1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR TEAM CODE-

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UNION GOLDEN SPARROW

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF :

MANAVMITRA FOUNDATION ……………………………………………... PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF GOLDEN SPARRO ………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

HH 1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS______________________________________________2

2. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS _______________________________________3

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2-6

a) List of Books
b) List of Websites
c) List of Cases

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9

6. ISSUES RAISED 10

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS_____________________________________11-12

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13-35

9. PRAYER 36

HH 2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

INDEEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & And
2. § Section
3. ¶ Paragraph
4. AIR All India Reporter
5. App. Application
6. Annex. Annexure
7. Anr. Another
8. Art. Article
9. Cal Calcutta
10. Cl. Clause
11. Cr. Criminal
12. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
13. CrPC Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
14. Del Delhi
15. Eds. Edition
16. FIR First Information Report
17. Govt. Government
18. HC High Court
19. Hon'ble Honorable
20. i.e. That Is
21. IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
22. MANU Manupatra
23. No. Number
24. Ors. Others
25. P. Page
26. PS Police Station
27. SC Supreme Court
28. SCC Supreme Court Cases
29. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
30. SLP Special Leave Petition
31. U/S Under Section
32. UOI Union Of India
33. V./Vs Versus
34. Viz. Namely
35. w.r.t With Respect To
36. UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
37. OLR Orissa Law Journal

HH 3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. LIST OF BOOKS

 Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J.N. Pandey, (2015)

 Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J.N. Pandey; Forty First Edition (2004)
 Indian Constitutional Law by M.P Jain, Fifth Edition, (Rep.2005)
 Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain, Fifth Edition 2003; Volume 1
 Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
 Indian Penal Code, by Dr. Hari Singh Gaur’s, 15TH Edition in Vol.2 (2015)
 The Constitution of India, Bare Act by Universal’s, Act No. 105 of 2021
 The Information Technology Act, 2000 Act No. 21. of 2000
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948

2. LIST OF WEBSITES

 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.ncrb.gov.in
 www.sci.gov.in
 www.indiankanoon.com

3. LIST OF CASES

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

 State of Haryana v. Zakir Hussain AIR 1974 SC 1312

HH 4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

 Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
 Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2 SCC 570
 Indian Supreme Court - Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
 Indian Supreme Court - Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
 Indian Supreme Court - P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)4 SCC 629
 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR1995 SC 264
 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR (1950) SC 19
 S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600
 M.J. Akbar v. Priya Ramani (2021) 10 SCC 1
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
 Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
 Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
 Kishore Chandra Wangkhem v. State of Manipur:(2020) 3 SCC 700
 Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2020) 7 SCC 726
 Prashant Kanojia v. State of U.P. (2019) 9 SCC 60
 State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003)4 SCC 601
 Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881
 Shahidul Alam v. Government of Bangladesh 2018 OLR 235 (HC Bangladesh)
 Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 264
 Sampath Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 1409
 State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) 5 SCC 178
 Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2019) SCC Online Del 8895
 Zahidur Rahman v. State of West Bengal 2017 SCC Online Cal 16369

HH 5
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel For the Respondent hereby humbly submits to this Hon’ble Court’s Jurisdiction
under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of Union of Golden Sparrow.

1
Article 32 – “(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.”

HH 6
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. State of Rastrika: Rastrika is a hilly state in the UNION OF GOLDEN SPARROW,

known for its religious population and centers. The state suffers from a lack of secular education
and economic development due to excessive focus on religious practices.

2. Assassination of Dr. Ambuj Shideshwar: Dr. Shideshwar, a social activist advocating for an
Anti-Superstition Law, was assassinated. In response, the Governor enacted the 'Black Magic
Prohibition' Ordinance to curb superstitious practices.

3. Allegation on Sarvabhrami Maharaj: Sarvabhrami Maharaj, a powerful religious figure or

godman, is alleged to exploit religious sentiments for personal gain. It was falsely alleged that he
sexually abuses women, trains youths for his protection, and evades government scrutiny. He
was defame again and again and still there no action was taken instantly.

4. Manavmitra Foundation's PIL: The Manavmitra Foundation, an NGO, allegedly files this
present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged exploitation by godmen like
Sarvabhrami Maharaj. They seek closure of their religious institutions and confiscation of their
assets.

5. Issues Framed by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of Golden Sparrow frames issues
regarding the maintainability of the PIL, infringement of fundamental rights, violation of
secularism, impact on religious freedom, and the need for legal amendments.

7
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

ISSUE RAISED

1. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

OF GOLDEN SPARROW FOR HEARING AND ADMISSION?

2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

OF THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOLDEN SPARROW?

3. WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE

SECULAR STRUCTURE OF UNION OF GOLDEN SPARROW AS ENSHRINED
IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GOLDEN SPARROW?

4. WHETHER THE BAN ON SUCH MATHS / ASHRAMS WOULD VIOLATE THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE RELIGIOUS
FAITH OF THEIR CHOICE?

5. WHETHER AMENDMENT IN THE PRESENT LAWS IS NECESSARY TO

DEAL STERNLY WITH SUCH BABA'S?

8
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

OF GOLDEN SPARROW FOR HEARING AND ADMISSION?

The arguments against the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) maintainability include the
lack of legal standing for the petitioner, the Manavmitra Foundation, and the failure to
explore alternative legal remedies before approaching the Supreme Court. Additionally,
the specificity of the complaint targeting all Maths and Ashrams exploiting religious
sentiments is questioned. In reference to case law, the landmark case of Bijoe Emmanuel
v. State of Kerala (1987) highlights the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and
religion. The Supreme Court ruled that the expulsion of students for not singing the
national anthem violated their constitutional rights. This case underscores the importance
of respecting religious beliefs and the duty of public authorities to uphold fundamental
rights.

2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

OF THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOLDEN SPARROW?

In response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging exploitation within religious
institutions, the Respondent argues against its maintainability, claiming limited
infringement on religious freedom. They assert that the PIL exaggerates the issue and
may hinder religious expression protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
The Respondent contends that consent and misrepresentation should be considered, and
exploitation must be defined with specific evidence. They emphasize the importance of
religious practice for the people and suggest alternative solutions like stricter regulation
and educational campaigns.

9
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

In support of their argument, they reference the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case,
where the Supreme Court struck down the practice of triple talaq, affirming the principle
of gender justice and equality. They also cite Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious freedom, distinguishing
between the right to propagate religion and the prohibition of forced conversions.

The Respondent's stance underscores the need for a balanced approach that protects
religious freedom while addressing exploitation concerns.

3. WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE

SECULAR STRUCTURE OF UNION OF GOLDEN SPARROW AS ENSHRINED
IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GOLDEN SPARROW?

The Respondent, the Union of Golden Sparrow, counters the argument regarding the
violation of the state's secular structure in response to the PIL alleging exploitation
within religious institutions. They argue that the impact of alleged activities on
secularism is exaggerated, emphasizing that secularism allows for freedom of religion
without hostility towards it. They assert that regulations like the Black Magic Prohibition
Ordinance aim to protect citizens from exploitation while upholding religious practice.

Specific allegations, such as mass prayers and retreats, are defended as expressions of
faith protected by freedom of religion. They advocate for distinguishing between genuine
religious leaders and exploiters, suggesting stricter regulation and law enforcement
instead of a blanket ban on religious figures. Examples are provided to demonstrate the
state's promotion of secularism while respecting religious practices, such as public
holidays for various religious festivals and separate personal laws for different religious
communities.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the need to address exploitation, the Respondent

contends that the PIL's approach undermines religious freedom and misinterprets
secularism. They advocate for a balanced approach that protects both religious freedom
and individuals from exploitation.

10
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

4. WHETHER THE BAN ON SUCH MATHS / ASHRAMS WOULD VIOLATE THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE RELIGIOUS
FAITH OF THEIR CHOICE?

The Respondent argues against the proposal of a complete ban on Maths and Ashrams
presented in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), contending that such a measure would
excessively restrict religious practices without proportionality. They advocate for a focus
on specific institutions with documented exploitative activities and propose alternative
solutions like stricter regulation, oversight, and legal action against individuals involved
in exploitation.

Differentiating between the right to hold a religious faith and the right to practice it in a
way that harms others, the Respondent asserts that the state has a legitimate interest in
preventing exploitation and protecting public order. They cite relevant precedents and
examples, such as the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance, to support their arguments for
regulation over a blanket ban.

Additionally, the Respondent raises concerns about the ineffectiveness of a ban, its
impact on the diversity of religious practices, and the rights of devotees who find
spiritual fulfillment in these institutions. They propose alternative solutions, including
stricter regulation, public awareness campaigns, strengthening law enforcement, and
reforming religious education.

Emphasizing the need to protect vulnerable individuals while balancing religious

freedom and the state's responsibilities, the Respondent suggests a multi-pronged
approach to address exploitation within religious institutions. They highlight examples
from other jurisdictions to illustrate successful regulatory frameworks and public
awareness campaigns.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the concerns raised by the PIL regarding

exploitation, the Respondent argues that a complete ban on Maths and Ashrams would be
an unnecessary infringement on the right to religious practice. They advocate for targeted
regulations and legal measures to address exploitation while upholding religious
11
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

freedom.

5. WHETHER AMENDMENT IN THE PRESENT LAWS IS NECESSARY TO

DEAL STERNLY WITH SUCH BABA'S?

The Respondent argues against amending laws extensively to address exploitation by

"Babas" within religious institutions, suggesting that the current legal framework might
already be sufficient with some adjustments. They advocate for stricter enforcement of
existing laws, such as the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance, and better implementation
to prosecute individuals involved in criminal activities.

While acknowledging the need for potential improvements in the legal framework, the
Respondent proposes strengthening regulatory bodies, defining exploitative practices
more clearly, and providing protection for whistleblowers. Additionally, they advocate
for complementary solutions like public awareness campaigns and religious reforms to
empower individuals and discourage exploitative practices.

Considering socio-economic factors contributing to vulnerability, countering negative

stereotypes, promoting interfaith dialogue, and the role of media, the Respondent
suggests a holistic approach. They emphasize the importance of addressing root causes,
fostering understanding, and collaborating internationally to combat exploitation within
religious institutions while minimizing restrictions on religious freedom.

Ultimately, the Respondent's goal is to present a position that effectively tackles

exploitation while promoting religious freedom and addressing the broader societal
issues contributing to vulnerability.

12
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

ARGUMENT ADVANCE

1. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF

GOLDEN SPARROW FOR HEARING AND ADMISSION?

Arguments Against PIL Maintainability:

 Lack of Standing: The Respondent contend that Manavmitra Foundation lacks the
necessary legal standing (locus standi) to represent the public interest in this case. They
might claim the Foundation hasn't shown how their work directly connects to the alleged
exploitation by Sarvabhrami Maharaj.
 Alternative Remedies: The Respondent contend that the Foundation hasn't exhausted all
available legal options before approaching the Supreme Court. They might suggest
pursuing criminal charges against Sarvabhrami Maharaj or seeking action from relevant
authorities within Rastrika before resorting to PIL.
 Specificity of Complaint: The PIL targets all Maths and Ashrams exploiting religious
sentiments, which is a broad and unsubstantiated claim. The Respondent contend that the
Foundation needs to present specific evidence against individual institutions, including
Sarvabhrami Maharaj's Ashram.
Case Laws for Reference:

 Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1987 AIR 748

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law

that deals with the issue of freedom of religion and expression. The case involves
three students who refused to sing the national anthem of India on religious grounds.
The incident took place in 1985 when the students, who were studying in a
government school in Kerala, remained silent when the national anthem was being
played in their school. This led to disciplinary action against them, including
expulsion from the school. The students and their parents argued that their religion
prohibited them from singing the national anthem and that their right to freedom of
religion and expression was being violated.
13
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

The key issues in this case were whether the expulsion of the children was valid
under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 and the Kerala
Education Act and Rules, and whether it impinged on the children's fundamental
rights protected under Article 19(1) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The
High Court dismissed the petition based on the Kerala Education Act and two
circulars which demanded strict compliance with respect to the code of conduct for
teachers and students. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court held that the action of the school authorities in expelling the
three students was arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of
Conscience and Religion. The Court observed that the students' right to Freedom of
Conscience and Religion extends to not only the holding of their beliefs but also to
the act of expressing or practising their beliefs.

The Court also noted that the action of the school authorities was not based on
any reasonable or justifiable ground. The Court stated that the right to freedom of
conscience and religion is a vital part of the Fundamental Right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

The Court held that the school authorities had failed to discharge their duty to
protect the students' fundamental rights. The Court observed that the school
authorities had a responsibility to protect the students' right to freedom of conscience
and religion, and that the authorities could not simply invoke the school rules to
violate the students' fundamental rights. It was held that there is no provision of law
which obliges anyone to sing National Anthem. The two circulars which demanded
strict compliance with respect to the code of conduct for teachers and students were
mere departmental instructions. The circulars contravene Article 19(1) (a) and 25 (1).
The rights under Article 19(1)(a) assert only be restricted by a law having statutory
force and not a mere executive or departmental instructions as the circulars.

The Court further held that the school authorities' action violated the Right to
Education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, which provides for the
right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of six and
fourteen years.
14
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

The children did not sing the National Anthem due to their religious beliefs. The
Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion and
Conscience) assertnot be infringed on the grounds of disrespect shown to the
National Anthem. The compulsion on every student to sing the National Anthem
despite their religious beliefs and free will violates Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of
the Constitution of India.

“Article 25 is an article of faith in the Constitution., incorporated in recognition

of the principle that the real test of democracy is the ability of even an
insignifiassertt minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution. This
has to be borne in mind in interpreting Article 25”.

The conduct of the children to stand up when the national anthem was sung
proves that the three students were not guilty of disrespect to the National Anthem
just because they refused to sing it. The Court further emphasized that our traditions
taught us tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practices
tolerance and hence we should not dilute it.

Overall, the Supreme Court's judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of

Kerala reaffirmed the importance of the Right to Freedom of
Conscience and Religion as a Fundamental Right protected under the
Indian Constitution. The judgment also emphasised the duty of public
authorities, including schools, to respect and protect this right, and to
act on reasonable and justifiable grounds when regulating the exercise
of this right.

2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

OF THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOLDEN SPARROW?
15
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there was Limited Infringement
on Religious Freedom enshrined in Indian Constitution.

The Respondent acknowledges concerns about exploitation. However, they argue that the
PIL exaggerates the issue and infringes on the fundamental right to practice religion
enshrined in the Constitution (Article 25).

Arguments:
 Freedom of Religion: The Constitution protects religious practices, even if they seem
unusual to others. The PIL's broad approach could stifle religious expression and diversity.
 Consent and Misrepresentation: The Respondent contend that many individuals
willingly participate in religious activities, even if they appear unconventional. The key question
should be whether consent is freely given or obtained through deception.
 Defining Exploitation: The Respondent assert claim the PIL lacks specific evidence of
widespread exploitation. They might argue for a more nuanced approach that distinguishes
genuine religious practices from coercion or abuse.
Importance of Religious Practice:

The Respondent assert emphasize the importance of religious practice for the people of
Golden Sparrow. They might argue that the State should promote religious tolerance and
avoid interfering in established traditions unless clear evidence of harm exists.

Alternative Solutions:

Instead of shutting down all Maths and Ashrams, the Respondent assert propose
alternative solutions, such as:

 Stricter regulation and oversight of religious institutions to prevent abuse.

 Educational campaigns promoting informed consent and awareness of exploitative
practices.
 Strengthening law enforcement to address specific instances of criminal activity like
forced labor or sexual exploitation.
Conclusion:

The Respondent recognizes the need to address exploitation but contends that the PIL's
approach is overly broad and could infringe on the fundamental right to religious

16
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

practice. They advocate for a more nuanced approach that protects both religious
freedom and vulnerable individuals.

In the matter of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which was a landmark case heard by the
Supreme Court of India in 2017. This case dealt with the practice of "triple talaq," a form
of instant divorce prevalent in the Muslim community in India, where a husband could
divorce his wife by saying the word "talaq" three times.

Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman from Uttarakhand, challenged the Constitutionality of

triple talaq and claimed that it violated her fundamental rights as a citizen. She argued
that the practice was discriminatory and arbitrary and violated the principles of gender
justice and equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which included Chief
Justice JS Khehar and Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton F. Nariman, Uday U. Lalit, and
Abdul Nazeer. The Union of India and women’s rights organisations such as Bebaak
Collective and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), supported the petitioner’s
claim that these practises are unconstitutional. However, the AIMPLB argued that
uncodified Muslim personal law is not subject to constitutional judicial review, and that
these are essential Islamic practises protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.

The bench delivered a historic verdict, striking down the practice of triple talaq and
declaring it unconstitutional and illegal. Commenting that “what is bad in theology
assertnot be good in law”, the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant ‘triple
talaq’ unconstitutional, holding that it was arbitrary and not an essential part of Islamic
law. The Court added that since triple talaq was banned in most Islamic countries, it
assertnot be ascertained as an essential practice. The Court also observed that personal
laws must be subject to the test of constitutional validity and gender justice, and Article
25(2) says that if any religious practice violates the fundamental rights, then it assert be
struck down by the Supreme Court. It held that the practice of Triple Talaq was
derogatory and was a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality).

However, the dissenting opinion of the judgement it was held that,

“Religion is a matter of faith, and not of logic. It is not open to a court to accept an
egalitarian approach, over a practice which constitutes an integral part of religion.
17
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

The Constitution allows the followers of every religion, to follow their beliefs and
religious traditions. The Constitution assures believers of all faiths, that their way of
life, is guaranteed, and would not be subjected to any challenge, even though they may
seem to others (and even rationalists, practicing the same faith) unacceptable, in
today’s world and age. The Constitution extends this guarantee, because faith
constitutes the religious consciousness, of the followers. It is this religious
consciousness, which binds believers into separate entities. The Constitution
endevours to protect and preserve, the beliefs of each of the separate entities,
under Article 25.”

In view of different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2, the prace of Talaq-e-biddat

(Triple Talaq) was set aside. The judgment was widely celebrated as a victory for
women's rights and gender justice in India. It was also seen as a step towards a more
progressive and inclusive society, where citizens of all religions are equal before the
law.

5. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 S.C.C. 677

The case of Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh began with the arrest of
Reverend Stainislaus, a Roman Catholic priest, in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. He
was accused of violating the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya
Adhiniyam (Freedom of Religion Act), 1968, which prohibited forced religious
conversions.

Reverend Stainislaus challenged the Constitutionality of the Act in the Madhya Pradesh
High Court, which rejected his petition. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of India,
arguing that the Act violated his Fundamental Right to freedom of religion under Article
25 of the Indian Constitution.

The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice M.H. Beg,
Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, and Justice S.M. Fazal Ali. The Court
ultimately ruled in favour of Rev. Stainislaus, stating that the state law was
unconstitutional because it violated the Fundamental Right to freedom of religion
enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

18
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

In the judgment of Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court of
India made several important observations regarding religious freedom.

The Court affirmed that the right to propagate one's religion is a fundamental right under
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and
the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public order,
morality, and health.

One of the key aspects of the judgment that has been used to support the enactment of
anti-conversion laws is the distinction made between "propagation" and "conversion".
The Court ruled that while every individual has the right to freely profess, practice, and
propagate their religion, the freedom to convert others to one's own religion is not an
absolute right. The Court observed that the freedom to propagate religion does not
include the right to convert another person to one's own religion by force, fraud, or
allurement. This distinction between propagation and conversion has been used by some
to argue that anti-conversion laws are necessary to prevent forced and fraudulent
conversions. This interpretation has been used to argue that anti-conversion laws are
necessary to protect vulnerable individuals from being coerced into converting to a
different religion.

3. WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE

SECULAR STRUCTURE OF UNION OF GOLDEN SPARROW AS ENSHRINED
IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GOLDEN SPARROW?

It is contended that the the argument on whether the alleged activities violate the
secular structure of the Union of Golden Sparrow, from the Respondent's (Union of
Golden Sparrow) are on the following grounds:-

Limited Impact on Secularism

The Respondent contend that the PIL exaggerates the impact of the alleged activities
on the secular character of the State. They assert present arguments emphasizing the
following:

19
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

 Secularism and Religious Freedom: A secular state allows for freedom of religion
and doesn't require complete absence of religion in public life. The Respondent
contend that the PIL misinterprets secularism as hostility towards religion.
 Regulation, Not Prohibition: The Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance regulates
harmful practices, not religious beliefs. The Respondent assert emphasize that the
Ordinance protects citizens from exploitation and upholds a more just and ethical
religious practice.
Addressing Specific Allegations:
 Mass Prayers and Retreats: The Respondent contend that these activities are
expressions of faith and don't violate secularism. They are protected by the freedom
of religion.
 Godmen and Exploitation: The Respondent assert differentiate between genuine
religious leaders and those exploiting people. They contend for stricter regulation
and law enforcement to address specific instances of abuse, not a blanket ban on all
religious figures.
Examples Supporting Secularism:

The Respondent assert provide examples of how the State promotes secularism while
respecting religious practices, such as:

 Public holidays for religious festivals of various faiths.

 Separate personal laws for different religious communities on marriage, inheritance,
etc. (if applicable in Golden Sparrow)
Conclusion:

The Respondent acknowledged the need to address exploitation. However, it also

strongly contended that the PIL's approach undermines the right to religious freedom
and misinterprets the concept of secularism. They also contend that a balanced
approach that protects both religious freedom and vulnerable individuals from
exploitation.

20
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

4. WHETHER THE BAN ON SUCH MATHS / ASHRAMS WOULD VIOLATE THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE RELIGIOUS
FAITH OF THEIR CHOICE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there are Limited Restriction
on Religious Choice:-

The Respondent contend that the PIL proposes an extreme measure by advocating for a
ban on all Maths and Ashrams. They assert present arguments emphasizing:

 Proportionality: The PIL doesn't consider the proportionality of the response. Banning
all institutions is a harsh measure that could unnecessarily restrict religious practices.
 Focus on Specific Abuse: The Respondent contend for focusing on the specific Maths
and Ashrams with documented exploitative activities. Targeting such institutions
wouldn't infringe on the general right to practice religion.
 Alternative Solutions: The Respondent assert propose alternative solutions like stricter
regulation, oversight, and legal action against individuals involved in exploitative
practices. This approach protects both religious freedom and vulnerable individuals.
Right to Faith vs. Right to Practice:

The Respondent assert differentiate between the right to hold a religious faith and the
right to practice it in a way that harms others. They contend that the PIL confuses these
two concepts. The State has a legitimate interest in preventing exploitation and protecting
public order, even if it restricts certain practices.

Supporting Precedents:

The Respondent assert cite relevant judgments from the Supreme Court of Golden
Sparrow (if available) or reference similar cases from other jurisdictions to support their
arguments. Look for cases where the court:

 Upheld reasonable restrictions on religious practices to protect public order or prevent

harm.
 Allowed regulation of religious institutions to prevent abuse, while protecting religious
freedom Examples:- Black Magic Ordinance: The Respondent assert point to the

21
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

existing Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance as an example of regulating harmful

practices without banning all religious institutions.

Arguments Against a Ban:

Ineffectiveness: A complete ban could drive such activities underground, making them
harder to monitor and regulate. This could potentially worsen exploitation as it removes
opportunities for reform and education within these institutions.
Diversity of Practices: Maths and Ashrams represent a diverse range of religious
practices. Banning them all would stifle legitimate and peaceful forms of religious
expression.
 Impact on Devotees: Many individuals genuinely find spiritual fulfillment and
community within these institutions. A complete ban would disregard their right to practice their
faith in a way that is meaningful to them.
 Alternative Solutions: The Respondent assert emphasize the importance of exploring
alternative solutions, such as:
o Stricter Regulation and Oversight: Implement a system of inspections and
licensing for Maths and Ashrams to ensure they comply with anti-exploitation laws and
financial transparency.
o Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate the public about exploitative practices
and empower them to make informed choices about religious institutions.
o Strengthening Law Enforcement: Allocate resources to investigate and
prosecute individuals involved in criminal activities like forced labor or sexual
exploitation within religious institutions.
o Reforming Religious Education: Promote a more informed and critical
approach to religious teachings, particularly in schools and within religious communities,
to counter exploitation tactics.
Protecting Vulnerable Individuals:

The Respondent assert the need to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation
within religious institutions. They assert present a multi-pronged approach that prioritizes
individual safety while respecting the right to religious freedom.

Balancing Rights:

22
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

The Respondent assert emphasize the importance of balancing the right to religious
freedom with the State's responsibility to protect public health, morality, and prevent
exploitation. A complete ban on Maths and Ashrams might not be the most effective or
proportionate way to achieve this balance.

Examples from Other Jurisdictions:

The Respondent assert research how other countries with diverse religious populations
have addressed similar issues. They assert cite examples of successful regulatory
frameworks or public awareness campaigns that tackled exploitation within religious
institutions without resorting to a complete ban.

Conclusion:

The Respondent assert acknowledge the PIL's concerns about exploitation. However,
they contend that a complete ban on Maths and Ashrams is an unnecessary infringement
on the right to religious practice. They assert propose targeted regulations and legal
action to address exploitation while upholding religious freedom.

5. WHETHER AMENDMENT IN THE PRESENT LAWS IS NECESSARY TO

DEAL STERNLY WITH SUCH BABA'S?

It is humbly submitted before this court Arguments Against Amending Laws:

The Respondent can argue that the current legal framework might already be sufficient to
address the issue with some adjustments:

 Black Magic Ordinance: The existing Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance already
outlaws harmful and exploitative practices. The Respondent can argue for stricter
enforcement of this ordinance and raising public awareness about it.
 Existing Laws: Laws against fraud, forced labor, sexual assault, and other criminal
activities already exist. The Respondent can argue for utilizing these laws effectively to
prosecute "Babas" involved in such acts.
 Focus on Implementation, Not Legislation: The Respondent can argue that the
problem lies more in the implementation of existing laws than a lack of legislation. They

23
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

can propose better training for law enforcement officers to identify and investigate
exploitation within religious institutions.
Potential Areas for Amending Laws:

However, the Respondent can acknowledge the need for potential improvements in the
legal framework:

 Strengthening Regulatory Bodies: Consider establishing a dedicated regulatory body or

empowering existing ones to oversee religious institutions and ensure compliance with
anti-exploitation laws and financial transparency.
 Defining Exploitative Practices: More clearly define what constitutes exploitative
practices within the legal framework to provide clearer guidelines for law enforcement
and the judiciary.
 Protection for Whistleblowers: Consider offering legal protection and support for
individuals who come forward to expose exploitation within religious institutions.
Alternative Solutions:

The Respondent can advocate for a broader approach beyond legal amendments:

 Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate the public, especially vulnerable populations,

about exploitative practices and their rights. This can empower individuals to make
informed choices and report suspicious activity.
 Religious Reforms: Encourage reform within religious communities to promote ethical
leadership and discourage exploitative practices. This could involve promoting critical
thinking and questioning within religious teachings.
Conclusion:

The Respondent can acknowledge the need to address exploitation by "Babas." However,
they can argue that extensive legal amendments might not be necessary. They can
propose focusing on stricter enforcement of existing laws, improved implementation, and
exploring complementary solutions like public awareness campaigns and religious
reforms.

Remember:

24
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

The Respondent's ultimate goal is to present a position that effectively tackles

exploitation while minimizing restrictions on religious freedom.

Further Considerations for the Respondent (Union of Golden Sparrow)

Here are some additional points the Respondent (Union of Golden Sparrow) can consider
to strengthen their arguments:

1. Socio-Economic Factors:
 The Respondent can acknowledge the social and economic factors that contribute to the
vulnerability of people to exploitation by religious figures ("Babas"). This could include
poverty, lack of education, and social inequality.
 They can propose addressing these root causes through social welfare programs,
educational initiatives, and promoting economic opportunities, potentially reducing the
appeal of exploitative religious practices.
2. Countering Negative Stereotypes:
 The Respondent can argue against painting all religious figures with the same brush.
Many "Babas" and religious institutions play a positive role in society by providing
spiritual guidance, promoting social welfare, and fostering a sense of community.
 They can advocate for promoting a more nuanced understanding of religious practices in
Golden Sparrow.
3. Interfaith Dialogue:
 The Respondent assert propose encouraging dialogue and cooperation between different
religious communities in Golden Sparrow. This assert help foster understanding,
tolerance, and potentially lead to internal reforms within religious institutions to combat
exploitation.
4. Role of Media:
 The Respondent assert highlight the role of media in responsible reporting on religious
practices. Sensationalized reporting can exacerbate tensions and fuel negative
stereotypes.
 They can advocate for promoting media literacy and encouraging responsible reporting
practices that distinguish genuine religious expression from exploitative activities.
5. International Cooperation:

25
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

 The Respondent assert explore collaborating with other countries facing similar
challenges. Sharing best practices and learning from international experiences can inform
effective strategies to address exploitation within religious institutions.

26
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, MAU, JAIPUR

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE

RESPONDENT HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT TO:

 ISSUE A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE

WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, TO CLOSE DOWN THE ASHRAM OF
SARVABHRAMI MAHARAJ LOCATED IN RASTRIKA.
o ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION, TO THE UNION OF GOLDEN SPARROW AND THE STATE
GOVERNMENT OF RASTRIKA TO:

- ENFORCE STRICTER REGULATIONS ON THE ASHRAM'S ACTIVITIES,

INCLUDING SURPRISE INSPECTIONS AND FINANCIAL AUDITS.

- ENSURE THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF INDIVIDUALS RESIDING

IN THE ASHRAM, PARTICULARLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE

AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT FACTION SHALL BEDUTY

BOUND FOREVER.

SD/-

(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)

27