472T

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF BANDRA

AT KUMARAN

IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. XXXX OF 2023

WE THE PEOPLE NGO

PETITONER

VS

UNION OF REPUBLIC OF BANDRA

RESPONDEDNT

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF BANDRA, READ WITH

ORDER XXXVIII, RULE 12 OF THE APEX COURT RULES, 2013]

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................. iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................vv

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................................ vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................................... vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................................1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................................................4

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1959 SCR 629)

Hashumatullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Hakim and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC
448)

Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Bombay High Court judgement 2016

STATUTES

Article 25 of the Constitution

Article 21 of the Constitution

Article 14of the Constitution

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kumaran is a Hindu-majority state located in the Republic of Bandra. The state is known for its
secularism and tolerance for diversity. In 2022, the government of Kumaran passed an ordinance that
imposed a ban on the sale of meat and liquor in specific towns, including Radhepur and Rasanagar.
These towns are known for their spiritual and cultural significance.

We the People, an NGO, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Kumaran challenging the
ordinance. The petition alleged that the ban disproportionately targeted minority communities who
were primarily engaged in the meat and liquor trade.

The ban sparked outrage within civil society, as it was perceived as an attempt to impose conservative
Hindu values on society and restrict individuals' freedom of choice regarding dietary preferences and
alcohol consumption.

A Division bench of the Supreme Court of Kumaran heard the case and delivered a split verdict.
Justice Sneha relied on a 2004 decision of the High Court, which allowed a similar ban on the sale of
eggs in certain religious places to promote religious tourism. Justice Sneha upheld the ordinance.

In contrast, Justice Sidharth reasoned that due to the sweeping nature of the ban, it cannot be sustained
under the law

In light of the split verdict, the Chief Justice of Kumaran has constituted a Constitutional Bench to
further examine and deliberate on the matter.

Hence, the present matter before this Court.

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners most humbly and respectfully submit that this Honourable Supreme Court of Republic
Of Bandra has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter of Writ Petition XXXX of 2023 under Article
32 of the Constitution of Republic Of Bandra, read with Order XXXVIII, Rule 12 of the Apex Court
Rules, 2013.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

v
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the ban on the sale of meat and liquor in religious towns in the Republic of Bandra ,

constitutionally justified and does it disproportionately affect individual rights and religious

sanctity, minority rights, and potentially undermine the secular and diverse nature of the

Republic of Bandra, while also having economic implications for the affected communities?

vi
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.WHETHER THE BAN ON THE SALE OF MEAT AND LIQUOUR IN RELIGIOUS

TOWNS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BANDR CONSTITUTIONALLY JUSTIFIED AND
DOES IT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
RELIGIOUS SANCTITY, MINORITY RIGHTS, AND POTENTIONALLY
UNDERINE THE SECULAR AND DIVERSE NATURE OD REPUBLIC OF BANFRA,
WHILE ALSO HAVING ECONOMIC IMLICATIONS?

The ban of meat and liquor impinges upon the following rights of an individual and causes the ban
to be unconstitutional and unjustified:

A. Article 25 of the Constitution provides Freedom of Religion which is the Right that

guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate

religion to all citizens

B. Article 21of the constitution provides for protection of life and personal liberty that is

no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure

established by law.

C. Article 14 of the constitution reads as The State shall not deny to any person equality

before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of republic of

Bandra. And Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution provides right to practice any

profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens.

vii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE BAN ON THE SALE OF MEAT AND LIQUOUR IN RELIGIOUS

TOWNS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BANDR CONSTITUTIONALLY JUSTIFIED AND
DOES IT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
RELIGIOUS SANCTITY, MINORITY RIGHTS, AND POTENTIONALLY
UNDERINE THE SECULAR AND DIVERSE NATURE OD REPUBLIC OF BANDRA,
WHILE HAVING ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS?

A. The right of freedom of religion i.e. Article 25 1 of republic of bandra’s constitution grants

individuals the freedom to profess, practice and propagate their religion. According to the

article it explicitly upholds the right to freedom of religion which includes the religious

practices that make the ore of religion in itself and also implies that the state must not interfere

with an individual’s religious practices choices and customs.

In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & others vs The State of Bihar2 we could see that there

was a similar violation of the right guaranteed under article 25. In the said case the petitioners

further respectfully submit that the said impugned section also violates the fundamental rights

of the petitioners guaranteed tinder Article 25 of the Constitution in-as-much as on the occasion

of their Bakr Id Day, it is the religious practice of the petitioners' community to sacrifice a cow

on the said occasion.so ban on sale of meat in such aspects infringes the minority rights.

The sacrifice of a cattle on the day of Bakr Id is a custom in their religion that has been enjoined

upon them by the ‘Holy Quran’ and a practice that has been in running from time immemorial.

And protection of these practises is important in Republic of Bandra not only for protection of

individual rights but also for the secular principles which implies that state maintain equal

1
Article 25 of constitution i.e. freedom of religion
2
1959 SCR 629

1
 distance from all the religions and keep in check that no religion is being favoured or

discriminated against.

B. Article 213 of the constitution protects the personal liberty of individuals. A ban on personal

choices such as dietary preference, consumption of liquor is infringing this fundamental right.

4
In the a case Bombay high court 2016 the judgement was given that consumption or

possession of beef is legal under article 21 of the constitution. The court held that what a person

eats and the food one chooses to trade is a part of one’s personal choice and falls under right to

liberty.

Blanket ban of liquor sale has not only infringed upon personal liberty but also paved way for

illegal black markets which cause more harm, these bans lead to proliferation of illegal and

unregulated sales creating health compilations and even worse death recent example being

Gujrat toxic liquor deaths. 5

C. One of the driving forces of growth of a country’s society is the presence of equality.

In the constitution, Article 146 ensures equality before law and equal protection of law.it means

that any law or policy that disproportionately impacts a specific community or group may be

seen as a violation of this right. Equality not only in choice needs to protected but also in the

economics front. Article 19(1)(g)7 gives the right to practice any profession or to carry on any

occupation trade or business. The ban on sale of meat and liquor has adverse economic

consequences and burdens on the people involved in these trade and business. The potential

3
Article 21 i.e. personal life and liberty
4
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cow-slaughter-not-allowed-but-beef-lovers-can-eat-meat-in-maharashtra/story-
K5v2Cggb25sHSJATE6R4gN.html
5
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/toxic-liquor-deaths-in-gujarat-reach-40-nearly-50-still-in-hospital-cops-3197677
6
Article 14 i.e. Right to equality
7
Article 19(1) i. e. Right to freedom, sub clause g is to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
2
 impact it might have like financial constraints and being jobless must be taken into the context

of this ban.

In cases like Hashumatullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Hakim and others v. State of

Bihar and Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh the supreme court has held that “A total

ban [on cattle slaughter] was not permissible if, under economic conditions, keeping useless

bull or bullock be a burden on the society and therefore not in the public interest."8

This ban will not only hurt local traders whose only source of living is butchery but also will

effect large scale traders that directly impact economy of the place.

The right to trade {art. 19(1)(g)} is closely linked to the right to a livelihood {art. 21}. A ban

on meat and liquor sales can deprive individuals and communities of their means of earning a

living, potentially leading to poverty and economic inequality.

while there may be legitimate reasons for restrictions on the sale of meat and liquor,

governments should carefully consider the potential economic consequences and ensure that

any such restrictions are proportionate and justifiable, respecting the right to trade and

economic freedoms and minority rights.

8
https://web.archive.org/web/20130927072033/http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-
cattle/chapter-i-introduction.aspx#item8
3
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of facts stated, issues raised authorities cited and arguments advanced, the counsel

on behalf of the petitioner most humbly and respectfully requests this Honourable Court to declare and

adjudge that:

1. The ordinance for banning of the sale of meat and liquor is specific places is unconstitutional
and unfair to the minorities present and suspend the same.
.

And pass any order or decree that the court may deem fit in the ends of equity, justice and good

conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: kumaran…………………………………………………………………………...Code: 472T

Date: 21th October, 20XX……………………………………………………Counsel for the Petitioners