COVER PAGEe

1st Pt.
KANHAIYA LAL MISRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

MEMORIAL,2022
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
URN – T145
Pt. KANHAIYA LAL MISHRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION,2022
Before
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF DIANA
REVIEW PETITION UNDER THE ARTICLE 137

READ WITH 145 AND 372(1)
IN THE MATTER OF
IRAVANCORE BOARD………………………………………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF DIANA & ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARIAT- (1)MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (2)MINISTRY

OF CULTURE (3)MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT (4)
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
……….RESPONDENT 1
DIANA YOUNG LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION……………….……..RESPONDENT 2
(UNDER ARTICLE 137 READ WITH 145 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIANA)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1st Pt. KANHAIYA LAL MISRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT
MEMORIAL,2022
TABLE OF CONTENT
2
O
MEMORIAL,2022
3
OP
MEMORIAL,2022
4
OPY
MEMORIAL,2022
5
OPYI
MEMORIAL,2022
6
OPYIE
MEMORIAL,2022
7
OPYIE
MEMORIAL,2022
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this honorable
court. The petition is filed under article 1371 read with article 1452 and article 372(1) of the
constitution of Diana. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
8
The Article under The Constitution of Diana States that:
1. 137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any
judgment pronounced or order made by it
2. 145. Rules of Court, etc
(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time, with
the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court
including-
(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time
within which appeals to the Court are to be entered;
(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III;
(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be
reviewed and the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the Court for
such review are to be entered;
(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in the Court and as to the fees to be charged in
respect of proceedings therein;
(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;
(i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appeal which appears to the Court to be frivolous
or vexatious or brought for the purpose of delay;
(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referred to in clause (1) of article 317.
3. 372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation

(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in article 395 but subject to
the other provisions of this Constitution, all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a
competent Legislature or other competent authority.
MEMORIAL,2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Inabri Temple is a famous religious pilgrimage site located in Mahathi, Ireland, in

Diana. Lord Inappa is the resident deity of the Inabri Temple, which welcomes
thousands of devotees from all over irrespective of their caste. The temple however
strictly adheres to its rituals and customs.
2. Lord Inappa is considered to be a rigid ‘NaishtkBrahmacharya’. Pilgrims are

supposed to live ascetic lives for 43 days before they begin their journey towards the
Inbari Temple. The pilgrims are supposed to arrive Barefoot while wearing a ‘mundu’
and black cloth over their heads.
3. Since, lord inappa is the resident deity and he is a ‘NaishtikBrahmcharya’, to keep

celibacy intact; menstruating women i.e. women in the age group of 10-50 are denied
entry into the temple vault to do the inventory, especially the sanctum sanctorum.
This custom has been followed by the temple administrators from the past 600 years,
although there is no explicit instruction for such practice.
4. The practise of denying entry to women of certain age group was felt discriminatory
towards the biological sex and Anti-Hindu by the Diana Young Lawyers Association
and they filed a petition before the Diana Supreme Court to allow the entry of women
in the tempke if not sanctum sanctorum.
5. The petition was responded to by the IravancoreBoard , which claimed that women of
a particular age group are unable to observe penance for 43 days as the reason for the
restriction imposed. Even some devotees believe that this restriction was implemented
by Lord Inappa himself to preserve his vow of celibacy.
6. It was contends that the restriction is according to Rule 3(b) of the Irelam Hindu
Places of Public Worship(Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965, which were framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Irelam Hindu Places of Public
Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965.
7. This petition has drawn attention to the 1991 designmade by the High Court, where it
upheld the restriction, the Court in its judgment said: “According to ‘Irelam Hindu
Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Act, 1965’, these customs and
9
GKL
MEMORIAL,2022
usages had to be followed for the welfare of the temple. Only such persons who
hadobserved penance and followed the customs are eligible to enter the temple and it
is not proper for young women to do so.”
8. The Hon'ble Apex court declared that the custom of prohibiting women between the
ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Temple not only violates Article 25(1) of
the Constitution but also the Irelam Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization
of Entry) Act, 1965 made under Article 25(2) (b) of the Constitution. Further, it
was also declared that Rule 3(b) of the Irelam Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional as it violates Article 25(1)
and Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Apex court, the Iravancore Board decided to file a
review petition. The petitioner argued that:
a. It suffers from major errors which resulted in a “grave miscarriage of
justice” in so far as the actual devotees of Lord Inappa are concerned.
b. The court had completely disregarded the various traditions, practices and
school which exist within the Hindu faith
c. Since women can always worship Lord Inappa in their homes or hundreds of
other temples across Diana, the discrimination allegedly practised by the
Inbari Temple is not related to any common meaning of the term. To claim
that one wants to worship Lord inappa and not have respect for what he stands
for is the worst form of hypocrisy when Hinduism does not restrict your
choice of God in any manner whatsoever.
d. It interferes with the faith and belief of millions of devotees.
e. The practice of not permitting females between the age group of 10 to 50 is
held to be exclusionary without any discussion, especially in the oblivion of
the argument to the contrary advanced. It is merely a restriction and not a
ban. The reason for the restriction is attributable to the form of deity
which is part of a permanent celibate. Thus, the restriction of worship
tantamount to a total of 40 years of the life of a female does not amount to
exclusion from worship. As such, the restriction based on the age of a female
is not a restriction that amounts to discrimination on the ground only of ‘sex’.
In other words, the restriction is not solely based on the ground of gender but
is more importantly based in the form of the Lord Inappa manifested in the
Idol, which is that of a ‘NaishtikaBrahmacharya’.
10
GKL
MEMORIAL,2022
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
(i) WHETHER A PERSON NOT BELONGING TO A RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATION OR RELIGIOUS GROUP CAN QUESTION A PRACTICE
OF THAT RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR RELIGIOUS GROUP BY
ILING A PIL?
(ii) 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?
(iii) WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF EXCLUDING SUCH WOMEN
CONSTITUTES AN ‘ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE’ UNDER
ARTICLE 25 AND WHETHER ‘ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES’ OF A
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR EVEN A SECTION THEREOF ARE
AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 26.
11
GKL
MEMORIAL,2022
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
12
MEMORIAL,2022
13
MEMORIAL,2022
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER A PERSON NOT BELONGING TO A

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR RELIGIOUS GROUP CAN
QUESTION A PRACTICE OF THAT RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATION OR RELIGIOUS GROUP BY FILING A PIL?
(1.1) WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO FILE PIL?
(1.1.1) Courts have interpreted and defined PIL, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has, in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary, 1held that lexically,
the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action started in a court of law for the
enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular class
of the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects their
legal rights or liabilities. However, only a person acting in good faith and
who has sufficient interest in the proceeding will have the locus standi to file
a PIL.
(1.1.2) For a valid PIL to subsist, therefore, the least requisite is the presence of
following essentials, namely; (a) sufficient interest, (b) bona fide intention.
Absence of these essentials would result into the non-maintainability of a
PIL.
(1.2) WHETHER THE TEMPLE OF INBARI IS A SEPARATE

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION AND SHALL HAVE THE
FREEDOM TO MANAGE ITS AFFAIRS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES?
(1.2.1) Article 26 gives religious denominations the power to exercise

certain rights such as managing religious affairs establishing, and
maintaining institutions, and acquiring and administering property. It also
1
Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary(AIR 1993 SC 892)
14
MEMORIAL,2022
prevents the state from interfering into the religious affairs of such
denominations. One more important point that must be taken into
consideration is that the article extends only to religious denominations or
sections of such denominations.
(1.2.2) Several Supreme Court rulings have established the criteria for
qualifying as a Religious Denomination under Article 26. For example, in
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, 2the Constitution Bench stated: "The words
"religious denomination" in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their
colour from the word "religion," and if this is the case, the expression
"religious denomination" must also satisfy three conditions:
(1) It must be a collection of individuals who share a set of beliefs or

doctrines that they believe are beneficial to their spiritual well-being, i.e. a
common faith;
(2)common organisation; and
(3) designation by a distinctive name.
(1.2.3) Likewise, in the Dargah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali 3, holding

the Chishtia Sect of Muslims to be religious denomination; Dr.
Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N.,4holding that Podhu Dikshitars
(Smarthi Brahmins) administering a Temple dedicated to Lord Natraja in
the State of Tamil Nadu qua Sabanayagar Temple at Chidambaram are a
2
(1983) 1 SCC 51, para 80
3
The Durgah Committee, Ajmer ... vs Syed Hussain Ali And Others on 17 March, 1961
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1402, 1962 SCR (1) 383
4
(2014) 5 SCC 75, (DB) (paras 1, 2, 4, 5 to 7, 10, 12, 24, 31, 32, 34, 37, 49, 70)
15
MEMORIAL,2022
denominational Temple entitled to the protection of Section 26(2)(b) of

the Constitution.5
(1.2.4) Similarly, the time of day to make food offerings to the idol, the performance of
periodical ceremonies in front of the idol, the time, mode, and manner of daily recitals of
sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire would all be considered as parts of religion
and religious practises.6
(1.2.5) As a religious denomination, the Inbari management would also

fall under the proviso to Section 3 of the Irelam Hindu Places of Public
Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965. Thus, it is humbly submitted
that , for the reasons afore mentioned, the Inbari Temple clearly satisfies
these Constitutional tests and thus is a religious denomination.
(1.2.6) The court held that under Article 26(d), it is the fundamental right
of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its property
in accordance with law; and the law, as a result, must leave the right of
administration to the religious denomination itself , subject to such
restrictions and regulations as it may choose to impose.7
(1.2.7) The Madras High Court defined religious denomination as "the

action of naming from or after something; giving a name to, calling by a
name; a characteristic or qualifying name given to a thing or class of
things; that by which anything is called; an appellation, designation, or
title; a collection of individuals classed together under the same name:
almost always specifically a religious sect or body with a common faith
and organization and designated by a distinct name.
SUBMISSIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT

PETITION (C) NO. 373 OF 2006 Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. Versus The State of Kerala & Ors.
6
Shirur Math, Supra, para 20
7
D. R. R. Varu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 181
16
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.2.8) This clearly applies to Inappans who take the 43-day vow before
visiting the Inbari Inappa Temple, making them a religious denomination
of their own.
(1.2.9) Most importantly, it should be noted that the Court's decision in the case of
Venkataramana Devaru8 was based on the argument that the practise there was for the
general and complete exclusion of the public, despite the fact that it supported the possibility
of exclusion from specific religious services there under and at specific times. 9 To consider
PILs that challenge the religious practises of any group, sect, or denomination in a
multicultural society made up of individuals of different religions, beliefs, and traditions
could seriously harm the Constitution and the secular fabric of our nation.
(1.2.10) The observation of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J, was found more useful where
while agreeing to the majority judgment where he said that, “A denomination within Article
26 and persons who are members of that denomination are under Article 25 entitled to ensure
the continuity of the denomination and such continuity is possible only by maintaining the
bond of religious discipline which would secure the adherence of its members to certain
essentials like faith, doctrine, tenets and practices.”10
(1.2.11) It has been asseverated by learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned
Amicus curiae, that “ in all prominent Hindu temples in India, there had been some religious
practices based on religious beliefs, which are essential part of the Hindu religion as
considered by people for a long time. It has been submitted that the devotees of Lord
Ayyappa could also be brought within the ambit of religious denomination who have been
following the impugned religious practice which has been essential part of religion.”11
8
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255: 1958 SCR 895
9
Id.
10
Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501.
11
Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006
17
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.2.12) In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar 12, this Court rejected the argument of
the petitioner that sacrifice of cow on Bakr-id was an essential practice of Mohammedan
religion and ruled that it could be prohibited by the State under Clause 2(a) of Article 25.
(1.2.13) Additionally, it meant that a religious institution or denomination has complete

autonomy in determining which rituals and ceremonies are required in accordance with the
principles of the religion . So that cleared the issue of the religious denomination's rights and
those related to the administration of their religious customs and beliefs.
(1.2.14) Moreover, the landmark Shirur Mutt Case13, which is one of the major cases which
deal with Article 25 and 26 was referred too with great importance It expanded the
parameters of what is covered by Article 26's reference to religion. The ruling stated that a
religion may not only establish a set of moral principles for its adherents to follow, but it may
also specify rituals, observances, ceremonies, and modes of worship that are seen as essential
parts of religion, and these forms and observances may even extend to matters of diet and
attire.
(1.2.15) The Supreme Court, in its decision of the aforementioned case, took a very
interesting approach to the issue by citing the well-known Australian case of Adelaide Co. vs.
The Commonwealth14, which clarified the Australian Constitution's provision regarding the
free exercise of any religion; Laiham C.J. had a significant role in advancing the notion of the
"integral" component of a religion or belief. He discussed Section 116 of the Australian
Constitution, which among other things prevents the Commonwealth from prohibiting that: “
It is sometimes suggested in discussions on the subject of freedom of religion that,
though the civil Government should not interfere with religious opinions, it
nevertheless may deal as it pleases with any acts which are done in pursuance of religious
belief without infringing the principle of freedom of religion.Thus, the section goes far
12
Abdul Hakim Quraishi And Others vs The State Of Bihar (And Connected ... on 23 November, 1960 , 1961
AIR 448, 1961 SCR (2) 610
13
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282
14
Adelaide Co. vs. The Commonwealth, (1943)67 CLR 116-127
18
MEMORIAL,2022
beyond protecting liberty of opinion. It protects also acts done in pursuance of religious
belief as part of religion."15
(1.3) PETITION IN THE MATTERS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ARE NON-

MAINTAINABLE BY NON RELIGIOUS GROUPS.
(1.3.1) Justice V.S. Deshpande in his learned article “Standing and Justiciability”16 observed:
“A petitioner will have standing to sustain a public action only if he fulfils one of the two
following qualifications: He must either convince the court that the dereliction of law has
such a real public significance that it involves a public right and an injury to the public
interest or he must establish that he has a sufficient interest of his own over and above the
general interest of the other members of the public in bringing the action.” In matters of
religion and religious practices, Article 14 can be invoked only by persons who are similarly
situated, that is, persons belonging to the same faith, creed, or sect
(1.3.2) For a valid PIL to subsist, therefore, the least requisite is the presence of following
essentials, namely; (a) sufficient interest, (b) bona fide intention. Absence of these essentials
would result into the non-maintainability of a PIL.
(1.3.3) In cases like the above mentioned where the impugned practice it is not even a blanket
ban; and it is out of the devotees’ respect and faith in the religion and its sentiments that they
abstain from going against the acceptable code of conduct; the petitioner(s) , notwithstanding
the their absence of understanding with the issue, seize such a religious practise and politicise
it in order to move forward their case in court. Additionally, the petitioners' request for access
for the female devotees in that particular temple, where the faith practically forbids entry for
women of a certain age group, seems a bit superfluous. even the temples of the Deity in
question in the preceding mentioned case, permit entry to all, males and females, belonging
to all age-groups. Targeting the sentiments associated with a certain religion, for instance,
and then demanding rights to worship for the others who themselves do not seem to be
aggrieved, poses the lack of bona fide intention on the part of the petitioners. Such are the
cases which can be criticised to be, in the garb of P.I.L, motivated to a ‘Publicity Interest
15
Id.
16
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950266
19
MEMORIAL,2022
Litigation’, which ultimately, in the larger interest of public, seeks protection of rights of no
one.
(1.3.4) Furthermore, it is a well-established principle of law that courts must uphold justice
solely by encouraging good faith, guard against cunning intrusions into the rule of law, and
preserve societal harmony by only meddling when absolutely necessary for the purpose of
justice.
(1.3.5) It is interesting to note that while there are many cases where religious practices or
matters relating to a religion are questioned in the petition, these cases are typically attached
to academic objections by non-devotees who are attempting to assert rights that are not theirs,
and are therefore unsupportable. Because no right affecting the general public is involved,
petitioners or later interveners who are completely unrelated to the case cannot sustain the
petition under
(1.3.6) Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in such instances. The issue at hand only has to
do with a specific religion or set of religious traditions. The fact that such petitions cannot be
maintained without a witness who is a worshipper, believer, or devotee of the religion or
practise in question is also of fundamental importance. The court must therefore consider all
of this when making decisions about religious matters at the request of associations or
interveners who are "involved in social developmental activities, especially activities related
to the uplift of women and helping them become aware of their rights," but who do not
actually adhere to the faith, as such requests do not satisfy the requirement to move the
Supreme Court under Article 32, even if they are glossed over as PILs.
(1.3.7) The right to religion and right to worship must be based on the affirmation of a belief
in the particular manifestation of the deity; and since, the matters of conscience, religious
belief, and religious practice, are among the deepest and most personal issues for the
individual, there seems to be something rather strange in one person agitating for the
religious rights of a completely diﬀerent person.
20
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.3.8) Moreover, it is essential to note that, in matters of religion, a PIL at the hands of
strangers cannot subsist for the very fact that they do not verify the “sufficient interest test” ;
and thereby, in these cases, only those who are actually aggrieved by the state action can file
the petition, either in private or in representative manner. Thus, in the cases where the
devotees of faith, belief or Religion have not challenged the practices followed therein, based
on the essential characteristics of the Religious practice or even the Deity; it is not for the
courts to normally delve into issues of religious practices, especially in the absence of an
aggrieved person from that particular religious faith, or sect.
(1.3.9) Thereby, the petitioners would not have the locus standi to file a writ-petition clothed
as a P.I.L., in case they are neither the aggrieved devotees, nor any scholars in the Religion.
If the argument is accepted as a legitimate PIL, it is based on a religious issue. When it comes
to religious disputes, litigation should never be started at the urging of outsiders; otherwise,
the issue of faith would be heard even though the real adherents have no complaints. Such
writ petitions per se seem to be submitted by busybodies or meddlesome interlopers and
disclose no cause of action if the petitioners do not claim to be devotees or religious scholars
in the faith in question.
(1.3.10) Therefore, it could seriously harm the constitutional and secular fabric of this nation
as guaranteed by the Constitution to entertain PIL petitions that aim to challenge the religious
practises followed by any group, sect, or denomination in a pluralistic society like that of
India, which is made up of people of different faiths, beliefs, and traditions. Such a writ
petition must not be upheld because, prima facie, it would also contravene the principles of
natural justice because the entire community of followers of the Religion, belief, faith, or sect
would be condemned by those who are ineligible to file the petition in the first instance,
without being given the opportunity to be heard.
(1.3.11) In the case of Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala 17 Mehta

said, "Can there be a PIL by a person not belonging to a particular religious denomination"
17
Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006;
21
MEMORIAL,2022
and gave examples of various sects like 'Shaiva', 'Vaishnava' and 'Shakt', saying that separate
group of persons cannot satisfy the requirements of a particular denomination18
(1.4.1) In the present case, it is humbly submitted before the Apex court that , Temple does
not allow women and it has a problem women based on patriarchy what do you know about
temple and do you know better than centuries of people who actually worshiped at that place
and has practiced that particular faith unless and until you have a specific position you can't
make yourself a representative of the entire female community.
ISSUE 2: 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: "The doctrine of judicial review is thus
firmly rooted in India, and has the explicit sanction of the
constitution .Judicial Review is the power of the Courts to determine the
constitutionality of Legislative act in a case instituted by aggrieved
person.”19
The petitioner humbly submits that under Article 137 of the Constitution
of India, 1950, provides that subject to provisions of any law and rules
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 similarly. Article 13 specifically declares that
any law which contravenes any of the provision of the part of
Fundamental Rights shall be void. Even our Supreme Court has observed,
18
https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/sabarimala-law-can...
19
Judicial-Review.pdf (indianbarassociation.org)
22
MEMORIAL,2022
even without the specific provisions in Article 13. The petitioner has the
right to opt for judicial review.
(1.1)SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 137 READ WITH

ARTICLE 145 AND ARTICLE 372(1)
(1.1.1)Article 13(2) even goes to the extent of saying that "The state shall not make
any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part
III containing Fundamental Rights) and any law made in contravention of
this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void." 20
(1.1.2)The Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and
ors. (1995) observed that “Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.” Thus, 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.21
(1.1.3)Moreover, Khanna, J., emphasized in Kesavananda: "As long as some

Fundamental Rights exist and area part of the Constitution, the power of
judicial review has also to be exercised "with a view to see that 'the
guarantees afforded by these Rights are not contravene. Judicial review has
thus become an integral part of our Constitutional system.22
(1.2) EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO

RELIGIOUS MATTERS:
It is humbly submitted that in simple terms, Article 25 gives all persons

the freedom to practice, profess and propagate religion. The opening
words of Article 25(1) make this right subject to public order, morality,
20
https://indianbarassociation.org/.../uploads/2013/02/Judicial-Review.
21
B.C. CHATURVEDI vs UNION OF INDIA (1995) 6 SCC 749
22
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala 1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
23
MEMORIAL,2022
and health. The same restriction also applies to the other provisions of
Part III of the Constitution. However, it shields individual religions or
groups by adding religious rights as fundamental rights.
(1.2.1) In the very famous case of The Sabarimala temple, which is managed by the
Travancore Devaswom Board. Dr. Singhvi's arguments23 were based on four grounds or
reasons for review. First, he claimed that the judgment failed to address the essential
character of the deity being worshipped, which he claimed is grounds for review. He argued
that the exclusion of female worshippers at Sabarimala is justified by the nature of the deity
being worshipped.
(1.2.2) Third, he addressed the issue of constitutional morality and its relevance to the rights
guaranteed by Article 25. He stated that applying constitutional morality to religious matters
must be done with caution because there are many irrational practises that cannot be tested
using that standard.
(1.2.3) Fourth, Dr. Singhvi concluded by arguing that the Bench had incorrectly applied the
test for essential practices, while ruling on whether the exclusion was an essential practice.
He contended that it was inaccurately focused on whether the practise was universally
practised in Hinduism. He contended that this approach could not be used to evaluate a
diverse religion like Hinduism.
Moreover , Advocate Deepak 24emphasised that the Court has no authority to make the
decision on the essential practice of the religion. He stated that the only exception should be
if a religious community submits false information.
(1.2.4) Similarly , in the present case The Inbari Temple is managed by
Iravancore Board and in the earlier judgment passed by the Apex court, it
is humbly submitted that the court failed to address the four grounds
afore mentioned . Firstly , the essential character of the deity being
worshipped, which is grounds for review. Moreover the issue of
constitutional morality and its applicability with regards to the rights
guaranteed under Article 25 and the test for essential practises was
incorrectly applied by the Apex Court when deciding whether the
exclusion was an essential practise. Also, there’s no false submission in
the case at hand .
23
Kantaru Rajeevaru v/s Indian Young Lawyers Association & Others Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018
in W.P.(C). Nos. 373 of 2006, 286 of 2017, S.L.P.(C) No. 18889 of 2012, R.P.(C). Nos. 3359 & 3469, 3449 of
2018, Diary No. 37946-38135, 38136 of 2018
24
Kantaru Rajeevaru v/s Indian Young Lawyers Association & Other Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of
2018 in W.P.(C). Nos. 373 of 2006, 286 of 2017, S.L.P.(C) No. 18889 of 2012, R.P.(C). Nos. 3359 & 3469,
3449 of 2018, Diary No. 37946-38135, 38136 of 2018
24
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.2.5) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the

present case, Article 25(1) as per their convictions and practices according
to the fundamentals of tenets religion. These practices are viewed as
fundamental or indispensable to that temple . Any impedance with the
equivalent would struggle with their right ensured by Article 25(1) to
worship Lord Inappa in the form of a 'Naishtik Brahmachari’ .
(1.2.6) Article 26 is subject just to public order, morality, and health and
any other provisions of the constitution. Article 25(2)(b) can't be
perceived to imply that customs and usage shaping a fundamental piece
of the religion, are to be superseded. further, looking into Article 25(1),
worshippers of Lord "I" additionally have all the right to freely profess,
propagate and practice religion and freedom of conscience This right
can be safeguarded provided that the personality of that god is protected
as celibate. The Ho n’ble Court in Bijoe Emmanuel 25held that the
refusal to sing the National Anthem emanated from the genuine and
conscientious religious belief of the children which was safeguarded
Under Article 25(1)26. Article 25(2)(b) would have no application since
there is no blanket ban , however just a restricted limitation during the
informed period, based on faith, custom and belief, which has been
observed since time immemorial. In plenty of decisions it has been held
by the courts the matters of religion extend to imposition of rules and
practices related to worship and modes of worship in temple27.
(1.3) THE PRACTICE IS A CUSTOM AND HENCE PROTECTED

UNDER ARTICLE 25 :
25
Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 615
26
Id.
27
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255: 1958 SCR 895.; Seshammal v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11; Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2016) 2
SCC 725, Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1638.
25
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.3.1) Court in Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai28 held that any practice or

custom which has been followed and continued for time immemorial
without interruption becomes a custom.29 Also, Court in the case of
Riju Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors 30 has also
held that, it being a religious custom makes it immune from challenge
under Part III of constitution.31 Since, the practice of restricting the entry
of women of ages 10-50 is a pre-constitution practice; it takes the force
of law as Article 13 incorporates customs and usages. The primary
characters of a practice to be a valid custom are that it should be of
prehistoric presence, immemorial existence , reasonable , certain and
continuous.
(1.3.2) 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, all
the temples Lord “I” has different forms.
(1.3.3) Moreover, When a Deity is installed or pranaprathistha is

performed, a Mool Mantra and rituals specific to that temple are created.
Each temple is distinct and distinct. In Inbari, the idol is Swamy Inaapa in
the Naishtika Brahmachari bhava, the deity and the consecration are for
specific purpose and the temple has a specific policy too. The policy is
reflected. Thus , in the temple's rituals and practises If these things are
changed, it will change the entire nature of the temple. which would be a
violation of Article 25
28
Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 748, Bhimashya and Ors. v. Janabi
(Smt.) Alia Janawwa (2006) 13 SCC 627, and Salekh Chand (Dead) by L.Rs v. Satya Gupta and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC
29
Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 748, Bhimashya and Ors. v. Janabi
(Smt.) Alia Janawwa (2006) 13 SCC 627, and Salekh Chand (Dead) by L.Rs v. Satya Gupta and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC
30
Riju Prasad Sharma vs. State of Assam and Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 461.
31
Id.
26
MEMORIAL,2022
(1.3.4) In Venkataramana Devaru and Ors. v. Territory of Mysore and

Ors. (supra)32, this Court had seen that Gods have distinct forms
ascribed to them, and their worship at home, and in temples, is
ordained as certain means of salvation. Worship has two elements – the
worshipper, and the worshipped. The right to worship under Article
25 cannot be claimed in the absence of the deity in the particular
form in which he has manifested himself.33
(1.3.5) Religion is a matter of faith, and religious beliefs are held to

be consecrated by the individuals who share a similar faith. Thought,
faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external
manifestations thereof.
(1.3.6) 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
‘Naishtik Brahmachari’. In those temples, the mode and manner of
worship differs from Inbari Temple, since the deity has manifested
himself in a different form There is no similar restriction on the
entry of women in the other Temples of Lord Inappa, where women
of all ages can worship the deity the restriction on entry of women is a
part of the essential practise of this Temple, and the pilgrimage
undertaken. It is clearly intended to keep the pilgrims away from any
distraction related to sex, as the dominant objective of the pilgrimage is
the creation of circumstances in all respects for the successful practise of
the spiritual self-discipline he limited restriction on the entry of women
from 10 to 50 years, in the Inbari Temple is a matter of ‘religion’ and
‘religious faith and practise’, and the fundamental principles
underlying the ‘prathishtha’ (installation) of the Inbari Temple, as
32
Sri Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 : 1958 SCR 895
33
Id
27
MEMORIAL,2022
well as the custom and usage of worship of the deity - Lord Inappa
manifestation of the Lord as a ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’.
(1.3.7) In a very similar case of Sabrimala Temple Senior Attorney V

Giri has presented Arguments on behalf of the Chief Thantri of
Sabarimala. While everyone has the freedom to worship, according to
him, Article 25 stipulates that this worship must be consistent with the
nature of the deity being revered. He emphasised that the deity in question
is a celibate deity in this instance. He claimed that allowing menstrual
women to perform acts of worship inside the temple would compromise
the deity's celibacy. Mr. Giri emphasised that no devotee visiting the
Temple may inquire about its procedures. According to him, the Chief
Priest (Thantri) has a responsibility to preserve the essential characteristic
of the diety34.
(1.4) JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 25 AND

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TEMPLE:
(1.4.1) As stated in the facts of the moot proposition , The Inbari Temple
is one of the few temples in Diana that accepts people from every caste.
Devotees must arrive barefoot wearing a ‘mundu’ and a black cloth over
their heads. This universal practice not only represents the giving up of all
the worldly pleasure but also shows that everyone is on an equal footing
before Lord Inappa. 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, especially
the sanctum sanctorum, by the temple officials. The temple administrators
have observed this custom for more than 600 years. There is, however, no
explicit instruction for this practice. This restriction imposed is because it
is not supposed for menstruating women to enter a place of worship. Lord
34
Sabrimala review hearing
28
MEMORIAL,2022
Inappa was a strict ‘Naistika Brahmacharya’.Therefore, it is thought that

denying admission to women of a certain age group is necessary to keep
the deity's celibacy intact. Even pilgrims lead ascetic lives for 43 days
before beginning their journey to the Inbari temple.They 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.
(1.4.2) Examining the history of a case that was quite similar to, the well-
known Sabrimala case and how the judges were unable to recognise and
notice the distinct characters of the Sabrimala temple. Sastha or Satthanar
is a wholly Dravidian idea of honouring the aristocracy. He is a deity that
is revered by many people in eight various incarnations, one of which can
be interpreted as Ayyappa in Sabarimala. It is a virtue that these various
types of Sastha have made the current situation convoluted. In this way,
the nature of diety is distinctive from place to place and from time to time
. In this way, Sastha can't be understood as a story to put the
establishment for the temple related with Ayyappa in Sabarimala.
Ayyappa actually is a unique divinity who has distinctive pattern for his
customs and other related sacrifices. Consequently Sastha and Ayyappa
can be coupled together yet can't be associated with their customs and the
origination of the diety. Same is in the present case where the restriction
is just in one of the temple of Lord "A" as a result of his celibate nature.
(1.4.3) Moreover , 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. He stated that members of the
29
MEMORIAL,2022
community must decide whether the custom is necessary for Lord

Ayyappa devotees.
(14.4) He emphasised that the Court's decision is unacceptable to the

community. He described the decision as directing a specific religious
community not to hold a belief that had been an inherent part of their
religion.
(1.4.5) 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.
(1.4.6) The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 doesn't

abrogate the Fundamental Right ensured by Article 25 to each person
freely profess, practise and propagate their faith, as per the precepts of
their religion. 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.
(1.4.7) 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. To judge the practise of one Temple by the
standards of another Temple or faith, such as Sikhism or Bahaism, is to
change the Hindu faith's identity. None of the Constitution's reformative
levers were intended to be used to change the identity of any faith.
(1.4.8) 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
30
MEMORIAL,2022
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.35
(1.5) TEMPLES ONLY FOR LADIES36 :
(1.5.1) It is important to note that the very famous Attukal Devi temple,
also known as Women Inbari, in the special Puja of "Ponkala" to Devi is
only permitted to ladies, with large numbers of them attending. It is
possible some people challenged the entry of men into such Pujas, and the
High Court dismissed their petition.
(1.5.2) It is also worth noting that another well-known temple is

Chakkulathukvu. The famous puja known as "Nari Puja" is permitted and
permitted for ladies in the said temple; thus, the age regulation in
Sabarimala is similar to male college and female college, and college is a
temple for learning rituals and spirituality, and temple is a college for
learning rituals and spirituality.
(1.5.3) Temples that are only accessible to women
a) Ladies Inbari/Attukal devi temple, Trivandrum - the Ponkala Puja is

only for ladies, and men are not permitted to participate.
b) Chakkulathukvu temple nari puja for women.
35
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WP NO. 373/2006
Indian Young Lawyers Association & ors. Petitioners Vs.
The State of Kerala & Ors.
Respondents
36
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WP NO. 373/2006
Indian Young Lawyers Association & ors. Petitioners Vs.
The State of Kerala & Ors.
Respondents
31
MEMORIAL,2022
c) Lord Braham, Pushkar, Rajasthan
d) Bhagwati Ma temple, Kanyakumari;
e) Mata temple, Muzzafarpur, Bihar; and
f) Kamrup Kamakhya temple, Assam.
g) 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 as Kavutheendal.
(1.5.4) Therefore , if anyone approaches this Hon'ble Court under Art. 32

for the entry of men into the aforementioned ladies temple, the decision
will be difficult, as it is in the present case. However, 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.
(1.5.5) In the case of, Bishwanath and others v. Shri Thakur

Radhaballabhji and Others37, worshipers have the right to protect the
interests of the deity.
(1.5.6) Thus, 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 particular
beliefs is eliminated via a weaponized kind of equality, it will have an
unwanted abrasion of hindu faith (the personal laws ) and it'll lose its
originality which is against the concept of Article 25 and 26.
(1.5.7) It has been further submitted before the Honble court that , in the
case of P.E. Mathew v. Union of India the court observed that personals
37
Bishwanath and others v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji and Others 1967 (2) SCR 618
32
MEMORIAL,2022
laws do not fall under that purview of Fundamental Rights as they are
outside scope of Art13(1) as they are not laws as defined in Art 13(3)(b). 38
The purpose of a review petition is limited to remedying an apparent error
or the resultant grave injustice that has been the consequence of a decision
of the Supreme Court.
38
P.E. Mathew vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 May, 1999 IR 1999 Ker 345
33
MEMORIAL,2022
34
MEMORIAL,2022
35
MEMORIAL,2022
36
MEMORIAL,2022
37
MEMORIAL,2022
38
MEMORIAL,2022
39
MEMORIAL,2022
40
MEMORIAL,2022
41
MEMORIAL,2022
42
MEMORIAL,2022
43
MEMORIAL,2022
44
MEMORIAL,2022
45
MEMORIAL,2022
46

COVER PAGEe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COVER PAGEe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st Pt.

KANHAIYA LAL MISRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

Pt. KANHAIYA LAL MISHRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

REVIEW PETITION UNDER THE ARTICLE 137

UNION OF DIANA & ORS.

THROUGH THE SECRETARIAT- (1)MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (2)MINISTRY

DIANA YOUNG LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION……………….……..RESPONDENT 2

(UNDER ARTICLE 137 READ WITH 145 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIANA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

3. 372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation

1. Inabri Temple is a famous religious pilgrimage site located in Mahathi, Ireland, in

2. Lord Inappa is considered to be a rigid ‘NaishtkBrahmacharya’. Pilgrims are

3. Since, lord inappa is the resident deity and he is a ‘NaishtikBrahmcharya’, to keep

(i) WHETHER A PERSON NOT BELONGING TO A RELIGIOUS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER A PERSON NOT BELONGING TO A

(1.1) WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO FILE PIL?

(1.2) WHETHER THE TEMPLE OF INBARI IS A SEPARATE

(1.2.1) Article 26 gives religious denominations the power to exercise

(1) It must be a collection of individuals who share a set of beliefs or

(2)common organisation; and

(3) designation by a distinctive name.

(1.2.3) Likewise, in the Dargah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali 3, holding

Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1402, 1962 SCR (1) 383

denominational Temple entitled to the protection of Section 26(2)(b) of

(1.2.5) As a religious denomination, the Inbari management would also

(1.2.7) The Madras High Court defined religious denomination as "the

SUBMISSIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT

(1.2.13) Additionally, it meant that a religious institution or denomination has complete

(1.3) PETITION IN THE MATTERS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ARE NON-

(1.3.11) In the case of Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala 17 Mehta

ISSUE 2: 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

(1.1)SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 137 READ WITH

(1.1.3)Moreover, Khanna, J., emphasized in Kesavananda: "As long as some

(1.2) EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO

It is humbly submitted that in simple terms, Article 25 gives all persons

(1.2.5) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the

(1.3) THE PRACTICE IS A CUSTOM AND HENCE PROTECTED

(1.3.1) Court in Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai28 held that any practice or

(1.3.2) The restriction of entry of women is not a universal practice

(1.3.3) Moreover, When a Deity is installed or pranaprathistha is

(1.3.4) In Venkataramana Devaru and Ors. v. Territory of Mysore and

(1.3.5) Religion is a matter of faith, and religious beliefs are held to

(1.3.6) The question regarding whether a particular practice is an

(1.3.7) In a very similar case of Sabrimala Temple Senior Attorney V

(1.4) JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 25 AND

Inappa was a strict ‘Naistika Brahmacharya’.Therefore, it is thought that

(1.4.3) Moreover , in the Sabrimala review case , Shekhar Naphade made

community must decide whether the custom is necessary for Lord

(14.4) He emphasised that the Court's decision is unacceptable to the

(1.4.6) The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 doesn't

(1.4.7) If the Temple's practise is justified by the Deity's celibacy, it

the Temple premises. In other words, given the Temple's Thanthric

(1.5) TEMPLES ONLY FOR LADIES36 :

(1.5.2) It is also worth noting that another well-known temple is

(1.5.3) Temples that are only accessible to women

a) Ladies Inbari/Attukal devi temple, Trivandrum - the Ponkala Puja is

b) Chakkulathukvu temple nari puja for women.

c) Lord Braham, Pushkar, Rajasthan

d) Bhagwati Ma temple, Kanyakumari;

e) Mata temple, Muzzafarpur, Bihar; and