National Moot For Petitioner

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAWCODE:

TEAM COLLEGE
MAURYAN EMPIRE
CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF LOZANA
W.P. ____ OF 2024
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LOZANA
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. TIWARI ………. PETITIONER
-VS-
UNION OF LOZANA ………. RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Page 1 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………..……………………..……………………..2
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………..……………………..………………...3
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………..……………………………….6
4. SUMMARY OF FACTS……………………..……………………..………………………7
5. ISSUES RAISED ……………………..……………………..……………………………..8
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………..…………………………………….9
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………..……………………..…………………11
➢ Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991, is maintainable? ……..……………………..………………11
➢ Whether admission of the suit barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions)
Act, 1991, by the District Court of Vanaras is valid? …..……………………..……13
➢ Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
Pradesh State to another State is warranted? ……..……………………..……….…15
➢ Whether Petition filled by Mr.Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private
Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid? ……..……………………..…………………17
8. PRAYER……………………..……………………..……………………..………………..18
Page 2 of 18
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. LEGISLATIONS
S.No LEGISLATION YEAR

1 The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 1991
2 The Constitution of Lozana 1950
3 The Code of Civil Procedure 1908
4 The Transfer of Property Act 1882
2. LEGAL DATABASE
S.NO LEGAL DATABASE WEBSITE

1 SCC Online https://ssc.nic.in/
2 Manupatra https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
3 Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/
4 Lawctopus https://www.lawctopuslawschool.com/
5 AIR Online https://www.aironline.in/
6 Bar and Bench https://www.barandbench.com/
7 Lexis Nexis https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/
8 Supreme Court Bulletin https://main.sci.gov.in/publication
9 Find Law https://www.findlaw.com/
10 West Law India https://www.westlawasia.com/india
Page 3 of 18
3. BOOKS REFERRED
S.NO BOOKS AUTHOR

1 Indian Polity 5th Edition M. Laxmikanth
2 Constitution of India V N Shukla
3 Constitutional Law of India Durga Das Basu
4 Law of writs V G Ramachandran
5 Writ Remedies Remediable under Public Law
6 Supreme Court Practice & Procedure
7 Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court
4. CASES REFERERED
➢ S.R. Bhommai vs the Union of India1994

➢ U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord
➢ Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India
➢ Sri Adi Visheshwara Of Kashi Vishwanath vs State of U.P. And Ors
➢ Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co
➢ Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde
➢ M.V. Ganesh Prasad v. M.L. Vasudevamurth
➢ Ashoka Stambh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
➢ Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
➢ Akbar vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017)
➢ Asgharuddin & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
Page 4 of 18
5. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
S.NO ABBREVATION FULL FORM
1 ROL REPUBLIC OF LOZANA
2 LOZ LOZANA
3 MJP MANNAR JANATA PARTY
4 POWA PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT
5 SCoL SUPREME COURT OF LOZANA
6 LS LOK SHABHA
7 MP MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
8 HM HAZAD MINARET
9 MN MANNAR
10 PRS PERSIANS
11 KP KHALEESI PANTHEON
12 RS RAJYA SHABHA
Page 5 of 18
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Lozana has the jurisdiction in this matter hereunder,
Article 32 of The Constitution of Lozana, 1950 reads as follows;
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions orders or writs, including
writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari
whichever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
part”
Page 6 of 18
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Lozana is a culturally and ethnically diverse country. The Part III of the
constitution of Lozana states the commitment to religious freedom and secularism in Lozana.
2. In Ancient history, Lozana was ruled by the Mannar community and others. In the 15th century,
Persians invaded the country and took control over the country. They destroyed religious places of
the Mannar community and built their Minaret in the same spots that once witnessed the greatness
of Mannar's fascinating Pantheons in Khansaar and Lozana.
3. The Hazad Minaret is situated near the Khaleesi Pantheon which was the holiest place of the
Mannar community. It is claimed that Hazad Minaret was constructed after the destruction of the
Khaleesi Pantheon. Mannar activists made an effort to reclaim their holy sites and eventually
formed the Mannar Janata Party which is currently ruling the country of Loazana.
4. The MJP had created hysteria against the construction of the Hazad Minaret which led to the
mobilization of the mob which inflamed religious sentiments and led to several hundred deaths of
persons in both communities. To stop the communal tension Government enacted the Places of
Worship Act 1991 to maintain the religious character of places of worship but excluded Hazad
Minaret and Khalesi Pantheon. This was addressed by the Supreme Court by directing the
construction of the Khaleesi Pantheon and directing the government to hand over 5 Acres for the
construction of the Minaret.
5. Now again Mannar activists claim the existence of the Pantheon over which Nanavi Minaret has
been constructed and filed a suit in the District Court of Vanaras which was rejected and directed
the Archaeological Survey department to survey the Nanavi Minaret.
6. A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Lozana challenging
the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that it freezes
the status quo of places of worship, potentially overlooks historical injustices or changes that
occurred before that date.
7. Mr. Tiwari, MP of Mannar Janata P had moved a private member bill to amend the Places of
Worship Act 1991, whereby lifting the bar on claims of Mannar Pantheon in sites where the
Persian Minaret has been constructed and this bill was pending in Lok Shabha.
8. Mr. Tiwari had now approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to direct the Government to pass the
bill which was pending in the Lok Shabha amending the Places of Worship Act 1991.
Page 7 of 18
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special

Provisions) Act, 1991, is maintainable?
2. Whether admission of the suit barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions)
Act, 1991, by the District Court of Vanaras, is valid?
3. Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
Pradesh State to another State is warranted?
4. Whether Petition filled by Mr. Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private
Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid?
Page 8 of 18
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether PIL challenging the Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special

➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Public Interest
Litigation filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship
(Special Provisions) Act 1991, is maintainable because it is violating the fundamental
rights which is the right to equality and the right to religion enshrined in the
constitution, So the Hon’ble Supreme court has the power of judicial review to declare
acts as invalid for affecting the fundamental rights of Mannar community.
2. Whether admission of the suit barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions)
Act, 1991, by the District Court of Vanaras, is valid?
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the admission of the
suit in the District Court of Vanaras which is barred by the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991 is valid because this act is potentially violating the fundamental
rights and discriminating the Mannar community people by restricting their right to
reclaim and restore their place of worship which violate the equal treatment of
religious communities.
3. Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the suit pending in the
District Court of Vanaras of Chattar Pradesh State to another State cannot be
transferred because lack of concrete evidence for the Nanavi Minaret Committee's
accusations against the court's impartiality and disrupting the smooth functioning of
Page 9 of 18
the legal process state with malafide intention to delay the legal proceedings and to tire
out the petitioners.
4. Whether Petition filled by Mr.Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private

➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petition filed by Mr.
Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid
because this bill is to ensure the right to freedom of religion for people and Lok
Shabha’s arbitrary refusal to consider such a bill violates the fundamental rights which
are the right to equality and the right to religion of the Mannar community and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is the guardian of the Fundamental Rights.
Page 10 of 18
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Public Interest Litigation
filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions)
Act 1991, is maintainable because there has been a violation of Article 25 right to freedom
of religion which is a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution itself.
2. It is humbly submitted that the Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991, is violating
the principle of secularism a core component of the Constitution of Lozana which was
added to the preamble of the constitution through the 44th constitutional amendment. This
concept of secularism states that equal treatment of all religions under the law which itself
was violated.
3. It is further stated that this act prevents the power of judicial review through section 4 (2) of
the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 by stating that no legal proceedings can
be initiated for the conversion of religious worship places after August 15, 1947. Therefore,
this restriction undermines the checks and balances and limits the role of the judiciary in
protecting constitutional rights.
4. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this act infringes the religious rights of the people of
Lozana by restricting the ability to reclaim and restore their places of worship, impeding
their freedom to practice their religion.
5. It is humbly stated that the subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation is a violation of
the right to freedom of religion which comes under the guidelines to be followed prescribed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for entertaining the petitions received as Public Interest
Litigation.
6. In the case of U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiff for the conversion
of the worship place cannot be barred by provisions of Section 4 of the Places of Worship
Act of 1991, and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C because
Page 11 of 18
the dispute raised in the suit is of vital national importance. It is not a suit between the two
individual parties. It affects two major communities of the country. In the national interest, it
is required that the suit proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the
cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics.
7. In the case of S.R. Bhommai vs Union of India1994, S.R. BOMMAI led a Janata dal
government, which was dismissed on 21st April 1989, when president rule was imposed in
Karnataka. Until that time article 356 (president rule) on states ruled by opposition parties
was a common practice. Hence, in this case, the Supreme Court had defined the word
secularism stating its meaning as ‘equal treatment of all regions.
8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Mr. Tiwari is filing this
public Interest Litigation to challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship
(Special Provisions) Act 1991 with bonafide intention to address widespread public interest
and not for any personal gain or motive and aim for redressal of genuine public harm and
public injury.
1
U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord
S.R. Bhommai vs Union of India1994,
The Indian Polity by Laxmikanth
Article 25 of the Constitution of India 1950
The Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1950
Page 12 of 18
II. Whether admission of the suit barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act,
1991, by the District Court of Vanaras, is valid?
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the admission of the suit in
the District Court of Vanaras which is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions)
Act, 1991 is valid because this act is potentially violating the right to freedom of religion of
the mannar community which is guaranteed in the Constitution of Lozana itself.
2. It is respectfully stated that this act is restricting their ability to reclaim or restore their
destroyed or converted places of worship which is a grave injustice done to these people.
Also, this interferes with their right to practice and propagate their faith freely.
3. It is further submitted that the government has decided a date in an arbitrary manner which
is August 15, 1947, to determine the status of a religious place which neglects historical
injustice faced by the Mannar community is further violating their right to equality and non-
discrimination enshrined in the Constitution of Lozana.
4. It clearly shows that this act favors one religion over the other which itself against the
principle of secularism which is a core component of the constitution and also affects the
religious harmony in the country.
5. It is humbly submitted that the suit filed in the district court of Varanas seeks an
archaeological investigation to ascertain the existence of the pantheon over which Nanavi
Minaret was constructed and not necessarily the immediate conversion of the Minaret into a
Pantheon. This falls outside the Act's intended scope of preventing religious character
conversions.
6. Also, as per the report submitted by the Archaeological survey department, it is concluded
that the Pantheon existed at the site of Nanavi Minaret, this strengthens the merit of the
claim justify the further investigation under this act.
7. In the case of Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India deals with the constitutional validity
of the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 which bar the legal proceedings
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that this act abates all the pending suits and
legal proceedings without providing for an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for
resolution between the parties, this extinction of judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute
Page 13 of 18
amounting to the negation of the rule of law so section 4 of this act is, therefore
unconstitutional and invalid.
8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the case of Kashi
Vishwanath-Gyanvapi filed by the mosque authorities for the title dispute and finally it
was concluded that land title disputes are not barred by section 4 of the Places of Worship
(special provision) act 1991
9. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court should declare the admission of
the suit barred by the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 by the district court of
Vanaras as valid because there is no alternate dispute resolution mechanism for resolution
between the parties.
2
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India
Sri Adi Visheshwara Of Kashi Vishwanath vs State of U.P. And Ors
The Code of Civil procedure
The Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991
Page 14 of 18
III. Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the suit pending in the
District Court of Vanaras of Chattar Pradesh State to another State cannot be transferred
because the Nanavi Minaret committees have not established any grounds for transferring
the case from the district court of vanaras which was established in the Code of Civil
Procedure.
2. It is submitted that mere dissatisfaction with the order of the court or accusation of bias is
not insufficient for the transfer of the case to another court. Also lack of concrete evidence
for the Nanavi Minaret Committee's accusations against the court's impartiality.
3. It is stated that if the suit is transferred to another state, then it will be inconvenient for the
Mannar community members and also burden the witness because the majority of the
witnesses are residing in Varanas and many of them might be elders or have limited
resources to travel to another state for lengthy court proceedings.
4. It is submitted that transferring the case by accusing the court of giving the order in a biased
manner is undermining the judicial system which cannot be entertained because it is
disrupting the smooth functioning of the legal process.
5. It is submitted that the Nanvi Minaret committee is requesting the transfer of this suit to
another state with malafide intention to delay the legal proceedings and to tire out the
petitioners. Also allowing such transfers will set a wrong example and by using this order as
a precedent other parties may potentially misuse this transfer mechanism to hinder the legal
process.
6. It is submitted that the Nanvi minaret committee has filed this frivolous petition with
malafide intention to tamper with the witness by using their influence and trying to disrupt
the legal proceedings.
7. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., the petitioner has filed a
petition to transfer the suit to another state under section 24 of the civil procedure code it is
concluded that transfer based solely on the convenience of the applicant may not be
Page 15 of 18
sufficient criteria and the primary factor to be taken into account balance of convenience of
both the parties involved in the case.
8. In the case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde the petitioner has filed a
petition to transfer the suit to another state under section 24 of the civil procedure code it is
concluded that the mere influence of the opponent in the locality may not warrant transfer.
9. In the case of M.V. Ganesh Prasad v. M.L. Vasudevamurthy, the court emphasized that the
allegation of bias must be reasonable, proper, and made in good faith by the petitioner
seeking the transfer of a suit. In other words, the petitioner must have a genuine and valid
reason to suspect bias on the part of the judge If the court finds that the petitioner's claim of
bias is unfounded, speculative, or made with malicious intent, the application for the transfer
of case may be rejected. The court should carefully consider all circumstances surrounding
the case] to maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of the judicial process when
addressing transfer requests to ensure that they are made for legitimate and justifiable
reasons.
10. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the transfer of suit pending in
the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar Pradesh State to another State should not be
permitted.
3
Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde
M.V. Ganesh Prasad v. M.L. Vasudevamurthy
Page 16 of 18
IV. Whether Petition filled by Mr. Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petition filed by Mr.
Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid because
this bill is to ensure the right to freedom of religion for people which is a fundamental right
enshrined in the constitution.
2. It is submitted that this bill is trying to rectify the historical wrong and allow the Mannar
community to reclaim and restore their places of worship which promotes the principle of
secularism by ensuring equal treatment of religious communities.
3. It is submitted that this bill is trying to implement equal treatment for all religious
communities which eventually ensures the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution.
4. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Tiwari has exhausted all other alternate remedies to ensure
the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion to all religious communities through
all those efforts became ineffective and very time-consuming.
5. It is stated that Lok Shabha’s arbitrary refusal to consider such a bill violates the
fundamental rights which are the right to equality and the right to religion of the Mannar
community and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the guardian of the Fundamental Rights.
6. It is submitted that the private member bill which proposed amendments passed by the
Rajya Sabha shows widespread public interest in addressing this issue and Parliament as the
representative body of the people has the constitutional discretion to legislate on matters of
public interest, including amendments to existing laws. Therefore directing the Lok Sabha to
pass the Bill does not violate their legislative discretion but encourages them to fulfill their
mandate by addressing a public concern.
7. Therefore, it is further submitted that Mr. Tiwari has approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to direct the Lok Sabha to consider the bill and pass it within a reasonable time frame.
The Constitution of Lozana 1950

The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure
The Code of Civil Procedure
The Write Remedy Remediablr Rights under Public Law
Page 17 of 18
PRAYER
In the light of legal precedents and principles cited, In the light of the provisions of the
constitution applied and argument advanced and in the light of the above premises, it is
prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased;
1. To accept the petition filed by M. Tiwari as Public Interest Litigation.

2. To admit the suit barred by the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 at the district
court of Vanaras.
3. To declare the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 as unconstitutional and
invalid.
4. To dismiss the petition filed for transfer of suit into another state by the Minaret committee.
5. To direct the Parliament to pass the bill within the reasonable time limit.
6. To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND,

EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
Page 18 of 18

National Moot For Petitioner

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

National Moot For Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAWCODE:

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LOZANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. TIWARI ………. PETITIONER

UNION OF LOZANA ………. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………..……………………..………………...3

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………..……………………………….6

5. ISSUES RAISED ……………………..……………………..……………………………..8

7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………..……………………..…………………11

➢ Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special

Provisions) Act, 1991, is maintainable? ……..……………………..………………11

Act, 1991, by the District Court of Vanaras is valid? …..……………………..……13

Pradesh State to another State is warranted? ……..……………………..……….…15

➢ Whether Petition filled by Mr.Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private

Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid? ……..……………………..…………………17

S.No LEGISLATION YEAR

S.NO LEGAL DATABASE WEBSITE

S.NO BOOKS AUTHOR

➢ S.R. Bhommai vs the Union of India1994

S.NO ABBREVATION FULL FORM

1 ROL REPUBLIC OF LOZANA

3 MJP MANNAR JANATA PARTY

4 POWA PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT

5 SCoL SUPREME COURT OF LOZANA

Article 32 of The Constitution of Lozana, 1950 reads as follows;

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

1. Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special

1. Whether PIL challenging the Constitutional validity of Places of Worship (Special

4. Whether Petition filled by Mr.Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private

I. Whether PIL challenging Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special

The Constitution of Lozana 1950

1. To accept the petition filed by M. Tiwari as Public Interest Litigation.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND,

You might also like