2 Fimt National Moot Court Competition - 2023 Fairfield-Fimt-School of Law, Ggsip University

2nd FIMT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2023
TC: 004

FAIRFIELD-FIMT- SCHOOL OF LAW, GGSIP UNIVERSITY
BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

WRIT PETITION.: /2023
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA
IN THE MATTER OF
ALL ARYAVARTA TEMPLE’S ASSOCIATION …………. PETITIONER

VS.
UNION OF ARYAVARTA …………………………………RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDNENT
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST ABBERIVATIONS .................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................. 3
LEGAL DATABASE ....................................................................................... 4
BOOKS, ART.S AND LEGISLATIONS ........................................................ 4
STATUTES ....................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................. 5
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................ 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE ................................................................................ 9
(1) Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a
larger bench than a division bench?.................................................................. 9
(2) Whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to be a gateway for
state interference in religion?........................................................................... 11
2.1 THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. ......................................................................... 12
2.2 The scope of judicial review is not subiect to religious sensitivities of
the people. ....................................................................................................... 13
(3) whether the state laws/orders regulating affairs of religious institutions
amount to interference in the right to religion provided by the
Constitution? ..................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Article 25(2) of the constitution empowers the state to regulate the
economic, financial, political or other secular activities which are related
to other religious activities. ........................................................................... 15
3.2 The state laws/orders do not take the consideration of the religious
sensitivities of the institutions while regulating its affairs. ........................ 16
1
LIST ABBERIVATIONS
SNO. ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
1. GOVT. Government
2. HON`BLE Honourable
3. U/A Under Article
5. Sec. Section
6. V. Versus
7. AIR All India Report
8. SC Supreme court
9. SCC Supreme court Cases
10. ORS. Others
11. NO. Number
12. R/W Read with
13. ART. Article
14. Info. Information
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
❖ CASES
SNO. CASES CITATION

1. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State Of 1954 AIR 388, 1954 SCR
Bombay 1035
2. Bombay v. Narasu Appa AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53

BOMLR 779, ILR 1951 Bom
775
3. sharaya bano v. union of India, Shayara W.P.(C) No.-000118-000118 /

Bano 2016
4. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
5. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1)

Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1984) 447
Ors. V. Acharya Jagdishwarananda (2004)
6. Bhuri v. State of J. & K SC 171132
7. Gram panchayat shani shingnapur vs WRIT PETITION NO. 8593

state of Maharashtra
OF 2016
8. G.Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Appeal (civil) 1013-1015 of

Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. v
State of UP & Ors 1987
9. Mohd Qureshi v. State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
10. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373
State of Kerala
OF 2006
11. Bira Kishore Devi v. State of Orissa AIR 1964 SC 1501
12. Sharaya Bano v. union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of
2016
3
Indian young lawyer association v. state WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

13. of Kerala
NO. 373 OF 2006
14. Dilawar Singh v. State of Punjab CRM-M No.40615 of 2016
LEGAL DATABASE
I www.scconline.com
IIwww.manupatra.com
III www.legalquest.com
IV www.legalmatch.com
V www.lawoctopus.com
BOOKS, ART.S AND LEGISLATIONS

I D.D Basu Commentary (ed.), The Constitution of India, (Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Publications, Nagpur, 8th ed. 2008).
II H.M. Seervai (ed.), Constitutional Law of India, (Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 4th ed.
2010).
STATUTES
I. The Constitution of India, art. 25, 26 , 28
II. . The Constitution of India, art. 137
III. S.C Rules, 2013
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent has approached the hon’ble Supreme court in response to writ petition filed
by petitioner under article 321 of the constitution
1
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice
when they feel that their right has been 'unduly deprived
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The constitution of Aryavarta – a country in south Asia, provides its people with fundamental
right to freedom of religion under article 25 to 28 with certain limitations. Republic of aryavarta
also known for its independent and impartial judiciary. The court recognised secularism to be
part of basic structure of the constitution in one of the leading cases.
At times courts have adjudicated in several cases which are not limited to any particular religion
but for all religion relating to questions of affairs of religion and religious institutions which
includes administration of temple, financial management, regulating the offerings in temple
etc.
IN THE YEAR 2014,

In one its case the court recognised that the state could take control of temples only to remove
a malpractice and once the evil stands remedied same must be handed over to the person
concerned.
IN THE YEAR 2018,

A constitution bench of the court in a PIL allowing entry of women in the swarappa temple
situated in the southern part of aryavarta.
IN THE YEAR 2020,
The court recognised the right of royal family of travanpuram to manage the travanpuri temple
based on continued practice and custom.
IN THE YEAR 2022,

The govt. of Dakshin province through an ‘office order’ decided to take over complete control
over of all temples situated in the state and vest them in a board formed by the state. All
aryavarta temples association together with other temple associations resolved in November
2022 to file a writ petition in the form of PIL challenging the ‘office order’ of govt. before the
hon’ble supreme court of aryavarta.
STATUS QUO
Now the matter came up before the three judge bench to decide the issues which includes
admissibility and reference of case to the large
6
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a

larger bench than a division bench?
2. Whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to be a gateway for
state interference in religion?
3. Whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to be a gateway for
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a larger

bench than a division bench?
It is being humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the matter should not be
referred to any larger bench instead of being referred it should be heard by three judge bench
or a division bench. As in the present matter there is no substantial question of law found, A
large number of matters related to this kind of issues have been decided by division bench and
there is no relevant need for reference of matter to constitutional bench this matter neither
involve interpretation of law nor any fundamental rights of citizen is found being violated so
the matter should to be heard by three judge bench or divisional bench.
2. Whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to be a gateway for state
interference in religion?
It is being humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the ERP concept has been
followed since 1948 and lays down which essential religious ceremonies can be protected by
the constitution . The test itself provides a constitutional safeguard to protect the right to
profess practice and propogate one’s religion
3.whether the state laws/orders regulating affairs of religious institutions amount to

interference in the right to religion provided by the Constitution?
It is being humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the state laws and orders
regulating the affairs of religious institution does not amount to interference in the right to
religion of the citizens. State interference is necessary to prevent any practices of domination
within it. State is also empowered by the constitution to make laws and orders related to
religion and management of religious institution .As we know rights granted to the citizens
by the constitution are not absolute right every right comes with reasonable restrictions
therefore also in the right to freedom of religion there are also reasonable restriction
mentioned, thus the state is empowered to make laws .
8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
(1) Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a larger bench
than a division bench?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the matter should be heard by a
division bench and there is no relevant need for the reference of matter to constitution bench.
A large no. of matters regarding the interpretation of statutes and acts have been decided by the
division bench. In the present matter there can not be seen any substantial question of law as
well as violation of any fundamental rights of a person. As we know the rights granted by the
constitution are not absolute rights , they comes with reasonable restrictions. Similarly right to
religion also comes with some reasonable restrictions.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons. It provides that all
persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions:
• Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and
• Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
Citizens of the country have a fundamental right of right to religion. People of the country have
freedom of conscience and are free to practice , profess and propagate any religion. All the
religion are equal in the eyes of law But are subject to public order , health , morality and other
provisions.
Being a secular nation , the state and religion are completely apart and separated from each
other but when it comes to any need of the state to interfere in the right to religion of any citizen
, the state is entitled to interfere and formulate or administer the functioning of religious
institution keeping in concern the social welfare of the society.
In the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State Of Bombay2, These two connected
appeals are directed against a common judgment of a division Bench of the Bombay High
Court. The petitioners, challenged the validity of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950,
substantially on the grounds that they interfered with the freedom of conscience of the
petitioners and with their right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion and also with
their right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and thereby contravened the
2
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State Of Bombay 1954 AIR 388, 1954 SCR 1035
9
provisions of articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. the learned Chief Justice of Bombay
directed the transfer of the later petition from the Original Side to the Appellate Side of the
High Court and both of them were heard together by a Division Bench.
As in the above mentioned case as all the facts and issues are similar , the matter was heard by
a Division bench similarly this matter should also be heard by a division bench
10
(2) Whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to be a gateway for
It is being humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the erp concept has been
followed since 1948 and lays down which essential religious ceremonies can be protected by
the constitution . The test itself provides a constitutional safeguard to protect the right to
profess practice and propogate one’s releigion .
The ERP concept can be traced back to the debates in the Constituent Assembly in December
1948, when while discussing religious freedom clauses, BR Ambedkar observed that
ceremonials which are “essentially religious” can be protected by the Constitution. He
acknowledged that in India, religion and its practices regulate almost every aspect of life,
however, there should be limitations on such influence and these religious practices should be
able to withstand the test of Constitutional Morality in order to continue.
A. The Bombay High Court in State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa 3(1952) used this term for
the first time.
The essential practices test has been used by the Court to decide a variety of cases.
These can be broadly classified under a few heads:
* First, the Court has taken recourse to this test to decide which religious practices are eligible
for constitutional protection.
* Second, the Court has used the test to adjudicate the legitimacy of legislation for managing
religious institutions.
* Finally, the Court has employed this doctrine to judge the extent of independence that can be
enjoyed by religious denominations.
S.C on various occasions struck
down many practices which are in the name of essential practices of religion followed and carry
forward by the staunch supporter of the religion.
B. In sharaya bano v. union of India, Shayara Bano, 4a 35-year-old woman, challenged the
practice after getting divorced under the triple talaq custom. In 2017, the Supreme Court, in a
landmark 3-2 verdict, had struck down instant triple talaq. Three of the five judges on the
Constitution Bench had called the practise un-Islamic and “arbitrary” and disagreed with the
3
Bombay vs Narasu Appa- AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53 BOMLR 779, ILR 1951 Bom 775
4
sharaya bano vs union of India, Shayara Bano W.P.(C) No.-000118-000118 / 2016
11
view that triple talaq was an integral part of religious practice. The ruling of SC is truly a
watershed moment in women empowerment movement in India. The court has given
progressive thoughts enshrined in the Constitution precedence over personal law in society.
C. The Supreme Court in Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar 5(1958) adopted this major shift
while holding that sacrifice of a cow on Eid al-Fitr was not an essential religious practice for
the Muslims.
D. Notably in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
(1984)6 and Ors. vs Acharya Jagdishwarananda (2004), the Supreme Court applied the ERP
test to reject the claim of Anand Margis to perform tandava dance.
2.1 THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS.
It is being humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the actions of the State
are not violative of the Fundamental Rights. State always review those practices which are
inconsistent with the fundamental rights and discriminatory in nature. Every person has
fundamental right to practice, profess and propagate their religion within the reasonable
restrictions provided in the art.25 of the constitution.
E. In Bhuri v. State of J. & K 7. In this case, the issue related to the constitutional validity of
the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine
Act, 1988 which abolished the right of performing Pooja. The Act took over the administration,
governance, management of the shrine fund and vested it with the Board constituted under the
Act (Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board). The S.C upheld the Act as constitutionally valid
and observed that right to pooja is a customary right and the state by enacting a legislation can
abolish it. The rights under Art.26 is not absolute but is subject to certain limitation.
Entries 1-2 of the concurrent list authorize the union and the state legislatures to create and
punish for offences in order to enforce any Act which contravenes any of the provisions in Art.
25, i.e., public order, morality, social welfare or reform. Thus, both the State Legislature and
the Parliament has the power to intervene in religious practices.
In India, Secularism is seen as a fundamental feature of our society. It has been described by
Rajeev Bhargava, a political theorist, as a model of ‘principled distance’, which permits state
intervention in religious affairs only if it remains neutral and follows the principles of
constitutional morality. A strict separation of the state from religion will result in rampant
misuse of religion to continue with unconstitutional practices. The enjoyment of one’s religious
rights does not allow them the liberty to violate another person’s fundamental rights.
5
Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
6
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1984) 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1)
447and Ors. vs Acharya Jagdishwarananda (2004)
7
Bhuri v. State of J. & K AIR 1997 SC 171132
12
F. In Gram panchayat shani shingnapur vs state of Maharashtra8, it was held by the Bombay
high court that it is the women’s fundamental right to go into places of worship and the govt.is
duty bound to protect it. Chief justice waghela said “there is no law that prevents entry of
women in any place. If you allow men then you should allow women also. If a male can go and
pray before the deity then why not women? It is the state government’s duty to protect the
rights of women”.
The rights seemed under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute but subject to legislation by the State
limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated
with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and that they are also subject to social reform
by suitable legislation.
G.Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. v State of UP & Ors9,
Upholding the validity of the U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, the court drew a
distinction between the religious and secular functions of the Temple. The impugned Act, it
was held, only pertained to the latter, i.e. the secular functions of administration and
management of the Temple. These were not essential or intrinsic elements to the practice of the
religion and the Legislature was thus competent to enact a law that did not entrust the
Government with the power to interfere with the day-to-day religious practices.
Therefore, at last we can say that state and courts on various occasions interpret the different
religious practices and struck them down if those practices are inconsistent.
2.2 The scope of judicial review is not subiect to religious sensitivities of the people.
The test was not meant to distinguish between practices that were essential to a particular
religion or not. It was meant to differentiate between practices that were in essence religious,
and those that were secular. The protection provided under this test was not meant to be
extended to practices that were declared non-religious, i.e., secular in nature. Instead, they are
not being extended to practices that are religious but have been deemed insufficiently important
in comparison to other practices.
The transformation of the test from dealing with ‘essentially religious’ to ‘essential to religion’
can be traced through three cases. H. The first being that of Venkatramana Devaru, where the
Court asserted the importance of the courts in determining what essential practices were,
contrary to the principle laid down in Shirur Mutt case. . In Mohd Qureshi v. State of Bihar10,
the distinction between
‘essentially religious’ and ‘essential to religion’ becomes clearer. The petitioners claimed that
an anti-cattle slaughter law infringed their right to freedom of religion. The Court opined that
8
Gram panchayat shani shingnapur vs state of Maharashtra WRIT PETITION NO. 8593 OF 2016
9 G.Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. V . State of UP & Ors Appeal (civil)
1013-1015 of 1987
10
Mohd Qureshi v. State of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629
13
“it does not appear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow” and that “the very fact
of an option seems to run counter to the notion of an obligatory duty.”
J. The final step was the Durgah Committee case wherein the Court reiterated the interpretation
of the test laid down in the Mohd. Qureshi case.
K. In March, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dilawar Singh vs State of Punjab held that
Sikhs can appear in courts with kirpans.
In order to determine whether a particular act constitutes an essential religious function or not,
reliance needs to be placed on the doctrines and religious texts of that particular religion.
L. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala11, 2018,the Supreme Court
prohibited the practice of non-entry of women into the temple based on the religious texts and
evidences.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that judiciary always take care of religious sentiments of
people and we can say that The scope of judicial review is not subiect to religious sensitivities
of the people
11 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006
14
(3) whether the state laws/orders regulating affairs of religious institutions amount to
interference in the right to religion provided by the Constitution?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the state laws and orders
regulating the affairs of religious institution does not amount to interference in the right to
religion of the citizens.
State interference is necessary to prevent any practices of domination within it.
India is a secular country, that provides equality to all religions. State has no role in religion
but in practices that run contrary to public morality, repugnant to constitutional morality, State
has to intervene. “Constitution makes it amply clear where the Government is duty bound to
intervene The Indian State follows the principle of Non-Interference in Religious matters, but
it can intervene in case of violation of Fundamental Rights given to the Citizens.
For ex- It allows Sikh citizens to wear turbans and thereby exempt them from the use of
helmets. Therefore state interferes in religious institutions but also provides religious freedom.
3.1 Article 25(2) of the constitution empowers the state to regulate the economic,
financial, political or other secular activities which are related to other religious activities.
Clause 2 of Article 25 says that the state is empowered to limit or restrict or regulate the
religious practices , state has the power that it can make laws. Further, sub clause 2a of the
Article says that regulating or restricting any economic , political , financial or other secular
activities which may be associated with religious practice. State never interferes in the purely
religious activities or practices but there are some other practices on which the state can make
laws. Sub clause 2b of the article says that providing for social welfare and reforms or the
throwing open of hindu religious institution of a public character of all classes and section of
the hindu. State can make laws for social welfare in religious affairs. These restrictions and
regulations should be primarily concerned with the secular aspects of religious practices rather
than with the essentials of religion as per judicial pronouncement.
For example-: In the earlier decades the society was divided between upper and lower class
and at social places like wells and temples etc which are of the nature of social gathering , the
people of lower caste were not allowed to be present or enter there , also the schools being the
15
institutions of public character were can be seen doing casteism , so for the social reforms and
social welfare the state can make laws and thus The Untouchablity Act 1955 was enacted.
Each time the state plans to introduce restrictions to curb religious dealings, it gets a wide array
of reactions from the society. A careful reading of Article 25(2)(a) indicates that it does not
prevent the State from making any law in relation to the religious practice as such. The limited
jurisdiction granted by Article 25(2) relates to the making of a law in relation to economic,
financial, political or other secular activities associated with the religious practice. This means
that the state can regulate affairs related to religion indirectly.
Apart from above mentioned regulations state can intervene for social welfare reforms which
tend toward off social evils prevailing in the society having their origin from religious dealings.
The right is however subject to the regulatory power of the state under Clause (2) (b) of
Article 25. This means that the secular activities connected with the religious institution can
be regulated by the state under the law. First of such acts was Madras Religious & Charitable
Endowments Act, 1925 which, after opposition by Muslim and Christians communities, was
renamed as Madras Hindu Religious & Endowments Act, 1925. The condition is acute in 7
states namely, Tamil Nadu (worst hit), Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, and
Maharashtra.
In the case of Bira Kishore Devi v. State of Orissa12, the Shri Jagannath Temple Act took
management of secular activity of the Temple from Raja of Puri and vested it in committee
constituted under the Act. The court held the Act valid as it did not affect the religious aspect.
The government may exercise his power to administer the temple or audit its assets but what
3.2 The state laws/orders do not take the consideration of the religious
sensitivities of the institutions while regulating its affairs.
- It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that state do take consideration of religious
sensitivities of people.
-India follows the model of positive secularism
(A) India believes in ‘positive secularism’ based on tolerance of all religious faiths and not
‘negative secularism’ followed in countries like France which holds that display of religion in
public is offensive.
12
Bira Kishore Devi v. State of Orissa AIR 1964 SC 1501
16
(B) As per the western model of secularism, the “State” and the “religion” have their own
separate spheres and neither the state nor the religion shall intervene in each other’s affairs.
Thus, the western concept of secularism requires complete separation of religion and state.
(C) However, in India, neither in law nor in practice any 'wall of separation' between religion
and the State exists. In India, both state and religion can, and often do, interact and intervene
in each other's affairs within the legally prescribed and judicially settled parameters.In other
words, Indian secularism does not require a total banishment of religion from the State affairs.
State regulate religious affairs to:
1) Ensure that religious practices are safe and secure to the community and do not harm the life
of persons involved.
2) Maintaining that social customs do not lead to exclusion of certain sections/classes thereby
leading to discrimination.
Regulating the social custom of Sati where widow were burnt alive along with their dead
husbands serves as an example how safety of individuals can be ensured through laws.
But if religious beliefs violates basic human rights state should regulate to eradicate
discrimination
- As it's done in In Sharaya Bano v. union of India13, . In 2017, the Supreme Court, in a
landmark 3-2 verdict, had struck down instant triple talaq. The ruling of SC is truly a watershed
moment in women empowerment movement in India since “triple talaq” is impacting women’s
role in society.
- In yet another historic ruling, Indian young lawyer association v. state of Kerala14. The court
stressed the value of equal treatment under the law and the right to freedom. On September 28,
2018, the Supreme Court opened the gates of Sabarimala temple to all — men and women —
paving the way for women to enter Lord Ayyappa’s temple. The tradition of banning women
from the age of menarche to menopause from entering the temple was illegal and
unconstitutional.
13 Sharaya Bano v. union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016
14
Indian young lawyer association v. state of Kerala WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373 OF 2006
17
- Justice R. Nariman strikes down Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. which states that women at such time during which they
are not by custom or usage allowed to enter a place of worship
- In March, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Punjab 15held
that Sikhs can appear in courts with kirpans.
- Government enforces the ethical and moral behavior through its legislations. likewise social
customs and religious practices also sets the principles of moral behavior which guides the
individual and community behavior in society. But some of the religious practices and social
customs encourages superstitions, malpractices which are illogical immoral and un ethical. But
people project that banning these will affect their religious sentiments. Government
interference in these matters is intended to promote equality, ethicality and legality in society.
So its action are ethical. Hence, government interference does not affect religious sentiments
rather they frame laws considering religious sentiments of people.
15
Dilawar Singh v. State of Punjab
18
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated , issues raised , arguments advanced and authorites
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the hon’ble Supreme Court , that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that
1. The Division bench in itself is. Sufficient and decision awarded is Significant or satifactory
2. The erp test stands significant and it is in thye common benefit of all the citizens
3. The state is not intefering into the religious institutions and it is in the common interest of
public in good
The state, on the other hand contended that the petition was devoid of merits and deserved
outright dismissal as none of the issues were res -integra
Or
Any other order as the hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of equity , justice and good
conscience
All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted and respectfully submitted
( s/d)-
Counsel for respondent
19

2 Fimt National Moot Court Competition - 2023 Fairfield-Fimt-School of Law, Ggsip University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Fimt National Moot Court Competition - 2023 Fairfield-Fimt-School of Law, Ggsip University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd FIMT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2023

2nd FIMT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2023

BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

ALL ARYAVARTA TEMPLE’S ASSOCIATION …………. PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDNENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST ABBERIVATIONS .................................................................................... 2

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SNO. ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

3. U/A Under Article

7. AIR All India Report

9. SCC Supreme court Cases

10. ORS. Others

11. NO. Number

12. R/W Read with

13. ART. Article

14. Info. Information

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SNO. CASES CITATION

2. Bombay v. Narasu Appa AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53

3. sharaya bano v. union of India, Shayara W.P.(C) No.-000118-000118 /

5. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1)

6. Bhuri v. State of J. & K SC 171132

7. Gram panchayat shani shingnapur vs WRIT PETITION NO. 8593

8. G.Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Appeal (civil) 1013-1015 of

11. Bira Kishore Devi v. State of Orissa AIR 1964 SC 1501

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Indian young lawyer association v. state WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

14. Dilawar Singh v. State of Punjab CRM-M No.40615 of 2016

BOOKS, ART.S AND LEGISLATIONS

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE YEAR 2014,

IN THE YEAR 2018,

IN THE YEAR 2020,

IN THE YEAR 2022,

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Whether the matter apart from admissibility should be referred to a larger

3.whether the state laws/orders regulating affairs of religious institutions amount to

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

• Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2.1 THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

State interference is necessary to prevent any practices of domination within it.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

-India follows the model of positive secularism

State regulate religious affairs to:

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

You might also like