TEAM CODE: ALS 027

XIV AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023, LUCKNOW

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

SINDHUDESH

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION NO:53/2023

UNION OF SINDUDESH & ORS.........................................Respondent

V.

NARANG GANGAPUTRA & ORS. …...................................Petitioner

Memorial On Behalf of the Respondent

 II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATION...................................................................................................IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................X
ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….XV

1. Whether clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the “Gangaputra Resident’s Association’’ is

legal and binding on Narang Gangaputra vis-a-vis Right to Shelter and Art. 300A of the
constitution?..........................................................................................................XV

[1.1] Article 21 has little to do with the right to own property…………………. XV

[1.2] Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines estoppel………… XVI

[1.3] Society registration act 1860………………………………………………XVII

2. Whether a Real Estate Regulatory Authority can exercise jurisdiction with respect to a
project which is not registered under the provisions of RERA? ……………… XVII

[2.1] Is the complaint made under section 3 of RERA Act maintainable before the
authority ?............................................................................................................. XVIII

[2.2] “Every Coin has two faces”………………………………………………. XIX

3. Whether the practice of Samadi Samarpan violates the fundamental rights of a

Gangaputra individual?........................................................................................ XIX

[3.1] The legality of Samadi samarpan………………………………………… XIX

[3.2] Difference between suicide and right to die with dignity………………… XXI

4. Whether the statement of Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated 21st
October 2021 makes him guilty of contempt of court? …………………………. XXIII
 III
[4.1] Validation of contempt of court allegation on Narang Section 2(1)(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides:……………………………………….... XXIV

[4.2] Punishment of contempt of court Section 12 of contempt of court, 1971

provides…………………………………………………………………………… XXV

[4.3] Questioning on the basic structure of judiciary……………………………… XXVI

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………… XXVIII

[Memorial for Respondent]

 IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Abbreviations Full Forms

@ At

& And

A.I.R All India Reporter

Pvt Private

Hon’ble Honourable

S.C. Supreme Court

Anr. Another

Art. Article

http Hyper Transfer Protocol

Ors. Others

I.L.R Indian Law Reports

Ltd. Limited

Pg. Page

SCC Supreme Court Cases

PKL Panchkula

SCDRC State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi

Vol. Volume

URL Universal Resource Locator

V. Versus

RERA Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act

NO. Number

CC Consumer Complaint

Comp. Compensation

NCDRC National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 V

S/§ Section

i.e. That is

Crpc Criminal Procedure code

SPC Sindhudesh penal code

UOI Union of India

% Percentage

NOS. Not otherwise specified

Const. Constitution

[Memorial for Respondent]

 VI

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

 State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, (1986 ) 2 SCC 516

 Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee., 2014 (2) AIR(BomR) 658 : AIR 2014
SC 1304
 Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
 Bikramjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors CC No. 1459 of 2005
 Yellowstone Industrial Plot Allottee’s Welfare Association v.
Sukham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, CC No. 22 of 2017
 Rajiv Chopra v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, CC NO. / 248 of 2018
 Rahul Bansal & Ors. v. M/S GBM Projects Pvt. Ltd., RERA/C-23/751
 Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 1,
 Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha :1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005
 Tilkayat Shri Govindlaji Maharj v State of Rajasthan, 1963 AIR 1638, 1964 SCR
(1) 561
 Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab: 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
 Nikhil soni vs UOI: MANU/RH/1345/2015
 P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others, 1988 AIR 1208, 1988 SCR (3) 547
 Prashant Bhushan vs Union Of India & Anr
 SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2020

FOREIGN CASES:

 Pickard v. Sears

ONLINE SOURCES:

 SCC ONLINE

 HEIN ONLINE
 VII
 INDIAN KANOON

 CASEMINE

 MANUPATRA ONLINE

 LIVELAW

 LEGAL SERVICES INDIA

 INDUS LAW

 FIND LAW

 JUDIC NIC

 BYJU’S

 DRISHTI IAS

[Memorial for Respondent]

 VIII

STATUTES:

 The Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act,2016

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 Indian Penal Code,1860

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 The Contempt of Court Act, 1971

 The Societies Registration Act, 1860

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS:

 DR.J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (58th EDN.2021)

 M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th EDN.2022)

 PROF.S.N. MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE (22nd EDN.2021)

 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE(27th EDN.2019)

 DR.AVTAR SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE(24th EDN.2020)

[Memorial for Respondent]

 IX

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent is appearing before this Hon’ble Supreme court as the
petitioner has invoked the original jurisdiction of this court under articles 32, 131 and 142 of the

[Memorial for Respondent]

 X
constitution of Sindhudesh1. This Hon’ble court has the power to hear this petition regarding
dispute arise in the case against state. The Hon’ble court also has the jurisdiction to decide all
matters referred to it for decision. The apex court also enjoys jurisdiction over safeguarding and
ensuring citizens their Fundamental Rights provided to them under part III of the Constitution of
Sindhudesh. The Respondent reserves the right to challenge the same.

1
The Constitution of India and Constitution of Sindhudesh are in pari materia

[Memorial for Respondent]

 XI

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BRIEF SKETCH OF HISTORY

Gangaputra sect is an ethnic minority group, living in Poorva Pradesh, Sindhudesh; emerged from
the Gangaputra movement in the late 1540s by Ajatshatru Gangaputra.In the year 1870, Kanu
Gangaputra codified a text known as 'Vows of the Gangaputras'.
Samadi samarpan is one of the vows in which the Gangaputra gradually reduce the intake of
foods and liquids after the age of 85 so that life leaves their body gently and the individual can
unite with the creater, Ajatshatru.
Mr. Bhujang Gangaputra, a front man of the Gangaputra sect, who has spent a major part of his
life leading the sect and inter mingle Gangaputra community together. In the year 1970’s, he
purchased land parcels of 8 acres in Sahebgunge. In June 2017, he executed it and registered a
JDA(Joint Development Agreement) with Mr. Rajiv Gangaputra comprising a residential phase
with 2 towers having 100 residential apartments of various shapes and sizes along with necessary
common areas, facilities, amenities and a commercial phase. The said mix use development
project was named "GANGAPUTRA CITY CENTRE". The project wasn't not registered under
RERA,2016 but it was agreed that Best practices will be provided under the provisions of Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 will be followed as nearly as possible. It was
agreed to be completed by March,2021 and handed possession of respective apartments to the
allotted by June 2021. However, it was partially completed by March 2021 and only 50 of the
allottes were handed over the possession.
To assuage the prevalent feeling of dissatisfaction, Mr Bhujang Gangaputra held a meeting with
all the allottees of the residential phase on 27th August 2021 and assured them that all promises
made to each of the allottees will be fulfilled and none of the allottees will lose their money. The
allottees paid heed to the words of Mr Bhujang and it was agreed orally that in the interest of the
community, no allottee will resort to any legal recourse.
In the meantime, the 50 allottees who took possession of their respective apartments had formed a
resident welfare association inter se under the name and style of ‘Gangaputra Residents’
Association’. Written bylaws of the said Association were prepared with the consent and
concurrence of all the members. Byelaw 3(g) of the Association specifically stated that
apartment's ownership shall not be transferred to a person other than a member of Gangaputra
Residents Association, so long as any member is willing to purchase the such apartment.

[Memorial for Respondent]

 XII
ISSUES INVOLVED
Gangaputra sect prominently known for its Confined nature within their community, their
practices and by laws. The main issues were based on the practice of Samadi Samarpan, clause
3(g) of bye-laws of Gangaputra Resident's Association; the jurisdiction of the Gangaputra city
centre & the statement of Narang made in the press conference.

THE PROCEEDINGS
In 1951, the practice of Samadhi-Samarpan was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at
Joysthal. A five-judge bench of the High Court of Joysthal ruled in favour of the age-old
practice.Mr Narang preferred an appeal against the decision of the Authority before the Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal at Hooghlypuram which was also rejected on the same grounds. Further
RERA appeal (in nature of the Second Appeal) was preferred before a division bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Joysthal which again refused to rule in favour of Narang and dismissed the
RERA appeal on 21st October 2021.
In October 2021, Narang Gangaputra filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at
Joysthal alleging that the bylaws of the 'Gangaputra Residents Association is contrary to public
policy and amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights as well as legal rights. On 20th
December 2021, the High Court of Joysthal dismissed the writ petition of Narang Gangaputra and
ruled in the favour of the bylaws of the ‘Gangaputra Residents’ Association’, stating that clause
3(g) of the bylaws are binding on Narang Gangaputra since he signed the agreement knowing as
he had signed the agreement voluntarily.
On 1st March 2022, Narang Gangaputra also filed public interest litigation before the Supreme
Court, stating in his petition that the practice of Samadhi-Samarpan violates the fundamental
rights of a Gangaputra individual and prayed for an absolute ban on the practice of Samadhi-
Samarpan on account of it in being contravention to the right to life as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution and Section 309 of Sindhudesh Penal Code 1860.
On 4th March 2022, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the statement made by Mr
Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated 21st February 2022 and initiated proceedings
based on the information received by it.

[Memorial for Respondent]

 XIII

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the “Gangaputra Resident’s

Association’’ is legal and binding on Narang Gangaputra vis-a-vis Right to
Shelter and Art. 300A of the constitution?

2. Whether a Real Estate Regulatory Authority can exercise jurisdiction with

respect to a project which is not registered under the provisions of RERA?

3. Whether the practice of Samadi Samarpan violates the fundamental rights of

a Gangaputra individual?

4. Whether the statement of Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated

21st October 2021 makes him guilty of contempt of court.

[Memorial for
 XIV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the “Gangaputra Resident’s Association’’ is

legal and binding on Narang Gangaputra vis-a-vis Right to Shelter and Art. 300A of
the constitution?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the
“Gangaputra Resident’s Association’’ is legal and binding on Narang Gangaputra as he
was one of the 50 allottees who took possession of their respective apartments in the
residential phase & he along with other allottees formed the bye laws of Gangaputra
Resident's Association with their consent and concurrence.

2. Whether a Real Estate Regulatory Authority can exercise jurisdiction with respect to
a project which is not registered under the provisions of RERA?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that any Real Estate Regulatory
Authority cannot have jurisdiction over a project which is not registered under RERA
Act’s provision. Despite not being officially stated in the Act, the above-mentioned
system and sequencing do indicate that complaints against promoters for unregistered
projects cannot be lodged. To hold differently would mean that project in which promoters
who fail to register their initiatives could face double jeopardy, as it were, by being subject
to both the Authority's directives and a penalty.

3. Whether the practice of Samadi Samarpan violates the fundamental rights of a

Gangaputra individual?

The practice of Samadi samarpan is doesn't violate the fundamental rights of the
Gangaputra individuals as it has been described as a peaceful and voluntary path to
salvation taken up by an individual at a stage in their life, where it becomes difficult to
lead a normal existence, owing to illness, unavoidable natural calamity, incurable disease
or old age. It doesn't compel any individual to end up their life & violates theirs right to
live with human dignity. Thus, the practice of Samadhi-Samarpan is a peaceful religious

[Memorial for
Respondent]
 XV
practices and is not violative of fundamentals rights of Gangaputra individuals.

4. Whether the statement of Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated 21st
October 2021 makes him guilty of contempt of court?

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that the statement of Narang Gangaputra in
his press conference makes him guilty of contempt of court as he questioned the
independence of judiciary, which is the temple of justice & place of belief for many
innocent people who seek for justice and judiciary is the light of hope. The statement of
Narang has disturbed the political system of the nation and this political instability has
caused the shockwaves across the country.

[Memorial for
Respondent]
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the “Gangaputra Resident’s Association’’ is legal and
binding on Narang Gangaputra vis-a-vis Right to Shelter and Art. 300A of the constitution?

Clause 3(g) is constitutional

.
Clause 3(g) of the byelaws of the “Gangaputra Resident’s Association’’ states: -

‘the apartment’s ownership shall not be transferred to a person other than a member of
Gangaputra Resident’s Association, so long as any member is willing to purchase such apartment.
In any case, any apartment in the residential phase shall not be transferred to a person not
belonging to the Gangaputra sect’.

The above mentioned clause clearly shows that apartment will be transferred to member
belonging to gangaputra sect,Narang wanted to gift one of his flat to his wife who belongs to
methalis , hence it is the violation of 3g.

1.1 Article 21 has little to do with the right to own property-

 XVII
In State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan2,2 the Supreme Court held that Article
21 essentially deals with personal liberty and has little to do with the right to own property as
such. The Land Ceiling Laws, laws providing for acquisition of land for providing housing
accommodation and laws imposing ceiling on urban property etc. cannot be struck down by
invoking Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in
our living Constitution. Article 21 3can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or
‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. 4Thus, violation of the right by private
individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Hence, allegations made by Narang are baseless and are made seeking individual interest .

1.2 Section 1155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines estoppel

It defines estoppel as a principle which prohibits a person from denying what was earlier said by
him in the Court. 

The court in Pickard v. Sears 6said that estoppel is where One party by his words or actions
makes a representation The other party believing in his words acts on that
Or alters his position then the party would not be allowed to deny the things he previously said.

In the third clause, the altering of the position should be such that going back would be unjust or
unfair in the eyes of law, as established in the case of Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana
Mukherjee.  7

-The representation made can be done in two ways:

By words
Through conduct which includes negligence
In Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. senior Superintendent of Post Offices 8, Meerut [32] the
2
State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, (1986) 2 SCC 516
3
India Const. Art. 21
4
India Const. Art. 12
5
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 S/§ 115, 1872 (India)
6
Pickard v. Sears, 6 Ad. & E. 469
7
Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, (2014) 2 AIR(BomR) 658:AIR 2014 SC 1304
8
Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. senior Superintendent of Post Offices, C.A. NO. 4854 of 2009
 XVIII
plaintiff purchased one N.S.C. for which he paid only a certain amount and not the entire amount
of money. The defendant closed the account of the plaintiff and refunded the amount without any
interest on the ground that it was not opened in according to the rules and regulations. On the plea
of estoppel, the court said that the plaintiff himself had purchased the N.S.C. and that no
misrepresentation was made to him by the defendant.

Should be based on existing facts

In order to apply this doctrine, it has to be ensured that the representation made should be based
upon the existing facts and must not be a representation relating to a future promise.
In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India9 it was held that once the party has claimed
that they are contractors and not employees of the company, although they were one, they cannot,
later on, change the plea and say that they are the employees of the company.
Therefore, 
Petitioner was very well aware of the facts with bhujang regarding rules of the gangaputra sect
regarding the property but now he is contradicting the facts.

1.3 Society registration act 1860.

Recovery of penalty accruing under bye-law.-

Whenever by any bye-law duly made in accordance with the rules and regulations of the society,
or, if the rules do not provide for the making of bye-laws, by any bye-law made at a general
meeting of the members of the society convened for the purpose (for the making of which the
concurrent votes of three-fifths of the members present at such meeting shall be necessary), any
pecuniary penalty is imposed for the breach of any rule or bye-law of the society, such penalty,
when accrued may be recovered in any Court having jurisdiction where the defendant shall reside,
or the society shall be situate, as the governing body thereof shall deem expedient.

ISSUE 2

Whether a Real Estate Regulatory Authority can exercise jurisdiction with respect to a
project which is not registered under the provisions of RERA?

9
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 1
 XIX
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that any Real Estate Regulatory Authority
cannot have jurisdiction over a project which is not registered under RERA Act’s provision.

In the Case of Bikramjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors10. :

The majority opinion of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority's entire bench stated that
complaints regarding unregistered projects would not be maintainable before the Authority since
it lacks the authority to decide such issues. The Authority stated that –

“In our opinion, even though it is not specifically laid down in the Act that complaints cannot be
filed against promoters in relation to projects that are not registered, the scheme and sequencing
noted above does lead to this conclusion. To hold otherwise would imply that promoters who do
not register their projects can be put into double jeopardy, as it were by both penalizing them and
also making them amenable to the directions issued by the Authority." Thus, the Authority cannot
exercise its jurisdiction over unregistered projects.

In another case Yellowstone Industrial Plot Allottee’s Welfare Association v.

Sukham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd11., the authority held that “there is no jurisdiction to hear this
complaint as it has been filed in relation to project that is not registered with RERA”.

[2.1] Is the complaint made under section 3 of RERA Act maintainable before the
authority ?

In the case of Rajiv Chopra v. Air Force Naval Housing Board12, New Delhi

Section 313 of the RERA Act, 2016 requires promoters to register their projects with the
authorities before to promoting, marketing, or selling any plot or flat in the project.

The Authority held that, “All of the promoter's rights, responsibilities, and liabilities under the
Act emerge only after registration under the Act. The complaint is not maintainable since this
project was not registered with the authority”.

In another important case Rahul Bansal & Ors. v. M/S GBM Projects Pvt. Ltd.14, Zirakpur

10
Bikramjit Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., CC No. 1459 of 2005
11
Yellowstone Industrial Plot Allottee’s Welfare Association v. Sukham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, CC No. 22 of 2017
12
Rajiv Chopra v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, CC NO. / 248 of 2018
13
The Real Estate (Regulations & Development) Act, 2016 S/§ 3, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India)
14
Rahul Bansal & Ors. v. M/S GBM Projects Pvt. Ltd., RERA/C-23/751
 XX
The Authority decided that no complaint against a project,15 which is not registered with the
Authority shall be maintainable. Hence, The present complaint is dismissed as the Project does
not stand registered with the Authority.

The aforementioned cases clearly states that the liability of the promoter will only arise if the
project is registered under the RERA Act, 2016 otherwise there would be zero liability of the
promoter16 to follow the provision of the act. “Gangaputra City Centre” was not registered under
the RERA Act, 2016 and any complaints registered against the project, or the promoter is not
maintainable before this Real Estate Regulatory Authority. It is true that it is mentioned nowhere
in the act that complaints cannot be made against projects which are not registered under the act
but taking it otherwise will lead injustice towards the promoters.

[2.2] “Every Coin has two faces”

It is true that it is mentioned nowhere in the act that complaints cannot be made against projects
which are not registered under the act but taking it otherwise will lead to injustice towards the
promoters. As the quote “every coin has two faces” suggests that point of view of different jurist
can be different on the same issue, but ignoring the other side completely is not the “complete
justice”. It is humbly requested before the bench that according to the cases mentioned and
argument made.

The Real Estate Regulatory Authority does not have jurisdiction over “Gangaputra City Centre”
and any complaints made against the project under the RERA Act, 2016 is not maintainable
before the Authority.

ISSUE 3

Whether the practice of Samadi Samarpan violates the fundamental rights of a Gangaputra
individual?

The practice of Samadhi-Samarpan doesn't violate the fundamental rights of a Gangaputra

individual as it is a part of customary rites.

[3.1] The legality of Samadi samarpan

15
The Real Estate (Regulations & Development) Act, 2016 S/§ 2(zj), Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India)
16
The Real Estate (Regulations & Development) Act, 2016 S/§ 2(zk), Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India)
 XXI

i. Essential religious practices

To define the essential elements of religion, the supreme court of Sindhudesh laid down the
“essential element of religion” doctrine. Before this, the supreme court had to define what exactly
is religion, resolve the appeals against the legislations which were labelled as controlling religious
institutions, and delimit the boundaries of religious institutions.

In the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha
Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt17 case, a line was drawn between what were matters concerning
religion and what was not. It was laid down those religious opinions and the acts done in
pursuance of those opinions, are religious practices. This implies that the supreme court has said
that the rituals, modes of worship, and ceremonies all come under essential practices of religion.
These have to be protected to the extent that they are within the limits of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India.

In the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlaji Maharj v State of Rajasthan,18 it was held that a
practice is considered essential to a religion if it is essential to the community following the
religion. Furthermore, Article 25(1) 19and 26(b) 20offers protection to religious practices. Affairs
which are purely secular may be regulated by statute without infringing the aforesaid articles. In
order that the practices in question should be treated as a part of religion they must be regarded by
the said religion as its essential and integral part; otherwise even purely secular practices which
are not an essential or an integral part of religion are apt to be clothed with a religious form and
may make a claim for being treated as religious practices within the meaning of Article 26.

The intention of the individual in taking up Samadi samarpan is not to give up life but to take
death in its own stride. It has been described as a peaceful and voluntary path to salvation taken
up by an individual at a stage in her life, where it becomes difficult to lead a normal existence,
owing to illness, unavoidable natural calamity, incurable disease or old age.

ii. In context of Article 25,

It is one thing to say that the Santhara or Samadi samarpan is not suicide as it is a voluntary act of
giving up of one's body for salvation and is not violent in any manner, but it is another thing to

17
Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt, (1954) AIR 282
18
Tilkayat Shri Govindlaji Maharj v State of Rajasthan, (1963) AIR 1638
19
India Const. Art. 25(1)
20
India Const. Art. 26(b)
 XXII
say that it is permissible religious practice protected by Articles 25 21and 2622 of the Constitution
of Sindhudesh.

Article 25 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-

"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.
(3) Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which
may be associated with religious practice
(4) 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

The compulsion or unavoidable rules by a religion to identify it as a religion versus the choices of
various elevated spiritual principles in the doctrines of various religion available to be chosen by
an individual practising such religion ought to have been considered at a detailed level while
interpreting provisions relating to freedom and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
of India. 'Commission of acts' amounting to an attempt to commit suicide should not have been
equated to self imposed 'omissions' (not doing required acts such as eating and drinking-fasting )
for religious reasons. These aspects ought to have been elaborately dealt with particularly when
there are prerequisite conditions enshrined in the sacred religion for the practice of santhara at
least when the said religious practice was going to be equated to criminal offence and termed
equivalent to suicide.

[3.2] Difference between suicide and right to die with dignity.

The practice of samadi Samarpan is to ultimately liberate the soul from the human body which is
in other words known as "death". If any voluntary act leads to death of a person it means suicide
in ordinary parlance. People who commit suicide cannot be punished but people who attempt

21
India Const. Art. 25
22
India Const. Art. 26
 XXIII
suicide can be punished under section 309 23IPC. Whether attempt requires an act or even
omission can be considered as an attempt? Not taking food or water can at best be considered as
an omission. How can it be equated to an attempt to commit suicide which is normally attempted
by acts such as :

a)Consumption of poisonous substances

b) Consuming sleeping pills in large quantity
c) Suicide by hanging
d) Suicide by setting oneself by fire
e) Suicide by drowning in Well, River, Sea etc.,
f) Suicide by running over of bus, train etc.,
g) Suicide by use of weapons capable of killing oneself
h)Suicide by falling from hilltop or elevated buildings/towers, etc.,

The manner in which suicide is committed can be distinguished from Samadi samarpan. While
suicide is the unnatural and untimely termination of life, Samadi samarpan is the peaceful and
gradual path to the extinguishing of life. It is not unnatural or sudden. More importantly, it is a
means to achieve the ultimate end to one’s life by giving up food, water, passions, desires and
material belongings in order to accelerate the dying process, which has already begun in the body.
The individual also has the option of pulling out from this process as and when she chooses to.

The Gian Kaur 24verdict has held that the “right to live with dignity” includes the “right to die
with dignity”, where the process of natural death is merely being accelerated to its conclusion. It
must be added here that this matter, heavily relied on by both the parties, primarily dealt with the
criminalization of suicide, i.e. unnaturally ending one’s life.

The right to die with dignity at the end of one’s life has been distinguished from suicide, and
should have been taken note of by the high court in the case of Nikhil Soni. It cannot be compared
with suicide, Sati or any other form of honor death and it attracts no provisions of law against it.
In Nikhil soni 25case, Justice T.K.Tukol opined that omission to take food is not an offence under
section 309 26of the Indian Penal Code which deals with suicide and that it is not an offence
because it does not injure others. It was finally concluded in the book that it is a noblest way to

23
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 S/§ 309, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
24
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) AIR 946
25
Nikhil Soni v. UOI, MANU/RH/1345/2015
26
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 S/§ 309, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
 XXIV
die in the pursuit of immortality.

The following are some general compilation of some distinctive factors between suicide and
santhara and the same have been enlisted herein for consideration during any healthy debate on
the subject:

(a) the concept of choosing the manner and time of one's death is a centuries-old ritual It is the
devout ultimate test of spirituality, will power, whose ultimate goal is purifying body and mind
and facing death voluntarily.
(b) according to the ritual, a person voluntarily gives up food and water, either because of an
incurable illness or due to the belief that the end is near. it is reserved only for the old and the
invalid and is practised rarely.
(c) Samadhi-Samarpan is a bold spiritual decision to face the death at the final stage of life, can
only be taken by a sensible person with the due permission of his dependents and a preacher after
he has discharged all of his personal, family and social responsibilities.
(d) in fact it is quite natural and peaceful way to bid goodbye to this materialistic world simply
just by the way of fasting. it is a step to exit lifecycle with dignity. santhara thus results from
feelings of fulfillment, contentment, and detachment from karma oriented world.
(e) suicide on other hand is known to be a cowardly taken decision either due to depression or due
to aggression by an insane mind to escape from the hardships of life by killing himself violently
and instantly and running away from the responsibilities of life causing immense hardships,
emotional, materialistic and otherwise to the dependent family members and is not done with the
consent of the family members and upon the advice of a preacher and after clearing all his
personal, family, social commitments.

ISSUE 4

Whether the statement of Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated 21st October
2021 makes him guilty of contempt of court?

The statement of Narang Gangaputra in his press conference dated on 21st October 2021 makes
him guilty of contempt of court as it was an act of disrespect & disobedience toward a court.

Before we deal with the objections individually, we need to understand what are the powers of the
Supreme Court of India in relation to dealing with contempt of the Supreme Court in the light of
 XXV
Articles 129 27and 14228 of the Constitution of India when read in conjunction with the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. According to the alleged contemnors, the Contempt of Courts Act is the final
word in the matter and if the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act has not been
followed then the proceedings have to be dropped. On the other hand, Shri Sidharth Luthra,
learned amicus curiae while making reference to a large number of decisions contends that the
Supreme Court being a Court of Record is not bound by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act. The only requirement is that the procedure followed is just and fair and in accordance with
the principles of natural justice.

Article 129 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

“129. Supreme Court to be a court of record.- The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and
shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” A
bare reading of Article 129 clearly shows that this Court being a Court of Record shall have all
the powers of such a Court of Record including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This is
a constitutional power which cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute.

This Court has framed rules in this regard known as The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for
Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’) and relevant portion of Rule 3 of the
Rules reads as follows:— “3. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in rule 2, the
Court may take action—

(a) suo motu, or

(b) on a petition made by AttorneyGeneral, or Solicitor- General, or
(c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in
writing of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.”

The statement as may be reproduced for easy reference:

“WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HIGH COURT ON 20th DECEMBER, AND THEN ON 21st
FEBRUARY, GOES ON TO SHOW HOW O U R CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS MAKE A
MOCKERY OF JUSTICE. NONE OF THE COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
INDEPENDENT ANYMORE- THEY FUNCTION UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A FEW
AND ONLY CATER TO THOSE WHO ENJOY POPULAR SUPPORT. THESE SO-CALLED
TEMPLES OF JUSTICE REFUSE TO RULE IN FAVOUR OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
27
India Const. Art. 129
28
India Const. Art. 142
 XXVI
AND PROMOTE ANTIQUATED CODES OF CONDUCT AND REGRESSIVE VALUES. IF
THIS SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS WERE TO CONTINUE, PEOPLE WILL
EVENTUALLY LOSE FAITH IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS."

4.1 Validation of contempt of court allegation on Narang Section 2(1)(c) 29of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 provides:

“ ‘Criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,
or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which—
scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court” This is
an extremely wide definition But, it cannot be read apart from the conspectus of the constitutional
provisions within which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended all past and future
statutes to have meaning. All laws relating to contempt of court had, according to the provisions
of Article 19(2)30, to be “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right of free speech.

The courts were given the power—and, indeed, the responsibility— to harmonise conflicting
aims, interests and values.

The law of contempt exists to protect public confidence in the administration of justice, the
offence will not be committed by attacks upon the personal reputation of individual Judges as
such. As Professor Goodhart has put it [ See Newspapers on Contempt of Court, (1935) 48 Harv
LR 885, 898]:“Scandalising the court means any hostile criticism of the Judge as Judge; any
personal attack upon him, unconnected with the office he holds, is dealt with under the ordinary
rules of slander and libel”

In Re: Prashant bhusan 31case, Court observed that any publication that attacks an individual
judge or the court as a whole, casting unwarranted and defamatory perceptions over the character
of the judges would be included within the meaning of scandalizing the court. Such an act instils a
sense of distrust among the people and impairs their confidence.

4.2. Punishment of contempt of court Section 12 32of contempt of court, 1971 provides;
29
The Contempt of Court, 1971 S/§ 2(1)(c), Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)
30
India Const. Art. 19(2)
31
Prashant Bhusan v. UOI & Ors.,
32
The Contempt of Court, 1971 S/§ 12, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)
 XXVII

1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court
may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Provided that the
accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being
made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall
impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub section for any contempt either in
respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a

civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and
that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that the he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding
six months as it may think fit.

4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to
a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in
charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the
company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison
of each such person. Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any
such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed
without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (4) where the contempt of court
referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is provided that the contempt
has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on
the part of, any director, manger, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,
manager , secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the be contempt
and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil
 XXVIII
prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

4.3 Questioning on the basic structure of judiciary

The judiciary cannot be immune from criticism. However, when that criticism is based on
obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower
respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored. An action for
contempt of Court should not be frequently or lightly taken.

Though in the case of P.N. Duda 33(supra), the Court, in the facts of the said case, held, that if the
speech of the Minister is read in entirety, it cannot be said that by some portions, which were
selectively taken from different parts of the speech it could be held that the faith in the
administration of justice was shaken due to the criticism made by the Minister; it will be relevant
to refer to the following observations of this Court.

“Any criticism about the judicial system or the judges which hampers the administration of
justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of judges and brings administration of
justice into ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of court proceedings arise out of that
attempt. Judgments can be criticised; the motives of the judges need not be attributed, it brings
the administration of justice into deep disrepute. Faith in the administration of justice is one of
the pillars through which democratic institution functions and sustains. In the free market place
of ideas criticisms about the judicial system or judges should be welcomed, so long as such
criticisms do not impair or hamper the administration of justice. This is how courts should
approach the powers vested in them as judges to punish a person for an alleged contempt, be it
by taking notice of the matter suo moto or at the behest of the litigant or a lawyer."

As the contemnor questioned on the judiciary of the country which is the main reason behind the
hope of justice of the citizens, it is a matter of concern to make Mr. Narang Gangaputra guilt of
the Contempt of court.

This statement of Narang is enough to spread negativity about the judiciary itself & disturb the
entire legal system of the nation.

33
P N Duda v. V P Shivshankar & Ors., (1988) AIR 1208
 XXIX

PRAYER

Therefore in light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare:

 Clause 3(g) of the bylaws of the 'Gangaputra Residents' Association' is legal and binding
on Narang Gangaputra & is not violative of any particular provision.

 The complaint is not maintainable before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority as it does
not have jurisdiction over the project.


 Samadhi-Samarpan should be legalised as a peaceful religious practices.

 The contemnor should be punished with the punishment as under section 12 of Contempt
of Court Act, 1971.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. For this act of kindness, the Petitioner
shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITONERS

[Memorial for Respondent]

 XXX

[Memorial for Respondent]