1

APPLICANT ARGUMENT NOTES

Zarina & Cersei

V.

Union of Jimland.
 2

Greetings to your lordship

This is the council no.2 on behalf of the petitioners and will be dealing with issue 3, whether the court
of laws is permitted to issue a restraining order against the press in the light of article 19 of the
constitution and issue 4 whether there is any prohibition in any law for people to come together and
practice, profess and propagate a new religion of their choice

With your lordships permission the council seeks to move forward with the arguments advanced.

Much obliged your lordship.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE COURT OF LAWS IS PERMITTED TO ISSUE A RESTRAINING

ORDER AGAINST THE PRESS IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION
2. WHETHER THERE IS ANY PROHIBITION IN ANY LAW FOR PEOPLE TO
COME TOGETHER AND PRACTICE, PROFESS AND PROPAGATE A NEW
RELIGION OF THEIR CHOICE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. That the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) is not violated as the court of law
has the power to grant a restraining order against the press under the reasonable restrictions
mentioned under Art. 19(2).
 3

This contention will be dealt in a twofold manner

a. THE GAG ORDER ISSUED AGAINST THE PRESS DOES NOT VIOLATE ART.19(1)(A)
b. To prevent trial by media
1.1 Freedom of press comes under the ambit of right to speech and expression under Art. 19 of the
Constitution. Freedom of press is an essential political liberty but this right is not an absolute
right and any content published through any kind of media comes under the ambit of reasonable
restrictions under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. If the publications lead to disruption in public
order that disturbs public peace, tranquillity and safety and decency and morality, then the court
can impose a reasonable restriction. A restrain on media can also be ordered by the court in the
case of publication of defamatory material against the person. These restrictions are intended to
strike a balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interest specified under Article
19(2).
As there was unrest in social order and as members of the Samahsutra religion were been targeted wherein,
the members of the Samahsutra religion Justin and Sangamitra were detained by the former religious groups,
a gag order was sought for. Fearing that other members of the group could also face difficulties and
defamatory comments and also as other religious groups believed that the tenants of Samahsutra religion
were immoral 73 , the petitioners Zarina and Cersei had sought for an interim relief of gag order. They
sought to seek such a relief to protect the members of Samahsutra religion from further defamation and
misrepresentation.

“The theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or a gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted, after
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy’s case.”
According to previously held cases any restrictions should be reasonable. The following conditions must,
therefore, be complied with in order to ensure that a law imposing a prior restraint may be upheld as
“reasonable” :
 It must not be vague or uncertain.
 It must be temporary.
 It must offer a standard or policy for the guidance of the administrative authority in
the matter of exercising his subjective power
 Judicial review at some stage or some form has also been insisted upon as regards the
freedom of expression or association.
This was held in the cases of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra,.
State of Maharashtra v. Row
New Road Brothers v. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam
In the case of Zarina and Cersei, these conditions are fulfilled and the gag order on the
media is been asked for a temporary period, till the end of court proceedings to ensure
 4

such a matter which has led to social friction in the society and disturbances among
the other religious groups should be kept away from public interpretation.
Therefore, public spread of outrageous comments by former religious groups of the
petitioners and the media’s commenting on the issue had brought a lot of bad light on
the petitioners and hence, in order to curb it from further propagation an interim relief
of gag order was necessary.
1.2 TRIAL BY MEDIA
Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21. When a person enjoys his rights under Article 19(1)(a), he must do so causing very
minimum inconvenience to others. A person cannot claim his freedom of speech so as to interfere
with the human rights and fundamental rights of others.
trial by Media is the impact of television and newspaper coverage on an
individual and his/her reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt
regardless of any verdict in a court of law. As this case is public attention seeking
case, newspapers tend to compete with each other’s different versions which often
leads to misreporting. The law does not prohibit it in abstract but certain limits are
placed. The limits primarily include, the right to reputation, right to privacy and the
law of contempt of court. Reporting by media in sub-judice matters must be subjected
to checks and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice. Every
effort should be made by print and electronic media to ensure that the distinction
between trial by media and informative media should always be maintained.

Moreover, the media has to be properly regulated by the courts. The media cannot be allowed
freedom of speech and expression to an extent as to prejudice the trial itself. Restraining orders
against the media can either be to prevent possible defamation or invasion of privacy, or one aimed
at protecting the fairness of a trial investigation. Therefore, in certain circumstances it is necessary to
impose restrictions on the media on discussion or publications of matters relating to the merits of a
case pending before the court. A fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a
fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for
or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. The petitioners
fearing the aspects of prejudice and bias in their trial sought for gag order against the media.
 5

2. The Constitution of Jimland does not prohibit practice, professing and propagation of any new
religion.
This contention will be dealt in a twofold manner
3. The Samahsutra religion is not a new religion.
4. The state cannot interfere with practice and propagation of a religion and cannot interfere with
religious matters.
1.1. ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF RELIGION TO
ALL CITIZENS
In SR Bommai v. Union of India, the court held that
“secularism is the basic feature of the constitution”. The State treats all religions and
religious denominations equally. The Constitution does not define religion and any
matters of religion. Religion is a matter of faith but belief in God is not essential to
constitute any religion and the doctrines of the religion defines them. This was held in the case of
Vasudev v. Vamanji,

. In the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v State of Bombay, A religion is not merely
an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward expression in acts as well. No outside
authority has any right to say that these are not essential parts of religion and it is
not open to the secular authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them in any
manner they like under the guise of administering the trust estate

Samahsutra is a religion which has been followed from a long time and follows the left-hand path
rule and it focuses on the aspect of spiritual freedom.
Art.25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate
any religion. Freedom of religion is granted to all persons of India which are subjected to the
reasonable restrictions imposed - public order, morality and health. The religion professes,
propagates, and practices sisterhood and brotherhood amongst its members and also permits
sacrifices and satisfaction of
carnal instincts amongst the same sex. Carnal intercourse amongst the same sex is a
personal right and it is the private aspect of an individual. This does not come under
the ambit of restrictions mentioned under Art 25(2) of the Constitution.

Art.25 includes the terms “propagate” and

“profess” of any religion. Under this ambit the scope of practising and propagating a
new religion is also included. New religions and its formation and practice has always
been part of the society. The practice Dinkoism religion which gained prominence in
 6

India around 2016 and Lingayats of Karnataka claiming for separate religious status
shows that the formation of a new religion based on any belief is permissible in India.
The word religion used in Art. 25 and 26 is personal to the person having faith in the
religion. Religion is a matter of personal faith and beliefs or personal relation of an
individual with cosmos. Hence, these point out to the fact that the Constitution does
not restrict anyone’s belief and thereby religion.
Though, polygamy has been prohibited in other religions, the personal laws of the
Islamic community and the Quran permits polygamy and hence polygamy is practiced
in the Islamic community. 97 Similarly, the practice of carnal intercourse between same sex couple
should be permitted among the believers and practisers of Samahsutra religion and it cannot be
uniformly prohibited to everybody. Therefore, the Ordinance which prohibits same sex marriage
is violative of Art.25of the Constitution.

1.2 THE STATE CANNOT INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Personal laws could not be invalidated by courts even if they are found to be opposed to
fundamental rights, since personal laws were not “laws in force” as defined by Article 13 of the
Constitution.
Thus, personal laws were held to be immune from constitutional challenge. The case
held that personal law is distinct from custom and falls beyond the constitutional
preview. This meant that personal laws need not undergo the test of Part III of the
Constitution or in other words, personal laws are not subject to fundamental rights.
The practice of sisterhood and brotherhood and carnal instincts are practices and
customs of the religion. The test to determine what is integral part of any religion was held in the
case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlatji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan. It held that the test to determine
what is an integral part of a religion is whether it is regarded as integral by the community
following that religion or not. The people of Samahsutra religion consider sisterhood and
brotherhood and carnal instincts as the key beliefs of the religion. The State can regulate under
Art 25(2)(a) activities which are of an economic, commercial or political character though these
may be associated with religious practices. The beliefs of Samahsutra religion cannot be included
under the reasonable restrictions. Carnal intercourse is an individual’s personal liberty under
Art.21.
In Acharaj Singh v. State of Bihar it was held that, if bhog offered to the
deity is a well-established practice of that religious institution, such a practice should
be regarded as a part of that religion. 
 7

Therefore, practices of sisterhood and brotherhood amongst its members and also
sacrifices and satisfaction of carnal instincts are well established beliefs of
Samahsutra religion and they do not lead to infringing of another’s right. Hence, the
practice, profess and propagation of any religion is not restricted.

If your lordships permit I would like to move on with the prayer

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited it is most humbly
prayed before this Hon’ble Court to hold, adjudge and declare that:
 The UNIFORM MARRIAGE REFORMS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2021 is
Constitutionally invalid;
 The Right to marry a person irrespective of religion or sex is within the ambit of
Article 21 of the Constitution of Jimland;
 The issuance of gag order against the media is not violative of any fundamental rights
of the Jimland’s Constitution;
 The practice, profess and propagation of a new religion is within the purview of
Article 25 of the Jimland’s Constitution.
Or pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. For
this act of kindness, the Counsel for the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.