RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION’ 2024

TC-XX

RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, VERSION VIII - 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

REPUBLIC OF INDONIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MRIGYANIKI …PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.No. Table of Contents Pg.No.

1. Index of Authorities 3

2. Statement of Jurisdiction 4

3. Statement of Facts 5

4. Issues Raised 7

5. Arguments Advance 8

6. Prayer 14

2|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

List of Cases-

1. Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.,
2018)1,

2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore,

3. Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali (1961

4. Nzomo v. Attorney General of Kenya (2002):

5. Lourdes v. Paraguay (2006)

Statutes-

1. The Constitution of India

2. Online Resources-

1. SCC Online
2. Manupatra
3. Live Law
4. Mondaq

1
WP (C) 373/2006
3|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court has been invoked under Article 32 of The Constitution of
Indonia
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 power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

2 32A. [Constitutional validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 32.].—
Omitted by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 3 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978).

4|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mrigyaniki and Devashya were married in 2005 and had two children, Kshmika (14 years old) and
Amasya (8 years old). Devashya served as the Chief Priest of Vrindvasini Temple in Meharganj
state of the Republic of Indonia for 20 years.

2. On 23rd April 2021, Devashya contracted a deadly virus and was quarantined for several months.
During his absence, Mrigyaniki assumed the role of Chief Priest at Vrindvasini Temple.

3. Unfortunately, on 19th October 2021, Devashya passed away due to the virus, leaving Mrigyaniki
widowed. As per village customs, Mrigyaniki underwent various rituals to demonstrate her grief
and loyalty, including shaving her head, relinquishing colorful attire and jewelry, and committing
to lifelong practices such as walking barefoot and abstaining from auspicious occasions.

4. Due to her widowhood, Mrigyaniki was removed from her position as Chief Priest of Vrindvasini
Temple, in accordance with customary practices that barred widows from holding such roles.

5. The Vrindvasini Temple Trust issued a notification (no. 111/2021) inviting applications for the
Chief Priest position. However, the criteria explicitly excluded widows from applying, limiting
eligibility to single individuals, married individuals, or widowers.

6. Consequently, Mrigyaniki, as a widow, was ineligible to apply for the Chief Priest position. As the
sole breadwinner for her family, she sought employment opportunities but, lacking formal
education, resorted to working as a cook at local events and festivals.

7. Despite her efforts, Mrigyaniki faced discrimination when denied the opportunity to cook the
auspicious first meal (bhog) for Lord Bhupati during a local harvest festival by the trustees of
Vrindvasini Temple, solely because of her widowhood. This denial left her feeling insulted and
marginalized.
8.
5|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

9. Seeking solace, Mrigyaniki and other widows from the village traveled to the Mateshwari temple,
but were denied entry to the Dandeshwari Temple, mistakenly assuming it to be the Mateshwari
temple. The watchman cited an age-old custom prohibiting widows from entering the temple,
further exacerbating their sense of exclusion and discrimination.

10. Disheartened by these events, Mrigyaniki shared her experience with her children, ultimately
leading to the submission of a postcard petition to the Apex Court.

11. Recognizing the importance of protecting civil liberties, the honorable Supreme Court accepted the
postcard as a writ petition and framed several issues for consideration, including the validity of
terminating a widow from the position of Chief Priest, the exclusion of widows through the temple
trust's notification, the violation of fundamental rights due to widow's exclusion from cooking the
bhog, and the denial of entry to widows by the Dandeshwari temple authorities.

6|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
RAFFLES UNIVERSITYNATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

7|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITYNATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE-4:
WHETHER THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE WIDOWS IN
THE TEMPLE BY THE DANDESHWARI TEMPLE AUTHORITIES
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA?

8|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

ISSUE 4 - WHETHER THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE WIDOWS IN THE

TEMPLE BY THE DANDESHWARI TEMPLE AUTHORITIES VIOLATES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA?

(1) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indonia that the act of
denying entry to the petitioner and other widows in the temple by the Dandeshwari
temple authorities violate the fundamental rights under the Constitution of
Indonia.

4.1 THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE PETITIONER

AND THE OTHER WIDOWS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA
(2) It has been humbly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the exclusionary practice of
preventing women based on marital factors exclusively violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of Indonia, for such a classification does not have a constitutional object.

(3) Article 14 of the Constitution of India states-

14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

(4) Even if it is said that there is classification between men and women as separate classes,
there cannot be any further sub-classification among women on the basis of their marital
status, ie , the allowance of entry in a place of worship to only married woman.

(5) It has been averred by the petitioner that as per Article 14, any law being discriminatory
in nature has to have the existence of an intelligible differentia and the same must bear a
rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object as has been claimed is to
9|P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024
prevent the deity from being polluted, which, in the view of the petitioner runs counter to the
constitutional object of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as enshrined in the Preamble to
our Constitution. All though the classification based on marital status of a woman may be
intelligible, yet the object sought to be achieved being constitutionally invalid, the question of
nexus need not be delved into.

(6) In the case of Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v.
State of Kerala & Ors., 2018)2, the Supreme Court of India held that the practice of
excluding women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from entering the Sabarimala temple in
Kerala violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized that the right to equality prohibits any form of discrimination based on
biological factors or gender-specific roles.

(7) Therefore it is submitted that The denial of entry to widows by the Dandeshwari temple
authorities constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under
Article 14 of the Constitution of Indonia. This provision ensures that every individual is equal
before the law and prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, religion, caste, sex, or
place of birth. By allowing married and unmarried women to enter the temple while
prohibiting widows solely based on their marital status, the temple authorities are engaging in
unjustifiable discrimination.

2
WP (C) 373/2006
10 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

4.2 THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE PETITIONER

AND THE OTHER WIDOWS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 25
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA

(8) It is submitted that The denial of entry to widows by the Dandeshwari temple authorities
also constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed under
Article 25 of the Constitution of Indonia. This provision grants every individual the right to
freely profess, practice, and propagate religion according to their beliefs, subject to public
order, morality, and health. Denying widows access to the temple restricts their ability to
practice their religious beliefs and participate in religious activities, solely based on their
marital status.

(9) Article 25 of the Constitution of India states –

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.—

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice
and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State
from making any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which
may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the
profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed
as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the
reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
11 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

(10) It is submitted that Hindu women’s right to entry into places of public worship is a
matter of religion and forms part of their right to practice their religion.
It is pertinent to note that a five judge bench of this Hon’ble Court in Sri Venkataramana
Devaru and others v. State of Mysore, while upholding the constitutional validity of the
Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, in Para. 18 it held that entry into temple is a
matter of religion and in the following words:

“Thus, under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for
worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be
conducted are all matters of religion. The conclusion is also implicit in Article 25 which after
declaring that all persons are entitled freely to profess, practice and propagate religion, enacts
that this should not affect the operation of any law throwing open Hindu religious institutions
of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”

(11) It was held in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), that religious
denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to
public order, morality, and health. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised
in accordance with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Practices that
discriminate against individuals based on arbitrary factors such as gender or marital status are
inconsistent with the principles of religious freedom.

(12) It is submitted the principle is established that while religious denominations have the
autonomy to manage their own affairs, this autonomy is not absolute and must be exercised in
accordance with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The denial of
entry to widows by the Dandeshwari temple authorities infringes upon their freedom of
religion without any justifiable reason and therefore constitutes a violation of their
constitutional rights.

(13) It is submitted that every individual in Indonia has the fundamental right to freely
profess, practice, and propagate religion according to their beliefs, as guaranteed under
Article 25 of the Constitution. Denying entry to the petitioners in the temple restricts their
12 |on
freedom to practice their religious beliefs and participate in religious activities, solely P athe
ge
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024
basis of their marital status. This restriction is unjustified and unconstitutional.

4.3 THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE PETITIONER

AND THE OTHER WIDOWS IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

(14) It is submitted that the denial of entry to widows in the Dandeshwari temple goes against
international human rights standards, particularly those outlined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR emphasizes the principles of equality and non-
discrimination, which are being blatantly violated by the temple authorities' discriminatory
practice. The Republic of Indonia, being a member of the international community, is obligated
to uphold these standards.

(15) According to Article 7 of the International Human Rights Standards-

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration
and against any incitement to such discrimination.

(16) According to the Article 18 of the International Human Rights Standards-

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public
or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

(17) In the case of Nzomo v. Attorney General of Kenya (2002): The African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights held that discriminatory practices based on gender, including those
that deny women access to religious institutions, violate the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights. The Commission emphasized the right to equality and non-discrimination
guaranteed under the Charter and called for the elimination of all forms of discrimination
against women.

13 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

(18) In the case of Lourdes v. Paraguay (2006), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
held that practices that discriminate against women, including those based on marital status,
violate the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court emphasized the principle of
equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Convention and called for the elimination of
all forms of discrimination against women in religious and cultural practices.

(19) It is submitted that in the present case the denial of entry to widows by the Dandeshwari
temple authorities constitutes a violation of these standards and undermines the principles of
equality and non-discrimination upheld by the international community. Therefore, the temple
authorities' discriminatory practice must be condemned and rectified in accordance with
international human rights norms.

THEREFORE THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE WIDOWS IN THE

TEMPLE BY THE DANDESHWARI TEMPLE AUTHORITIES VIOLATES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA

14 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
 RAFFLES UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authoritiescited, it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
adjudge, hold and declare that:

THE ACT OF DENYING ENTRY TO THE WIDOWS IN THE

TEMPLE BY THE DANDESHWARI TEMPLE AUTHORITIES
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA

And pass any such order, or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience and for this act of
kindness, the petitioner shall duty bound pray forever.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

S/D COUNSEL FOR

Petitioner

15 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
RAFFLES UNIVERSITYNATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,
VERSION VIII - 2024

16 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS