DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS.

UNION OF INDIVA

ASSIGNMENT ON MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO. 1

FOR APPELLANT

(THROUGH THE TILAK MAHARASHTRA VIDYAPEETH)

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 1

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

SUBMITTED BY

CA. SANJAY N PAWAR

PRN NO: 21221000207

Class Roll No. 89

SUBJECT TEACHER

PROF. ASHWINI BIRADAR

THROUGH

LOKMANYA TILAK LAW COLLEGE

PUNE

FEBRUARY 2024

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page | 2

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

C.R. No. 15/2024

IN THE MATTER OF

DRISHTI FOUNDATION.....................APPELLANT

Versus

UNION OF INDIVA..................................................DEFENDANT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

UNDER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|3

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS UNION OF INDIVA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Particulars Page No.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6-8

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9-10

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 11-12

5 STATEMENTS OF ISSUES 13-14

6 ARGUMENTS 15-30

7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 31-32

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|4

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.N ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

o.
1 AIR All India Reporter

2 Anr Another
3 Art. Article
4 & And

5 Govt. Government
6 HC High Court
7 Hon’ble Honourable
8 No Number
9 PIL Public Interest Litigation
10 Ors Others
11 SC Supreme Court
12 SCC Supreme Court Cases
13 Sec Section
14 v. or vs. Versus
15 Vol Volume
16 CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
17 IPC Indian Penal Code
18 SCR Supreme Court Reporter

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|5

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

3. THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955

4. PROTECTION OF WOMEN AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

5. THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012

6. THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|6

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

CASES REFERRED

Sr. No. NAME OF THE CASE

RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMA VS THE STATE OF MADHYA

1 PRADESH
SANT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF
2
INVESTIGATION
MADRAS HIGH COURT GRANTS BAIL TO GODMAN SIVA SHANKAR BABA
3
IN POCSO CASE
4 SRI NITHYANANDA SWAMI VS S.ARATHI RAO

5 SAKSHI VS UNION OF INDIA

6 SAINT SHRI ASHARAM BAPU VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

BABASAHEB S/O. BHIMRAO MOGLE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

7
AND ANR
MUKTA DABHOLKAR AND ANR VS THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF
8 INVESTIGATION
S. R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA
9

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|7

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com
 www.livelaw.com
 www.Blog.ipleaders.in
 www.Scconline.co.in
 www.Lexology.com
 https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fundamental_rights/articles
 www.thenewsminute.com
 www.shethepeople.tv
 www.lawfarm.in
 www.Indiacode.nic.in

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
 PROTECTION OF WOMEN AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT
 HUMAN RIGHTS
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|8

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant, Drishti Foundation, a Non-Governmental Organization committed to combating the

exploitation of religious sentiments, hereby submits this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to the

Honorable Supreme Court of India, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32, 25, and

26 of the Constitution of India. This submission delineates the factual matrix, legal contentions, and

the jurisprudential foundation upon which the claims are premised.

Article 32 of the Constitution of India provisions as follows:

a) It guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court through appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of rights conferred by this part of the Constitution.

b) The Supreme Court is vested with the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs, including but

not limited to, writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and

certiorari, as may be deemed appropriate for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part of the

Constitution.

c) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), the

Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise, within the limits of its jurisdiction, all or

any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

d) The rights guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this

Constitution.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page|9

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Under Article 32 of the Constitution, individuals are endowed with the right to seek redress from the

Supreme Court when they perceive an undue deprivation of their rights. The Apex Court is thereby

designated as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights.

This case is instituted by the Drishti Foundation against the exploitative practices perpetrated by the

so-called godman Babaram and his affiliates within their Mathas and Ashrams. The alleged activities

include exploiting the religious sentiments and vulnerabilities of illiterate and impoverished women

and children, and employed youths, by engaging them in armed training for personal security and

preventing governmental intervention, under the guise of divine or supernatural authority. This not

only constitutes an affront to the dignity and freedom of the victims but also contravenes Articles 32,

25, and 26 of the Constitution, alongside infringing upon the provisions aimed at the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 10

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF FACTS

DRISHTI FOUNDATION, Appellant

vs.

UNION OF INDIA, Respondent

Geographical and Demographic Context: Shivrashtra, a state within the Union of India, is

characterized by its hilly terrain and four sacred rivers. The state's religiously devout population is

composed of 40% Hindus, 25% Muslims, 15% Christians, and 20% adhering to other faiths or

identifying as non-believers. A significant portion of the populace is illiterate and engaged in

traditional occupations. Extensive investment in religious practices and adherence to superstitions

detrimentally impacts the socio-economic development of the state.

Religious Education and Employment: Shivrashtra's global renowned for its religious centers has led

to a predominance of religious education, overshadowing secular studies and significantly diminishing

employment opportunities. The competitive nature of religious leaders for donations exacerbates this

issue.

Influence of Religious Leaders: The state witnesses’ frequent religious gatherings, with certain

godmen instilling fear through fundamentalist ideologies, thereby fostering societal and familial

divisions.

Youth Dissent: Observing economic advancements in other states, Shivrashtra's youth have expressed

discontent through protests against oppressive religious practices. These movements are often

spearheaded by moderates, intellectuals, and atheists.

Advocacy for Anti-Superstition Legislation: Dr. Virendra Panhalkar, a 70-year-old social activist

advocating for anti-superstition laws, was assassinated on 20th August 2020. His death highlighted the

contentious battle against superstition.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 11

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Legislative Response: In reaction to Dr. Panhalkar’s assassination, the Governor of Shivrashtra

enacted the ‘Black Magic Prohibition’ Ordinance on 26th August 2020, targeting superstitious

practices and promoting societal welfare.

Scope of the Ordinance: The ordinance specifically outlaws 12 practices deemed superstitious, aiming

to eliminate exploitation under the guise of religious belief without invoking religious terminology to

ensure secular application.

Continued Exploitation: Despite the ordinance, exploitation persists, notably by individuals like

Babaram Maharaj, who amass wealth by exploiting vulnerable demographics under the pretense of

religious authority.

PIL Submission: The Drishti Foundation has filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, challenging the exploitative activities facilitated by various Mathas and Ashrams

led by figures such as Babaram Maharaj. The Foundation seeks judicial intervention to terminate these

activities, confiscate the assets acquired through exploitation, and redirect these assets to the national

treasury for public benefit.

This Statement of Facts presents a comprehensive overview of the circumstances necessitating this

Public Interest Litigation, highlighting the urgent need for judicial redress to safeguard fundamental

rights and promote the secular and socio-economic development of Shivrashtra.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 12

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Maintainability of the PIL

The maintainability of the PIL before the Supreme Court of India hinges on the assertion that

fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 32, 25, and 26 of the Constitution have been infringed.

Given that Article 32 provides a direct avenue for individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the

enforcement of fundamental rights, the petition prima facie satisfies the criteria for maintainability,

provided it substantiates an arguable case of rights infringement.

II. Infringement of Fundamental Rights by Exploiting Religious Sentiments

The activities purportedly exploiting religious sentiments must be scrutinized under the lens of

fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26) and the right to

life and personal liberty (Article 21). If such activities manipulate the religious and spiritual beliefs of

individuals for personal gain, leading to harm or coercion, there exists a substantial ground to argue

that these actions infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens of India.

III. Contradiction to the Secular Structure of the Union of India

The alleged activities, if proven to undermine the secular ethos as mandated by the Preamble and

various constitutional provisions, stand in direct violation of the constitutional mandate. The Supreme

Court's jurisprudence has consistently upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.

Activities that promote religious intolerance or exploit religious beliefs for personal ends could be seen

as antithetical to this constitutional doctrine.

IV. Violation of Religious Freedom by Banning Mathas/Ashrams

Imposing a ban on Mathas/Ashrams raises questions regarding the freedom to practice religion.

However, if these institutions are found to be engaging in practices that exploit followers or contravene

public order, morality, and health, a ban could be justified under the exceptions provided within

Article 25. The critical distinction lies in whether the ban targets the religious practice itself or the

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 13

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
illegal activities disguised under the mantle of religious practice.

V. Government Supervision as an Alternative to Closure

Placing these institutions under government supervision presents a nuanced alternative to outright

closure. This approach aligns with the state's duty to ensure that religious and charitable institutions

operate within the legal framework and contribute positively to society. Such supervision must be

carefully structured to respect religious autonomy while preventing exploitation and abuse, thus

preserving the balance between religious freedom and public interest.

VI. Necessity for Amendment of Existing Laws

The call for legislative amendment to address the activities of exploitative Babas signifies the need for

a more robust legal framework capable of curbing such exploitation effectively. Amendments should

aim to enhance clarity, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and introduce stringent penalties for

violations, all while safeguarding fundamental rights and the secular character of the state.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 14

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA

1. Fundamental Right Enforcement through Public Interest Litigation

The Constitution of India, under Article 32, endows the right to move the Supreme Court by

appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III. In the case at hand, the

actions of the Baba, as alleged, have led to the undue deprivation of fundamental rights, particularly

infringing upon the principles of economic and social justice, which forms a substantive ground for the

invocation of this Article for redressal.

2. Historical Amendments Affecting Article 32

The inclusion of 'Anti-freedom' clauses within Article 32 through the 42nd Amendment—introduced

during a state of emergency aimed at diminishing the judicial review capacity of the Supreme Court

and High Courts concerning fundamental rights applications—was a significant alteration. However,

the subsequent 43rd Amendment repealed these changes, restoring the Supreme Court's authority to

annul state laws and enabling High Courts to examine the constitutional validity of central laws. This

historical context underscores the current expansive scope of judicial review in matters of fundamental

rights, bolstering the PIL's maintainability.

3. Public Interest Litigation: A Mechanism for Legal Redress

Public Interest Litigation represents a legal mechanism initiated in a court of law for the enforcement

of public interest where the legal rights of the community or a segment thereof are impacted. This

case, brought against the State for violating fundamental rights under Article 32, exemplifies the

essence of PIL, underscoring its maintainability against the backdrop of the Union of India.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 15

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

4. Evolution and Significance of Public Interest Litigation

Introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the concept of PIL marks a significant deviation from the

conventional rule of locus standi. Prior to the 1980s, the Indian judiciary entertained litigations solely

from parties directly affected. The advent of PIL jurisprudence allowed for the representation of

broader public interests, thus democratizing access to justice for socially and economically

disadvantaged groups. This evolution affirms the court's prerogative to entertain such applications for

PIL.

5. Jurisprudential Foundation of PIL

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in the landmark judgment of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, articulated the

foundation of PIL, asserting that any member of the public can initiate legal action for the redressal of

a legal wrong or injury caused to individuals or a class of persons due to the violation of constitutional

or legal rights. This principle significantly broadens the scope of legal standing in the context of public

interest, providing a robust basis for the maintainability of the present PIL.

6. Legal Basis for the PIL's Maintainability

The petition under consideration is grounded in the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction to entertain

cases under its writ jurisdiction, as delineated by Articles 32, 25-28, and 21 of the Constitution. The

allegations of religious exploitation and the infringement of fundamental rights, particularly the right

to education and the freedom of religion, provide a concrete basis for the PIL's maintainability.

7. Allegations of Violating Religious Beliefs

The contention that the Baba's actions constitute an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, by

insulting religious beliefs, further emphasizes the legal grounds for the PIL. This statutory provision

against outraging religious feelings underscores the critical nature of the allegations and supports the

plea for judicial intervention.

8. Impact on Secular Education and Fundamental Rights

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 16

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
The assertion that religious institutions, under the Baba's influence, are prioritizing religious education

to the detriment of secular education, adversely affecting employment opportunities and instilling fear

among followers through fundamentalist practices, implicates significant constitutional concerns. This

not only affects the traditional religious activities but also raises questions regarding the violation of

Articles 21 and 25-28, pertaining to the right to life, personal liberty, and freedom of religion.

9. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21's provision that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to

the procedure established by law is paramount. The alleged actions threaten the fundamental rights

protected under this Article, emphasizing the necessity of the PIL for safeguarding these rights.

10. Precedential Support for Fundamental Rights Protection

The reference to the case of State of West Bengal v. Kali Singh illustrates the Supreme Court's

commitment to protecting fundamental rights, even in contexts influenced by superstition or social

beliefs. This precedent supports the argument for the PIL's maintainability in addressing violations of

the right to life.

Conclusion on Maintainability

Given the alleged infringement of fundamental rights, the historical and jurisprudential evolution of

PIL, and the specific legal and constitutional provisions invoked, the petitioners respectfully submit

that the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable before the Honorable Supreme Court of India. This

submission seeks not only the enforcement of fundamental rights but also the affirmation of the Court's

role in addressing significant public interest issues,

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 17

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE II

INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THROUGH EXPLOITATION OF

RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

The exploitation of religious sentiments implicates a direct infringement of the fundamental rights

enshrined in Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India, raising significant constitutional concerns.

1. Guarantee of Freedom of Religion

Article 25 secures for every individual in India the unequivocal right to freedom of conscience and the

liberty to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to considerations of public order,

morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. This foundational right

underscores the entitlement of all citizens to engage in religious practices without undue

encroachment, provided these practices do not contravene the established statutory limitations.

2. State's Regulatory Authority over Religious Practices

This Article further authorizes the State to enact laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial,

political, or secular activity associated with religious practices. This legislative power includes the

authority to initiate social welfare and reform measures and to mandate the opening of Hindu religious

institutions of public character to all Hindus, thereby promoting inclusivity and equality.

3. Judicial Interpretations of Religious Freedom

In "Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali", the Bombay High Court elucidated that Articles 25 and 26 protect not

only the doctrines and beliefs of a religion but also the practices pursued in the expression of those

beliefs, such as ceremonies and rituals, integral to the religion. The Supreme Court of India, vested

with the authority to interpret the constitutional definition of 'religion' and 'matters of religion', has

consistently upheld these provisions to include a broad spectrum of religious expressions.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 18

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
4. Protection of Religious Denominations

Article 26 affirms the rights of religious denominations to establish and maintain institutions for

religious and charitable purposes, manage their affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such

property in accordance with the law, subject to the same limitations as Article 25.

5. Prohibition Against Religious Discrimination in Education

Article 28 delineates the constitutional prohibition against religious instruction in wholly state-funded

educational institutions, safeguarding secular education while permitting religious instruction in

institutions established under an endowment or trust that requires it.

6. The Case of "Aruna Roy v. Union of India"

This landmark case, concerning the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, reiterates

the constitutional mandate for secular education, emphasizing that the study of religious philosophy for

value development does not contravene Article 28, thus fostering a value-based societal framework.

7. Article 21 and the Right to Life

The exploitation of religious sentiments, leading to societal division and violence, underpins a

violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The

interplay between religious freedom and public health emerges as a critical consideration, necessitating

state intervention to uphold public order and health in the face of religious practices that endanger the

common welfare.

Conclusion on Fundamental Rights Infringement

The activities exploiting religious sentiments, as delineated, constitute a clear infringement of

fundamental rights, particularly when such activities undermine public order, morality, health, or the

secular ethos of the nation. The constitutional framework, supported by judicial precedent, establishes

that while the right to profess and propagate religion is fundamental, it is not absolute. Restrictions are

permissible to safeguard the state's integrity, public order, and the fundamental rights of its citizens. In

the instant case, the exploitation of religious sentiments for personal gain or under the guise of

religious authority unequivocally infringes upon the constitutional rights of individuals, necessitating

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 19

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
judicial scrutiny and appropriate remedial action.

ISSUE III

CONFLICT WITH THE SECULAR STRUCTURE OF THE UNION OF INDIA

The inquiry into whether the activities alleged contravene the secular framework of the Union of India,

as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, necessitates a thorough examination of the principles

of secularism, historical constitutional amendments, judicial interpretations, and the specific conduct in

question.

1. Conceptual Foundation of Secularism

Secularism, derived from late medieval European thought, emphasizes the development,

understanding, and respect for diverse religions. It advocates for a societal structure where religion

does not dictate state policies or legal principles. The demand to explicitly include 'Secular' in the

Constitution's Preamble during the 1948 constituent assembly debates, notably by K.T. Shah,

underscores the foundational intent to establish India as a secular state.

2. Constitutional Amendment and Secularism

Despite the initial omission, the secular ethos was formally embedded into the Preamble through the

42nd Amendment Act of 1976, introduced by the Indira Gandhi government. This amendment, often

referred to as the 'Mini Constitution,' significantly reinforced the secular character of the Indian

Constitution, ensuring no religious group could claim supremacy or state endorsement.

3. Judicial Affirmation of Secular Principles

The Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya dispute underscored the constitutional mandate of

equality among all faiths, promoting tolerance and mutual co-existence. This judgment highlights the

judiciary's role in safeguarding secular commitments, ensuring that religious beliefs do not undermine

the unity and integrity of the nation.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 20

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

4. Features of Indian Secularism

Indian secularism is characterized by the state's neutrality towards religions, ensuring non-

discrimination based on religious beliefs and providing every citizen with the right to profess, practice,

and propagate their religion. This principle fosters a pluralistic society, ensuring that religious

tolerance and the dignity of individuals are preserved.

5. Balancing Freedom of Religion with Secular Values

The secular framework defends the freedom of religious beliefs while protecting individuals from

religious imposition. It balances the right to freedom of religion with the imperative that such freedom

does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, thereby maintaining a delicate equilibrium

between religious liberty and secular governance.

6. Impact on Secular Education

The emphasis on religious education to the detriment of secular knowledge in various religious

institutions raises concerns regarding the erosion of secular principles. This shift not only limits

employment opportunities but also potentially indoctrinates youth, contravening the secular mandates

of the Constitution.

7. Legal Precedents on Secular Management

The Supreme Court's decision in "Bira Kishore Dev v. State of Orissa" delineates the distinction

between religious and secular activities within religious institutions, affirming that the state can

regulate secular management without infringing on religious freedoms. This principle reinforces the

state's role in ensuring that religious practices do not violate secular and civic rights.

8. Alleged Activities and Their Secular Implications

The activities attributed to certain Babas, including exploiting vulnerable individuals under religious

pretenses and indoctrinating youth with militaristic training, starkly contravene the secular ideals of the

Constitution. Such conduct not only violates individual rights but also threatens the secular fabric of

the nation by intertwining religious authority with exploitation and abuse.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 21

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Conclusion

The activities in question, when examined against the backdrop of India's constitutional secularism and

judicial interpretations thereof, evidently conflict with the secular structure of the Union of India. By

exploiting religious sentiments for personal gain and imposing religious orthodoxy over secular

freedoms, these actions undermine the core principles of equality, liberty, and fraternity enshrined in

the Constitution. It is imperative for the judiciary to address these violations to uphold the secular

integrity and democratic values of the Republic of India.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 22

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE IV

IMPACT OF BANNING MATHS/ASHRAMS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The contemplation of banning certain Maths/Ashrams raises critical questions concerning the

fundamental rights to freedom of religion as enshrined in Articles 25 of the Constitution of India. This

analysis seeks to explore whether such prohibitory actions infringe upon the constitutional guarantees

provided to individuals for practicing their religious faith.

1. Constitutional Guarantees of Religious Freedom

Article 25 of the Constitution delineates the right of every individual in India to freedom of conscience

and the liberty to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to limitations grounded in public

order, morality, health, and other statutory provisions. This Article establishes a framework within

which religious freedom is both protected and regulated to ensure the broader public interest and

societal welfare.

2. State Regulation of Religious Activities

The provision further empowers the State to enact laws that may regulate or restrict any economic,

financial, political, or secular activity associated with religious practices. This includes the authority to

intervene in the functioning of religious institutions if such activities contravene public order, morality,

or health. The State's regulatory capacity is aimed at safeguarding social welfare and ensuring that

religious institutions operate in a manner that is inclusive and does not exploit vulnerable sections of

society.

3. Rationale Behind the Ban on Certain Religious Practices

The consideration for banning specific Maths/Ashrams stems from allegations of exploitation,

including the misuse of religious beliefs for personal gain, engaging in practices detrimental to public

health and morality, and violations such as domestic violence and sexual abuse. These allegations, if
MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 23
 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
proven, represent a clear deviation from the permissible bounds of religious freedom under the

Constitution.

4. Legal Precedents and Legislative Actions

Instances involving figures like Asaram Bapu and Baba Ram Rahim have highlighted the potential for

religious institutions to engage in activities that harm the public and abuse the trust of followers.

Legislative measures, such as ordinances prohibiting human sacrifice, black magic, and other

exploitative practices, reflect the State's commitment to protecting individuals from such exploitation

and ensuring the exercise of religion within legal and ethical boundaries.

5. Enforcement and Oversight Mechanisms

The introduction of vigilance officers and enabling provisions for the publication of conviction details

under these ordinances exemplify the State's efforts to enforce legal standards and prevent the

contravention of established norms. These measures are designed to deter exploitative practices and

promote transparency and accountability within religious institutions.

6. Distinction Between Faith and Exploitation

The proposed bans target the exploitative actions perpetrated under the guise of religious practice,

rather than the practice of religion itself. By focusing on the activities that exploit religious sentiments

and harm individuals, the State seeks to distinguish between genuine religious expression and practices

that are harmful and unlawful.

Conclusion

The ban on certain Maths/Ashrams, as contemplated, does not inherently violate the fundamental

rights of individuals to follow their religious faith. Instead, it represents a necessary intervention by the

State to protect citizens from exploitation and abuse disguised as religious practice. Such actions are in

alignment with the constitutional provisions that permit restrictions on religious freedom to safeguard

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 24

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
public order, morality, and health. It is imperative that any prohibitory measures are implemented with

due regard for the principles of justice, ensuring that genuine religious practices are not unduly

affected while preventing exploitation and promoting the welfare of society.

ISSUE V

GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CLOSURE OF

MATHS/ASHRAMS

Evaluating the proposition of placing Maths/Ashrams under government supervision as opposed to

outright closure necessitates a nuanced understanding of the constitutional protections afforded to

religious denominations, the state's regulatory authority, and the implications for religious freedom and

public welfare.

1. Constitutional Rights of Religious Denominations

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to establish and

maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage their affairs, own property, and

administer such property in accordance with the law. This provision underscores the autonomy granted

to religious groups, emphasizing the importance of self-governance within the legal framework.

2. Definition and Scope of 'Religious Denomination'

The Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri

Laxmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt, elaborated on the concept of 'religious denomination,'

extracting its essence as a distinct religious community with a common faith and organizational

structure. This interpretation establishes the basis for assessing the rights and privileges conferred upon

religious entities under Article 26.

3. Limits on the Right to Administer Property

While Article 26(d) affirms the right of religious denominations to administer their property, this right

is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. The Supreme Court's observations

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 25

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
in Durgah Committee Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali highlight that the right to administer property can

neither be assumed nor invoked in the absence of legal entitlement or if such right has been forfeited.

4. State's Regulatory Authority Over Religious Property

The legal framework permits the state to regulate the management of religious property to ensure

compliance with the law, as elucidated in State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal Panjawat. However, the state

cannot usurp the administrative rights of religious property, indicating a balanced approach towards

the oversight of religious entities.

5. Government Supervision as a Viable Alternative

The proposition to bring Maths/Ashrams under government supervision, rather than enforcing closure,

offers a strategic approach to safeguarding public interest while preserving religious freedom. This

measure aims to protect individuals from exploitative practices under the guise of religious authority,

ensuring that religious institutions contribute positively to societal welfare.

6. Precedent for State Intervention in Religious Management

The Supreme Court's ruling in Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri Management Committee v. Chinatmani

Khuntia affirms the state's competence to regulate the secular aspects of religious institutions without

infringing upon Articles 25 and 26. This precedent supports the notion that government supervision

can enhance accountability and transparency in the management of religious entities.

7. Balancing Religious Freedom with Public Order

The constitutional mandate for freedom of religion, as per Article 25, is subject to limitations

regarding public order, health, and morality. The judiciary's role in adjudicating conflicts between

religious rights and public interest further emphasizes the conditional nature of these freedoms,

advocating for measures that align with the greater good of society.

Conclusion

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 26

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
The consideration of government supervision over Maths/Ashrams emerges as a judicious alternative

to closure, aligning with constitutional principles and judicial precedents. Such an approach not only

respects the autonomy of religious denominations but also addresses concerns regarding exploitation

and misuse of religious authority. Implementing this measure requires careful deliberation to ensure

that it enhances the welfare of the community, upholds secular values, and respects the sanctity of

religious practices.

ISSUE VI

ISSUE VI: NECESSITY FOR AMENDING LAWS TO ADDRESS EXPLOITATIVE

PRACTICES BY RELIGIOUS FIGURES

The question of whether there is a necessity to amend existing laws to address the actions of

exploitative religious figures, commonly referred to as 'Babas', who engage in practices detrimental to

the welfare of the public, particularly the innocent, unworldly, and uneducated individuals, warrants a

comprehensive legal analysis.

1. Prevailing Concerns and Exploitative Practices

The exploitation by certain Babas, manifesting through various deceptive and harmful practices,

underscores a significant societal issue. These practices not only exploit the gullibility of the public but

also lead to severe consequences such as domestic violence, sexual abuse of women and children, and

the perpetuation of superstitions that have no foundation in rational thought.

2. Legislative Response to Superstition and Exploitation

The introduction of legislation aimed at criminalizing superstitions and exploitative practices

represents a proactive approach to safeguarding societal welfare. By explicitly listing practices deemed

as superstitions and punishable by law, the legislature seeks to eliminate ambiguity and provide clear

guidelines for enforcement. The avoidance of religious terminology in the legislation underscores an

intent to focus on the harmful actions rather than the religious or faith-based justifications provided by

the perpetrators.

3. Rationale for Law Amendment

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 27

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
The necessity for law amendment arises from the need to enhance the legal framework's capability to

protect vulnerable sections of society from exploitation under the guise of religious authority. The

proposed amendments aim to provide stringent penal provisions for offenders, thereby serving as a

deterrent to future exploitative activities. The introduction of specific offenses related to fraudulent

medical practices, sexual exploitation, and other harmful rituals further delineates the legal boundaries

within which religious practices can be conducted.

4. Enforcement and Oversight Mechanisms

The establishment of dedicated enforcement mechanisms, such as the appointment of Vigilance

Officers and the provision for the publication of conviction details, is integral to the effective

implementation of the amended laws. These measures are designed to facilitate the detection,

prevention, and prosecution of violations, ensuring that the legal provisions translate into tangible

protections for the public.

5. Social Awakening and Legal Reform

The ultimate goal of amending the laws is to foster social awakening and awareness regarding the

dangers posed by superstitions and exploitative practices. By legislating against such practices, the

State expresses its commitment to evolving from archaic beliefs towards a more rational and

enlightened society, where the rights and dignity of every individual are protected.

Conclusion

The amendment of existing laws to address the actions of exploitative Babas is not only necessary but

imperative for the protection of fundamental human rights and the preservation of the secular and

rational fabric of society. Such legal reforms will significantly contribute to the creation of a safe and

healthy social environment, free from the clutches of exploitation and superstition. The legislative

initiative to delineate and penalize exploitative practices reflects a critical step towards ensuring

justice, equity, and the protection of vulnerable individuals in the face of deceptive religious

exploitation.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 28

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

CONCLUSION

India's rich tapestry of religious diversity is unparalleled, emblematic of its identity as a secular nation

where no singular religion is ascribed state sanction, affirming every citizen's constitutional right to

freely choose, practice, propagate, and even renounce their religious faith. Nevertheless, it is pivotal to

acknowledge that these rights, while expansive, are not unfettered but are circumscribed by

constitutional limitations designed to safeguard public order, morality, health, and the foundational

principles of secularism. The Constitution delineates that no individual, under the guise of exercising

religious freedom, is permitted to undertake actions that contravene public policy or engender

disturbances and intolerance within the diverse fabric of Indian society.

Upon closer examination, the rationale behind superstitions, despite being deeply entrenched and age-

old, lacks empirical logic, persisting unabated in the face of scientific progress. These superstitions, if

left unchecked, have the propensity to overshadow rational thought, leading individuals to live in

perpetual apprehension. It behooves us, especially in an era marked by scientific enlightenment, to

critically evaluate and minimize our susceptibility to such baseless beliefs, thereby fostering a society

grounded in reason and knowledge.

Moreover, the scourge of domestic violence represents a profound violation of human rights,

predominantly affecting women across various strata of society. This pervasive issue is further

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 29

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
exacerbated by a palpable silence and lack of serious engagement with the legal mechanisms designed

to combat such abuses. The dichotomy between the legislative intent and its practical enforcement

reveals a glaring gap in our societal and legal frameworks, necessitating a concerted effort to bridge

this divide.

In conclusion, the collective responsibility of the Indian polity—encompassing the legislature,

judiciary, civil society, and the citizenry at large—is to fortify the legal and social infrastructure

against the dual menaces of superstition and domestic violence. This entails not only the enactment of

stringent laws but also their rigorous implementation and public sensitization, to ensure the protection

of the vulnerable and the promotion of a rational, equitable, and safe society. As citizens of a

progressive and dynamic India, it is incumbent upon us, particularly the younger generation, to

champion the cause of justice, equity, and human dignity, steering the nation towards an enlightened

future free from the shadows of baseless superstitions and pervasive violence.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 30

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

PRAYER

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In consideration of the arguments advanced, the cases cited, and the authorities referenced herein, the

counsel for the Appellant respectfully submits this prayer to the Honourable Supreme Court of India,

seeking judicial redress and intervention under the auspices of the Constitution of India:

Grant of Appeal: It is humbly requested that this Honourable Court allow the appeal filed by the

Appellant, affirming the necessity of judicial scrutiny and redress for the grievances presented.

Maintainability of the PIL: The Appellant seeks a declaration from this Honourable Court affirming

the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,

recognizing the imperative to address the alleged infringement of fundamental rights.

Violation of Constitutional Rights: The Appellant implores the Court to recognize the practices

conducted by the implicated Babas, supported by certain Mathas and Ashrams, as violations of

Articles 21, 32, and Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution, which have precipitated domestic violence

against women and broader societal harm.

Imposition of Penalties: The Appellant prays for the Court to sanction the accused individuals with

appropriate punishment under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for their deliberate actions

intended to outrage religious feelings and perpetuate gender-based violence.

Acknowledgement of Rights Violation: It is further prayed that this Honourable Court acknowledges

the defendants' actions as constituting a violation of the fundamental rights of the indigenous

population, leading to religious degradation and societal divisiveness.

Prohibitory Orders Against Mathas/Ashrams: The Appellant respectfully requests the Court to

issue orders to prohibit the continuation of operations by such Mathas/Ashrams that have been found

to harm the religious sentiments of the people, infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens, and

cause substantial harm to vulnerable populations, including women and children.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 31

 INDIVA
DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
Issuance of Additional Orders: Lastly, the Appellant beseeches the Court to pass any further orders it

deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience, to rectify the wrongs

endured by the aggrieved and restore the constitutional and societal equilibrium.

The Appellant places utmost faith in the wisdom and justice of this Honourable Court and shall remain

eternally grateful for the Court’s consideration and adjudication of this matter.

Place:

Date:

Respectfully submitted,

[Signature]

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT P a g e | 32