutiny

Moreover, the reference to blood applies to both men and women, because even a male devotee
with an open wound is not permitted to enter the Temple premises. In other words, given the
Temple's Thanthric nature, the proscription in the Temple is against the spilling or oozing of
blood in any form.This is a pan-gender prohibition, whereas the prohibition on women of
procreative age stems from the Deity's vow to Naishthika Brahmacharya.

It is worth noting that the main celebration at Chengannoor Devi Temple is called "Triputh," and
it is believed that the menstruation of the main Idol Devi is a blessing to the devotees. The same
thing can be found at Kodungalloor Devi Temple . If anyone approaches this Hon'ble Court
under Art. 32 for the entry of men into Chengannoor Devi Temple, the decision will be difficult,
as it is in the present case. it is clear that each temple's construction and deity consecration are
entirely dependent on custom and rituals, which are protected under Art. 25 and 26.
Your honour, In the case of, Bishwanath and others v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji and Others
the court was of the opinion that worshipers have the right to protect the interests of the deity.
Hinduism is a religion that values diversity in locations, There are some places that are open to
everyone, while others are dedicated to particular types of energy. If the variety of these beliefs
is eliminated via a weaponized kind of equality, it will have an unwanted abrasion of hindu faith
(the personal laws).

The purpose of a review petition is limited to remedying the resultant grave injustice that has
been the consequence of a decision of the Supreme Court.