TEAM CODE -

CLSGIBS20

2ST GIBS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF

BRAHMASTHAN

CIVIL APPEAL NO: 333 OF 2020

TOWER OF SACRIFICE ACTION COMMITTEE

(A)

VERSUS

WORLD SINDHUAN COUNCIL&ORS.

(R)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page I

 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

G.P GEETA PRADESH

Art. ARTICLE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT

& AND
ed. ED.
Anr. ANOTHER
v. VERSUS
U.O.I UNION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page II

 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations II

Table of Contents III

Index of Authorities IV-V

Table of Cases

Books

Websites

Statutes

Statement of Jurisdiction VI

Statement of Facts VII

Statement of Issues

Summary of Arguments IX

Arguments Advanced X-XIII

Issue-I

Issue-II

Issue-III

Prayer XIV

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page III

 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:
1. ABDUL REHMAN V. PINTO AIR 1951 HYD.11
2. REV STANISLAUS V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 1977 SCR(2)611
3. RITU PRASAD SHARMA V.STATE OF ASSAM (2015)9 SCC 461
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V. ACHARYA JADISHWARANDA AVADHUTA
AIR 2004 SC 2984
5. RATILAL PANCHAND V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ORS. AIR 1954 SC 388

BOOKS:

1 .JAIN, M.P, Indian Constitutional law

6th edit, 2010, reprint(2013), Lexis Nexis
2. PANDEY, J.N., Constitutional law of India
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

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

IV
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

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

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 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 RESPONDENT 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.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

VII
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

 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.
 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 ShivMohi 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 RESPONDENT 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

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

IX
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

WHETHER THE DEMOLITION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE AMOUNTED TO NON

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-1

WHETHER THE OBLITERATION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF ART. 25 OF CONSTITUTION OF
BAHRAMSTHAN ?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there is not violation of ART. 25 of the
Constitution of Brahmasthan. because tower of sacrifice is not essential part of particular
community for perform the custom of sacrifice because t reli
ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF TOWER OF SACRIFICE

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

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there is not violation of Art.19(1)(g)
because

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

X
 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 BRAHAMSTHAN ?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 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
BAHRAMSTHAN ?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there is no violation of art. 25 of the
Constitution of Brahmasthan.
Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Brahmasthan guarantees to every person the freedom of the
conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate religion. The right guaranteed under
article 25(1) like other constitutional rights are not absolute. This right is, subject to public order,
morality and health and to other provisions of the part III of the constitution. Also, under sub-
clauses (a) and (b) of the clause (2) of the article 25 the State is empowered by law-
(a) to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be
associated with religious practices.
(b) to provide for (i) social welfare and reform, and (ii) to throw a open Hindu religious
institutions of public character to all classes and section of the Hindus.
It was held in the case of BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS VS. STATE OF KERALA &
KERALA& ORS1 that Govt. may suppress religious practice when it dangers to morals and
presumable those which are in inimical to public safety and good order.
But in the present case, Firstly the conscience, profess and practice of religion by particular
community is against the public safety, public order and morality. Morality mean standard or
principle derived from code of conduct from or particular philosophy, religion and culture.

1
1987 AIR 748.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XII
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

Secondly, the practice of the sacrifice is not the essential part of the their religion. The test of
find out in the case of Commissioner of Police V. Acharya Jagdeshwaranand2 that whether
the nature of religion will not be change without that part or practice.
There is case Ismail Faruqui V. Union of India3 court that held the State Exercise of its sovereign
power places of worship like mosques, churches and temples etc. For maintain law and order and
it is not violation of article 25. And another case is also Ismail Faruqui Vs. UOI4 held that
mosque is not essential part of the practice of religion Islam because Islam and Namaz by
Muslims can be offered anywhere, ever in open were it can be made.
Further case is Gulam Abbas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh5 it has been held that the direction is
given by the Supreme Court for shifting a property connected with religion to avoid clashes
between two religious communities or sects does not affect religious rights being in the interest
of public Order. The facts were that there had been long dispute between the Shias and Sunnis of
Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi, regarding the performance of religious rities by the of shia sect on
certain plots and properties situated in mohalla. To find the permanent solution of problem the
Supreme Court appointed a committee of 7 person consisting 3 nominees of Shias and 3
nominees of Sunnis and Divionak Commissioner as chairman. The Committee is recommended
that the shifting of the two graves of sunnis so as to separate the places of worship of Shias and
sunnis was feasible. The sunnis challenged the implementation of the recommendation on the
ground that it was violation of article 25 and 26 of the constitution.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected their contention and held that the order of the court for
implementing the Committee's recommendation was not violation of article 25 and 26.
The exercise of fundamental rights under article 25 and 26 is not absolute but subject to the
maintenance of public order and the impugned suggestion for the shifting of graves was in larger
interest of public.
So in present case Sindhuans are in majority and it is interest of majority .According to above
case law or restriction impose in article it is not violation of article 25 of the Constitution

2
AIR 1986 SCR VOL-3 518.
3
AIR 1994 SCC 384.
4
AIR 1995 SC 605.
5
AIR1984 SCC 81.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 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 OCCUPATION , TRADE OR
BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) ?

10:12 PM (26
minutes ago)

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that there is no violation of article
19(1)g of Constitution of the Brahmasthan. 
Article-19(1)g gives guarantee to every citizen the right to practice any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business.
And state has empowered to make law in respect of - (I) the professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practicing any profession etc. 
(II)The carrying on by the state or by the corporation owned or controlled by the state, of any
tarde, business, industry etc. To complete or partial exclusion of citizens.
Thus Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) spells out a fundamental right of the citizens to
practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not
prohibited or is within the framework of the regulation, if any, if such prohibition or regulation
has been imposed by the State by enacting a law in the interests of the general public. It cannot
be disputed that certain professions, occupations, trades or businesses which are not in the
interests of the general public may be completely prohibited while others may be permitted with
reasonable restrictions on them. For the same purpose, viz., to subserve the interests of general
public, the reasonable restrictions on the carrying on of any profession, occupation, trade, etc.,
may provide that such trade, business etc., may be carried on exclusively by the State or by a

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XIV
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

Corporation owned or controlled by it. The right conferred upon the citizens under Article 19(1)
(g) is thus subject to the complete or partial prohibition or to regulation, by the State. However,
under the provisions of Article 19(6) the prohibition, partial or complete, or the regulation, has to
be in the interests of the general public.
According to the fact sheet para no. 5 community of the shahians were involved in sale amd
export of beef which is sacred animal for sindhuans and community of shahians also practice of
sacrifice at Tower of sacrifice. 
In TMA Pai foundation V. State of Karnataka6 held that Trade and occupation means some
activities by which person is occupied or engaged. It would be activity of a person undertaken as
a means of livelihood or a mission of life. But in the present case activities perform by particular
community is not similar or match with these activities. 

And the which practices of sacrifice and trade are perform by shahians on site it also Illegal or
immoral and have the reasonable restrictions on these practices perform by the community of
shahians in the interest of general public under the Article 19 clause (6). Which are (1)
reasonable, and (2) in the interest of general public. 
The expression 'in the interest of general public' in article 19(6) is of wide import comprehending
public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the
objects mentioned in part IV of the Constitution. 
In KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 7. the Supreme Court has
set at rest the controversy arising out of conflicting decisions on the matter whether a citizen has
fundamental right to trade or business in liquor. It held-The rights under Article 19(1) are not
absolute but qualified and the state is authorized under clauses(2) to (6)of Article 19 to impose
reasonable restrictions on this right in public interest. A citizen has no fundamental right to trade
or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are
obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of general public.   

6
AIR 2003 SC355
7
AIR(1995) 1 SCC 574

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XV
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

So as state in the case of State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi kasab jamat8, The
petitioner, who were butchers, challenged the constitutional validity of the 'Bombay Animal
Preservation Gujarat Amendment Act, 1994' as applicable to the State of Gujarat. Under this
legislation, state of Gujarat imposed a total ban on Slaughter of Cows and calves and other milch
and draught cattles. The Supreme Court held-the prohibition of Slaughter of cows and her
progeny does not amount to total ban on activity of butchers. The ban imposed by section 5 of
the Act is total with regard to Slaughter of particular class of cattle. They can Slaughter animals
other than cow progeny and carry on their activities. The ban on Slaughter of cow progeny, as
imposed by the act is, therefore, in the interest of general public and reasonable restriction within
the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. Because cow and her progeny are backbone
of India agriculture, economy and also the sacred animal of sindhuans. 
So at the tower of sacrifice practice of sacrifice and the trade of the sale and export of beef which
is sacred animal for Sindhuans on which State has power to  impose restrictions on their trade
and practice on ground of article 19 (6).which is not violation of article 19 (1)g of Constitution
of Brahmasthan.

8
AIR 2006 SC 212

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XVI
 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 BRAHAMSTHAN ?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XVII
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, may tha Hon’ble Supreme
court be pleased to:
1. Accept the writ petition
2. In the alternative declare and adjudge
(A) That the petitioner has suffered violation of the principle of Natural Justice.
And /or

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XVIII
 TEAM CODE -
CLSGIBS20

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 Respondent

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page

XIX