TEAM CODE – CLSGIBS20

2st GIBS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BRAHMASTHAN

CIVIL APPEAL NO: 333 OF 2020

TOWER OF SACRIFICE ACTION COMMITTEE

(A)

VERSUS

WORLD SINDHUAN COUNCIL &ORS.

(R)

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

Page I
 TEAM CODE – CLSGIBS20

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

¶ PARAGRAPH

Art. ARTICLE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT

& AND
ed. EDITION
Ors. OTHERS
Anr. ANOTHER
v. VERSUS
U.O.I UNION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

II
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations II

Table of contents III

Index of Authorities IV-V

Books

Websites

Statutes

Statement of Jurisdiction VI

Statement of Facts VII-VIII

Statement of Issues IX

Summary of Arguments X-XI

Arguments Advanced XII-XVIII

Issue-I

Issue-II

Issue-III

Prayer XIX

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

III
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:
1. S.P MITTAL V. UOI AND ORS.,(1983) 1 SCC 51

2. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS MADRAS V. SRI

LAKSHMINFRA THIRTHA SWAMI OF SHIRUR MUTT, 1954 SCR 1005

3. DARGAH COMMITTEE AJMER V. SYED HUSSAIN ALI, (1962) 1 SCR 383

4. M. ISMAIL FARUQUI AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1995 SC 605

5. P.M.A METROPOLITION V. MORAM MAR MARTHOMA AIR 1995 SC 2001

6. S.R BOMMAI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AIR 1994 SC 1918

7. T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AIR2003 SC 355

8. BHANWAR SINGH & ORS VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

BOOKS:

1. JAIN, M.P, Indian Constitutional law

6th ed., 2010, reprint(2013), Lexis Nexis

2. PANDEY, J.N., Constitutional law of India

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

IV
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

54th ed., 2017,Central Law Agency

3. SINGH, MAHENDRA P., Constitution of India

10th ed., 2001, reprint(2003)

4. SEER VAI, H.M, Constitutional law of India

4th ed., Vol.-1

5. BASU, D.D, Commentary on the Constitution of India

8th , reprint 2012, Lexis Nexis

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.findlaw.com

2. http://www.judis.nic.in

3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx

4. http://www.scconline.com

STATUTES:

1. The Constitution Of India,1950

2. Ancient monuments and Archaeological sites and remains act, 1958

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

V
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the matter under Art.132 of The Constitution of
Brahmasthan:

Article 132 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan provides Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme

Court in appeals from High courts in certain cases –  ( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether
in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the
case involves a substantial question of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution
(2) Omitted
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on
the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided
Explanation- For the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order
declaring an issue which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final
disposal of the case.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

VI
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 That the Ramodhya dispute is one of the most talked about and debated issue in
Republic of Brahamsthan. The main issue revolves around the access to the site
traditionally regarded among Sindhus to be birth place of their deity Raghava , thr
history and location of the Tower of Sacrifice at the site . The republic of Brahmsthan
was ruled by colonial powers until its Independence.
 That there are diversity of religious beliefs and practices, dressing , cultural outlook
food habits etc. There are various religion are followed by the people of Brahmasthan
like Sindhu, Buddhism , Christianity , shahian , Jainism etc. and among these
religions , Sindhuans are in majority. Some of these religions like Jainism people
follow the principle of non-violence and follow the vegetarian food habits but no so in
case of other religion .
 The Constitution of Brahamsthan declares some of rights as fundamental rights which
includes right to equality , right to freedom of religion, freedom to carry on any trade,
profession and business etc. the fundamental rights are mostly enforceable against the
State .The concept of State is defined by the Constitution of Brahamsthan . The
Constitution incorporates some features of secularism.
 That in Brahmasthan , sindhuans formulate majority of population whereas Shahians
constitutes as minority . Shahians also practice a custom of sacrifice at towe of sacrifice
which has also been recognized by Ministry of Earth Sciences of Bhramasthan as
essential for preserving the ecological balance and was also an important trade
practiced by the community of Shahians . Majority of Shahians were involved in sale
and export of beef which is sacred animal of Sindhuans.
 It is claimed by a Sindhuan sect SHIVMOHI that shrine had been destroyed during the
reign of Khayat , Shah of Dawadh to built the Tower of Sacrifice which resulted into
violence at the holy site.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

VII
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

 The Republic of Brahamsthan was ruled by colonial power until its independence in
1947 and colonial administration fenced to separate the place of worship After
Brahmsthan got  independence idols of Lord Raghava appeared inside the Tower of
Sacrifice , allegedly places by Sinduans . Shahians protested against the act and both
parties file civil suits. The government marked it as a disputed area and locked it up. A
committee was formed lead by World Sindhuan Council(WSC) in 1984 to build Shrine
in lord Raghava's honour.. Ramodhyan People Party leader B.S. Krishnan headed the
campaign. District judge order the gates of disputed area to be opened in order to
allowed to Sindhuans to worship there.Shahians Set up the Tower of Sacrifices Action
Committee in protest
 RPP came into power In state of Geeta Pradesh in 1991 where Ramodhya was located
and Tower of sacrifice was torn down by WSC supporters in 1992 which resulted in
riots leading to 2000 deaths.
 In 2002 three High Court Judges begin hearings to decide Who own the religious site
and archaeologist on the order of the court Began a survey to find out whether is Shrine
to load Raghav existed on the site. The survey stated that there was an evidences of
shrine beneath the tower, but Shahian disputed the findings.
 Geeta Pradesh High Court ruled in 2010 that the site should be divided with the Shahians
community getting control of third, Sindhuans another third and ShivMohini sect the
remainder. Now the shahians community appeared before This Honorable Court against
the 2010 verdict Geeta Pradesh high court Constitutional bench of five judges headed by
CJI begin day to day hearing in ramodhya dispute in 2020.

The polity and structure of Republic of Brahmasthan are Pari materia to the Republic of India
and the Constitution of Brahmasthan of 1950 is parimateria with the Constitution of India 1950

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

VIII
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE OBLITERATION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE AMOUNTED TO

VIOLATION OF ART. 25 OF CONSTITUTION OF BAHRAMSTHAN ?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE AMOUNTED TO

VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE ANY PROFESSION , OR TO CARRY ON
ANY OCCUOPATION , TRADE OR BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) ?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE DEMOLITION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE AMOUNTED TO NON

FULFILMENT OF THE STATE’S DUTY UNDER ART. 49 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BRAHAMSTHAN ?

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

IX
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE OBLITERATION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF ART. 25 OF CONSTITUTION OF
BRAHAMSTHAN ?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the obliteration of Tower of sacrifice
amounts to violation of Art.25 of the Constitution of Brahmasthan. Because by the obliteration
the particular community is failed to perform their years old custom of sacrifice . Art. 25 gives
freedom to practice the religion So, Shahians are not able to practice their custom on the Tower.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE ANY
PROFESSION , OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUOPATION , TRADE OR
BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) ?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the destruction of tower clearly
violates the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation , trade pr business

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

X
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

under Art. 19(1)g. Majority of shahians was engaged in trade of sale and export of beef which is
crucial for their livelihood . Then it violates Art. 19(1)g of the constitution of Brahmsthan.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE DEMOLITION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO NON FULFILMENT OF THE STATE’S DUTY UNDER
ART. 49 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BRAHAMSTHAN ?

It is most humbly submitted before the court that under art.49 State is duty bound to protect the
monuments and places and objects of national importance . Acc. to Ancient monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 , the tower of Sacrifice is ancient monument and
here while the tower of sacrifice was torn by the WSC supporters State was also involved rather
to protect the Tower from demolition.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XI
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-1

WHETHER THE OBLITERATION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF ART. 25 OF CONSTITUTION OF
BRAHAMSTHAN ?
It is most humbly submitted before the honorable Court that there is violation of art. 251. 
As Art. - 25 of Constitution of the Brahmasthan gives the freedom of conscience, the right to
freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
But In this present case by obliteration of Tower of scarifice, particular community is enable To
profess, practice and propagate their religion. 
By obliteration of tower of scarifice, particular community can not perfrom their religious faith,
beliefs and worship which is violation of article 25 of Constitution of Brahmasthan as well as
preamble of Constitution . The word “ Secularism” was inserted in 42nd Amendment act which
means secular state is neutral state in the matter of religion, state have not their own religion. It is
defined in the case of S.R Bommai V. STATE OF KARNATAKA2. THE Supreme Court held
that secularism is a basic feature of Constitution. The State treats equally all religions and
activities. Referring to the fact sheet there is involvement of State that when RPP came into
power in 1991 , the tower of sacrifice was torn by WSC supporters and RPP.

1
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) 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
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character
to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be
included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to
Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

2
AIR 1994SC1918

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XII
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

Religion is belief which binds spiritual nature of men to super-natural being . it includes worhip
belief, faith, devotion, etc. and extends to rituals. Religious right is the right of a person believing
in particular faith to practice it , preach it and profess it 3

The right to practice of religion mean to perform religious duties, rites and act is done in
pursuance of religion is also part of religion. The protection is thus not limited to the doctrines
but extends to rituals and observance. The expression practice of religion signifies act done in
pursuance of religious beliefs4. The guarantee contained in Art. 25(1), not only protects the
freedom of religious opinion, but also it regarded and protects also act done in pursuance of a
religion . But here the particular community of Shahians was failed to perform their custom or
act done in pursuance of their religion which is also violation of art. 25 of Constitution 
In Commissioner, H.R.E. v. L.T. Swamiar5 Supreme Court explained that, religion is a matter
of a faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. It includes worship,
beliefs, faith, devotion, etc and extends to rituals. The act of destruction tower of sacrifice by
WSC supporters is shameful act for the Republic of Bhramasthan. 

3
P.M.A metropolition v. Monam Mar Marthana AIR 1995 SC 2001
4
PANDEY, J.N., Constitutional law of India
54th ed., 2017,Central Law Agency

5
AIR 1954 SC 282

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XIII
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE ANY
PROFESSION , OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUOPATION , TRADE OR
BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) ?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is violation of the article 19(1)g
of Constitution of the Brahmasthan.

Article-19(1)g6 gives guarantee to every citizen the right to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business.
And State is empowered to make law in respect of - the professional or technical qualifications
necessary for practising any profession etc. 

The carrying on by the state or by the corporation owned or controlled by the state, of any trade,
business, industry etc. To complete or partial exclusion of citizens. 
Here the majority of Shahians was involved in sale and export of beef.

In the present case7 the custom of sacrifice at the tower of sacrifice which has also been
recognized by the Ministry of Earth Sciences of the Republic of Brahmasthan as essential for
preserving the ecological balance and was also an important trade practice perform by the
community of the Shahians. And when we consider the definition of trade explained by Supreme

6
Constitution of India,1950
7
Para4 of fact sheet

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XIV
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

Court it is sale or purchase of goods and also export or import of goods as well as activity by
which person undertaken as a means of live hood.8
But In the present case by the demolition of tower of the sacrifice the particular community is
unable to perform their practice and Trade. Which is violation of the article 19 (1)g of the
Constitution of Brahmasthan. 

8
T.M.A Pai foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR2003 SC 355

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XV
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

ISSUE-3

WHETHER THE DEMOLITION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO NON FULFILMENT OF THE STATE’S DUTY UNDER
ART. 49 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BRAHMSTHAN?

It is most humbly submitted before hon’ble Court that demolition of tower of sacrifice amounts
to non- fulfillment of the State’s duty under art.49 of the Constitution of Brahamasthan.
Firstly , the tower of sacrifice is ancient monument under art. 49 .  
Ancient monuments and Archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 provides the definition for
Ancient monument . 

" Ancient monument means any structure , erection or monument , or any tumulus or place of
interment , or any cave , rock - sculpture , inscription or monolith which is of historical ,
archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than 100 yrs. "

So under the ambit of art.49 for protection of ancient monuments there must be following
condition :
(1) The monument or archaeological site is not less than 100 yrs. old
(2) It has special historical , archaeological or artistic interest , making it worthy of declaration as
of national importance.
(3) It qualifies under specified provisions of definition of the ancient monuments and
archaeological sites and remains act , 1958.
(4) The interested public do not have major objections to such declaration. 
(5) The authenticity and integrity of the ancient monument or archaeological site and remains
have not been damaged.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XVI
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

(6) It is free from major encumbrances.

 
All the above said conditions are fulfilled by the Tower of sacrifice and State was under
obligation to protect the same.
  
WORLD SINDHUAN COUNCIL (WSC) in 1984 build a shrine in lord Raghava's honour and
this campaign was headed by RAMODHYA PEOPLE PARTY (RPP) leader B.S. Krishnan.
District Judge ordered the gates of the disputed area to be opened in order to allow them worship
there. Shahians set up the tower of sacrifice action committee in protest .9
WSC laid the foundation of a Sindhu shrine on land adjacent to the disputed tower of sacrifice
and volunteers of WSC partially damaged the tower . It tells us that district court allowed WSC
to worship and for this only the gates of disputed area will be opened. But when the district court
opened the site to worship for Sindhuans , govt. of G.P didn’t imposed military and police guards
.
When RPP came to power in state of G .P in 1991, Where Ramodhya was located and tower of
sacrifice was torn down by WSC supporters and RPP in 1992 resulted in riots leading to 2000
deaths.10
It's like people forgotten the concept of humanity and want to get as far away from humanity as
possible and became the cold-blooded leader of Taliban who torn / demolished the huge idols of
Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001 and similarly the democratic government of great Brahamsthan is
supporting them in BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CONSTITUTION OF ARTICLE 49 and 355
in which some duties of centre and state are written which tells that to PROTECT
MONUMENTS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE and TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE FROM
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DISTURBANCE.

ARTICLE 355 provides that it shall be the duty of the Union 

  " to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that
government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution "11.

9
Para 6 of the factsheet.
10
Para 7 of the fact sheet
11
Constittion of India , 1950

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XVII
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

As we know by the facts when RPP came into power in state of Geeta Pradesh on 1991 and
tower of sacrifice was torn down by WSC supporters , and RPP IN 1992 which resulted in riots
leading 2000 deaths. 
 
In the case of BHANWAR SINGH & ORS VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 12 three stambhs of
Chittorgarh Fort were damaged due to bombardment fixed for mining by cement industry and
court held that government is under duty to protect the ancient monument under art. 49
and the court held that restoration and reclamation be done as expeditiously as possible For
causing severe damage to the fort structures including Vijay Stambha, Kirti Stambha and
Kumbha Mahal and houses .

Here in the present case the government was failed to perform its duty under art. 49

12
Civil writ petition(PIL) no. 6591/2011

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XVII
I
 TEAM CODE –
CLSGIBS20

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, may The Hon’ble Supreme
court be pleased to:
1. Accept the civil appeal
2. In the alternative declare and adjudge
(A) That the appellant has suffered violation of their fundamental rights enshrined under
Constitution

And /or

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice , Equity and good Conscience. And
for this, the respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Humbly submitted by:

Counsel on the behalf of Appellant.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT Page

XIX