National Moot For Respondent

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT

TEAMLAW COLLEGE
CODE : 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 RESPONDENT
Page 1 of 19
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……………………..……………………..……………………..………………..19
Page 2 of 19
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 19
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 REFERRED
➢ Manikchand and Ors vs Sakarchand

➢ M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020)
➢ Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., (2020)
➢ Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. Union of India & Ors., (2021)
➢ Raghunandan v. G. H. Chawla
➢ Shah Newaz Khan v. The State of Nagaland (2023)
➢ Jotendro Nath v. Raj Kristo
➢ Kesavananda Bharathi vs State of Kerala 1973
➢ Minerva Mills vs Union of India 1980
➢ The order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 738 of 2016
➢ Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P. and V.K. Sood v. Deptt. of Civil Aviation
➢ Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms
Page 4 of 19
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 19
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Lozana that, the
respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble Court in response to the notice sent to the
respondent about the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under section 32 of the Constitution
of Lozana.
Page 6 of 19
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 19
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 19
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 not maintainable because there is no violation of fundamental
rights and they can worship freely at the existing religious places.
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 not valid because if this case is admitted then it will lead to
communal tension and will affect the religious harmony across the country.
3. Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
Pradesh State to another State is warranted?
➢ 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 can be transferred
because section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers "the Supreme Court of Lozana
with the authority to transfer suits or proceedings from one state to another state's High
Court or Civil Court."
Page 9 of 19
4. Whether Petition filled by Mr.Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private

Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid?
➢ 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 not valid because it is
a clear case of violation of Article 50 of the Constitution of Lozana which is the separation of
powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary established by the Constitution of
Lozana.
Page 10 of 19
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
challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991
is not maintainable because there is no violation of fundamental rights and they can worship
freely at the existing religious places.
2. Also, the main objective of this act is to maintain peace and stability across the nation, to
maintain public order, and to promote religious harmony.
3. It is submitted that this petition is especially focusing on the historical injustice and grievance
redressal for the Mannar community only which shows the significance of a particular group
and lacks the broader public perspective.
4. It is humbly submitted that this Public Interest Litigation seeks for violation of Separation of
powers which is a core principle of the constitution by asking the Supreme Court to direct the
Lok Shabha to pass a bill that cannot be entertained.
5. It is submitted that this petition filed by the petitioner is potentially undermining the objective
of the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991, which leads to reopening the historical
disputes between the religious communities which will lead to complete chaos across the
country.
6. It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest Litigation filed by Mr. Tiwari an MP of Mannar
Janata Party resembles their political agenda and this shows the lack of genuine public interest
and filed for political motive.
7. It is submitted that this petition is potentially undermining the Act's core principle of freezing
the status quo as of that date to prevent further disputes which lead to more communal
tensions, and more frivolous litigations will be filled for claiming the religious worship places
and eventually create social unrest.
Page 11 of 19
8. It is further submitted that the private member bill pending in the Lok Sabha proposes
amendments by addressing the concern that is raised in the bill so it is okay to maintain some
patience to wait for the legislative outcome instead of challenging the existing act.
9. In the case of Manikchand and Ors vs Sakarchand challenges the constitutional validity of the
Place of Worship Act 1991 that it violates articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 but it was dismissed only
on the strength of section 4 of the Places of Worship Act 1991.
10. In the case of M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020) which is a
landmark Supreme Court judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the Places of
Worship (special provision) Act 1991 and emphasized its purpose of maintaining peace and
preventing disputes based on historical religious conversions
11. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Public Interest Litigation
seeks judicial overreach by asking the Supreme Court to direct the Lok Sabha to pass a
pending bill which shows it is a strong case for dismissing this PIL as not maintainable.
1
Manikchand and Ors vs Sakarchand
M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020)
The Constitution of Lozana 1950
the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991
Page 12 of 19
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 not valid because if this case is admitted then it will lead to communal tension and
will affect the religious harmony across the country.
2. It is humbly submitted that if this suit is admitted and allows every community to challenge
the ownership of the religious denomination then it will lead to the filling of many frivolous
petitions by claiming the religious denomination which will collapse the fragile peace
achieved by this act.
3. It is humbly submitted that instead of admitting the suit filed by the Mannar community to
convert the Nanavi Minaret as the place of worship of the Mannar community, an alternative
land can be given for the construction of the Mannar Pantheon within the city will be a more
amicable solution.
4. It is further submitted that if the suit filed in the district court of Vanaras is admitted and such
precedent will be enough to bypass the provisions of this act then every religious community
will challenge pre-1947 conversions of worship places which will create immense uncertainty
and instability regarding the ownership of worship places.
5. It is submitted that the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 upholds the secular
character of Lozana by preventing disputes among religions and by promoting harmony but
the petitioner by filing this petition undermining the power of the act which will resume the
historical disputes among the religions leading to endless litigation and social unrest across
religious communities.
6. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., (2020) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court refused to overturn the act and it highlighted that Section 4 does not bar
individuals from approaching other legal avenues for property-related disputes not directly
linked to religious character.
Page 13 of 19
7. In the case of Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. Union of India & Ors., (2021) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition directly challenging the constitutional validity
of Section 4 of the Places of Worship (special provisions) Act 1991, arguing it violated
fundamental rights and went against secular principles and upholding the constitutionality of
Section 4 and emphasizing its importance in promoting social harmony and preventing
communal tensions.
8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to declare the suit filed by the
Mannar community in the district court of Vanaras as inadmissible and uphold the Act's
crucial role in maintaining social harmony in Lozana.
2
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., (2020)
Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. Union of India & Ors., (2021)
Supreme Court on Code of Civil Procedure.
Page 14 of 19
III. Whether the transfer of suit pending in the Distirct Court of Vanaras of Chattar
Pradesh State to another State is warranted?
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 can be transferred because section
25 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers "the Supreme Court of Lozana with the authority
to transfer suits or proceedings from one state to another state's High Court or Civil Court."
2. It is submitted that the Nanavi Minaret committee has lost its faith in the courts of Chattar
Pradesh and the district court of Varanas disregards the provisions of the Place of Worship
(special provision) Act 1991and ordering Archaeological survey shows their bias for Mannar
community.
3. It is submitted that Mr. Tiwari, a Rajya Sabha member from Vanaras belonging to the ruling
MJP (Mannar Janata Party), actively supports the Mannar community's claims also exerting
his political influence over the judiciary to support the Mannar community which leads to
unjust and discriminatory passing of order.
4. It is submitted that this case involves sensitive issues of religious rights, historical
injustices, and interpretation of the Places of Worship Act and its implications extend beyond
Vanaras and Chattar Pradesh, impacting the entire Republic of Lozana which shows national
importance.
5. It is submitted that transferring the case to another state will remove all the political pressure
and impact of communal tension between the Mannar community and the Persian community
which will lead to fair and just legal proceedings.
6. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Lozana has established precedents
for transferring cases due to apprehension of bias or national importance and similar reasoning
could be applied in this case as well.
7. In the case of Raghunandan v. G. H. Chawla the transfer of suit was filed based on the
apprehension of bias and the court concluded that if a party has reasonable fear that they may
not receive a fair trial in the current court due to bias or a charged atmosphere, the case may
be transferred.
Page 15 of 19
8. In the case of Shah Newaz Khan v. The State of Nagaland (2023) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
states that section 25 applies to inter-state transfers even when both states have separate High
Courts. The Supreme Court allowed the transfer due to "hostile circumstances" created by the
defendants in the original state and also established inter-state applicability of Section 25 and
highlighted "hostile circumstances" as a potential ground for transfer.
9. In the case of Jotendro Nath v. Raj Kristo it was stated that where the convenience of the
parties and the location of the property favor a different court, the case may be transferred.
10. 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 can be transferred based on the
apprehension of bias and national importance.
3
Raghunandan v. G. H. Chawla
Shah Newaz Khan v. The State of Nagaland (2023)
Jotendro Nath v. Raj Kristo
The code of Civil Procedure
Page 16 of 19
IV. Whether Petition filled by Mr. Tiwari seeking direction for passing of a Private
Member Bill by Lok Sabha is valid?
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 not valid because it is
a clear case of violation of Article 50 of the Constitution of Lozana which is the separation of
powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary established by the Constitution of
Lozana.
2. It is submitted that Article 212 of the Constitution of Lozana clearly states that the validity of
any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called into question on the grounds
of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
3. It is submitted that Mr. Tiwari has filed this petition to bypass the established legislative
process by exerting judicial pressure on the Lok Sabha to pass a pending bill that is
undermining the legislature's independent legislative function.
4. It is submitted that effective and just law-making should follow the established legislative
process and bypassing this will undermine the valuable role of parliamentary debate,
committee scrutiny, and the right of elected representatives to express their views and vote on
proposed legislation.
5. It is submitted that the legislature represents the will of the people in making laws of the
country which is a core principle of democracy and Mr. Tiwari through his petition tried to
bypass the legislative process through judicial intervention which undermines the
fundamental principle of democracy.
6. It is submitted that setting a precedent where the judiciary can direct the legislature to pass a
bill will be a dangerous avenue that can be potentially misused by any individual or group to
influence the legislative process with malafide intention which leads to biased or
discriminatory legislation.
7. Kesavananda Bharathi vs State of Kerala 1973 was a landmark case that established the
concept of “basic structure doctrine” which means certain features of the doctrine cannot be
alterable including the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary,
Page 17 of 19
from this we able to know that directing the legislature to enact a law would constitute an
encroachment in its legislative function, which is against this doctrine.
8. In the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India 1980 the judgment emphasized the separation
of powers and stated that the judiciary cannot usurp the legislative function of the legislature.
9. An Order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 738 of 2016 states that
directing the parliament to make laws or modify laws would violate the separation of powers
doctrine and the court recognizes the responsibility of the legislature in enacting law through
debate, deliberation and consensus formation.
10. In the case of Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P. and V.K. Sood v. Deptt. of Civil Aviation the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court under Article 226 has no power to direct the
executive to exercise its law-making power.
11. In the case of Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that (SCC p. 309, para 19) “it is not possible for this Court to give any directions for
amending the Act or the statutory Rules. It is for Parliament to amend the Act and the Rules.”
12. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petition filed by Mr. Tiwari
trying to exert judicial pressure over the legislative process will set a dangerous precedent and
will destroy the checks and balances within the democratic system.
4
Kesavananda Bharathi vs State of Kerala 1973
Minerva Mills vs Union of India 1980
Order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 738 of 2016
Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P. and V.K. Sood v. Deptt. of Civil Aviation
Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms
Page 18 of 19
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 dismiss the petition filed by M. Tiwari as Public Interest Litigation.

2. To dismiss the suit barred by the Places of Worship (special provision) Act 1991 at the district
court of Vanaras.
3. To allow the petition filed for transfer of suit into another state by the Minaret committee.
4. 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:
RESPONDENT
Page 19 of 19

National Moot For Respondent

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 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

CHENNAI DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT

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 RESPONDENT

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

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

➢ Manikchand and Ors vs Sakarchand

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

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

1. To dismiss 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