BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIVA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

C.R. No. 28/2022

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 DEFENDANT

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................9

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES........................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................................13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF..............................................................................................27

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

AIR All INDIVAReporter

Anr. Another
Art. Article
& And
Govt. Government
CRI LJ Criminal Law Journal
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Ors Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec Section
v. or vs. Versus
Vol Volume
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
SCR Supreme Court Reporter

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

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

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
3
BABA 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

9 S. R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA

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

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 DEFENDANT Page|6

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THIS PIL FOR THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE COURT. THE PETITION INVOKES ITS JURISDICTION BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE SC OF INDIVA UNDER ART. 32, 25 & 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
IT SET FORTHS THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, ARGUMENTS AND THE LAWS ON WHICH
THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.

ART. 32

a) THE RIGHT TO MOVE TO THE SC BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY THIS PART IS GUARANTEED.

b) THE SC 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 RIGHT CONFERRED BY
THIS PART.

c) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE SC 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 SC UNDER CLAUSE (2).

d) THE RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THIS ART. SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED EXCEPT AS

OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR BY THIS CONSTITUTION.

ART. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION GIVES THE RIGHT TO INDIVIDUALS TO MOVE TO

THE SC TO SEEK JUSTICE WHEN THEY FEEL THAT THEIR RIGHT HAS BEEN ‘UNDULY

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

DEPRIVED’. THE APEX COURT IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS OR

ORDERS FOR THE EXECUTION OF ANY OF THE RIGHTS BESTOWED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AS IT IS CONSIDERED ‘THE PROTECTOR AND GUARANTOR OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS’.

THE CASE WAS FILED BY THE DRISHTI FOUNDATION WHICH IS NGO WORKING
AGAINST THE EXPLOITATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS OF THE PEOPLE BY SUCH
SO CALLED GODMAN BABARAM (“DEFENDANT”) THROUGH PIL BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE SC OF INDIA.

THE CASE DEALS WITH CHALLENGING THE ACTIVITIES OF EXPLOITATION BEING

CARRIED OUT BY THE SO CALLED BABA’S IN THEIR MATTHS AND ASHRAMS AND THE
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF THE PEOPLE. EXPLOITED ILLITERATE AND POOR WOMEN &
CHILDREN AND EMPLOYED YOUTHS. HE USES THEIR ENERGIES BY PROVIDING THEM
TRAINING TO PLAY WITH RIFLES AND ARMS FOR HIS OWN PROTECTION AND TO
PREVENT GOVT. AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST HIM. HE POSES
HIMSELF AS GOD OR SUPERNATURAL POWER TO ATTRACT WOMEN AND HAS
SEXUALLY ABUSED MANY WOMEN’S TOO.

THE EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICE IS BASED ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN

AND VIOLATES ART. 32, 25 AND 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES.

ARTICLE 142 (“Inherent Powers of SC”)

CAN BE DEFINED AS THE SC’S ORDERS AND DECREES BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT COMPLETE JUSTICE CAN BE
DONE. THE FEDERAL COURT HAD NO APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT ITS DECISIONS
UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIVA ACT, 1935. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER STATES
AND SUBMIT THAT THIS HONOURABLE APEX COURT, HAS THE JURISDICTION TO DEAL
AND ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT PIL.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF
FACTS

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

VS.

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

1) Shivrashtra is a state in the Union of Indiva. The population of the state on the basis of religious
faith comprises of 40% Hindus, 25% Muslims, 15% Christians and the remaining 20% belong to
various smaller groups like Parsis, Tribal and Non-tribals and Non-believers. The state is
predominately a hilly area with four holy rivers flowing through it and the people are very religious
by nature. A large number of population being illiterate, carries out primitive occupations.
Religious practices, superstitions and rituals, take much of their time and money which has greatly
affected the development of the State.

2) The state is known all over the world for its religious centers. The various religious institutions in
the state are imparting only religious education putting the secular education into oblivion which
has reduced drastically the people’s employment avenues. As the state is a pilgrimage center, the
religious leaders, Gurus and Prophets of various religions in the state are vying with one another
because of huge donations offered by the pilgrims.

3) Accordingly, mass prayers, retreats, yagnas, penance services etc. are conducted very frequently.
The religious leaders, so called God men in order to continue their hold, have created a kind of fear
in the mind of their followers by way of fundamentalist practices and attitudes, which further
created divisions in the society and often within the families too.

`
4) The youths of the State, who were boiling with anger and frustration looking at the economic
progress of other states, often revolted against those oppressive and suppressive religious practices

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

that prevailed in their states. There were many protests by many groups headed by moderates,
intellectuals and non-believers on various occasions in different parts of the State.

5) Dr. Virendra Panhalkar, the 70 years old social activist, who was shot dead on 20 th August, 2020 in
one city of the State of Shivrashtra, had waged a long and lonely battle for an Anti-Superstition
Law.

6) Within a week after the vicious assassination of Dr. Panhalkar, the Governor of Shivrashtra signed
the ‘Black Magic Prohibition’ Ordinance. It came in to force from 26th August, 2020 all over the
State of Shivrashtra.

7) The ordinance is aimed at banning superstitious practices, inhuman rituals and black magic that
have been the used to exploit people in the name of religious beliefs. This law is against fraudulent
and exploitative practices, such practices have no place in an enlightened society. In the entire text
there is not a single word about God or Religion. The essential purpose of this law is to bring social
awakening and awareness in the society and to create a healthy and safe social environment with a
view to protect the common people in the society against the evil and sinister practices thriving on
ignorance.

8) The draft Bill clearly specifies 12 such practices. These includes, claiming to perform surgery with
just fingers or to change the sex of the foetus in the womb, sexual exploitation under the guise of
claims of supernatural powers, branding women as witches and causing them physical harm, human
sacrifices and other Aghori practices.

9) Inspite of coming into force of the above legislation the superstitious activities are no rise. The
people of State of Shivrashtra are being exploited by the self-declared God like Babaram
Maharaj, who has amassed huge wealth by exploiting the religious sentiments of the people. Under
the garb of religious practices he started to exploit illiterate and poor women & children and
employed youths. He uses their energies by providing them training to play with rifles and arms for
his own protection and to prevent Government authorities to take any action against him. He poses
himself as god or Supernatural power to attract women and he sexually abused many women’s too.
To ban his activities the Government of Shivrashtra tried to enter in to his Ashram but could not
succeed.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

10) In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, Drishti Foundation which is NGO working
against the exploitation of the religious feelings of the people by such so called Godman Babaram,
has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of Constitution of Indiva challenging the
activities of exploitation being carried out by the so called Baba’s in their Matths and Ashrams and
has prayed therein that all these Matths and Ashrams which are carrying out the activities of
exploiting the religious feeling of the people should be closed and all the assets acquired by these
Baba’s be confiscated and added to the national wealth of Indiva.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

STATEMENT OF
ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SC OF INDIVA FOR HEARING

AND ADMISSION?

II. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF THE

PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
PEOPLE OF INDIVA?

III. WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE SECULAR

STRUCTURE OF UNION OF INDIVA AS ENSHRINED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

IV. WHETHER INSTEAD OF CLOSING DOWN SUCH MATH’S/ASHRAINS, KEEPING

THESE MATH’S/ASHRAMS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION WOULD BE
A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE?

V. WHETHER AMENDMENT IN THE PRESENT LAWS IS NECESSARY TO DEAL

STERNLY WITH SUCH BABA’S?

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ARGUMENT
S

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SC OF INDIVA FOR

HEARING AND ADMISSION?

1. A PIL can be filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Right, as
guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. In the present case, there has been no violation of the
fundamental rights since, the action taken by the Baba did not affect any legal right of the people

2. Maths and Ashram follow the tradition and religious belief as per the culture of Shivrashtra
which are according to Art. 25-28,of the Fundamental Rights given by the Constitution of India.

3. The interest of public is not harmed by the baba of Shivrashtra, a state that is known all over the
world for its religious centers. Accordingly, mass prayers, retreats, yagnas, penance services etc.
are conducted very frequently for imparting religious education.

4. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term ‘public interest’ as:
“something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow
as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question. Interests shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government.
The Dristi Foundation doesn't have the locus standi because The classical rule of locus standi states that
only a person who is “aggrieved” from a state action has the right to approach the court for the
enforcement of his rights and redressal under A/32 of the Constitution of India.
If the entity or individual named as the (referred to as "baba" in your query) in a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) case is not considered a part of the "State" under the definition provided in Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:

"Definition - In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes the Government and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."
The point that is to be noted here is that this traditional rule of standing has been done away with the advent
of the concept of Public Interest Litigation.
It is imperative to note that it has been widely recognised that the concept of P.I.L. does away with the strict
rules of locus and gives standing to any member of the public, who is not a mere busybody or meddlesome
interloper, and has sufficient interest in the proceeding, and is moving the court with bona fide intentions.

Arya Samaj Education Trust v. Union of India (2011):

In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed by the Arya Samaj Education Trust, challenging the
constitutional validity of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court held that the petitioner
trust did not have sufficient standing or locus standi to represent the entire Hindu community on issues
related to personal laws.

Muslim Rashtriya Manch v. Union of India (2015):

The court dismissed a PIL filed by the Muslim Rashtriya Manch, an organization claiming to represent
Muslims, challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 1937. The court held that the petitioner organization did not have sufficient standing or
locus standi to represent the entire Muslim community on issues related to personal laws

Additionaly The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the matter is not maintainable before the
Supreme Court of Indiva for hearing and admission due to the enactment of the Black Magic Prohibition
Ordinance, which was enforced throughout the state of Shivrashta starting from 26th August 2020. With
the legislation already passed by the state's legislature, the responsibility for implementing the law lies
with the executive branch, not the judiciary.
This situation underscores the principle of separation of powers, where the legislature enacts laws, the
executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets and applies them. Once a law has been duly
passed, it becomes the duty of the executive to ensure its enforcement. The judiciary's role primarily
revolves around interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and upholding constitutional principles, rather than
directly enforcing legislation.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Therefore, in the context of the PIL concerning the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance, the responsibility
for its implementation falls squarely on the executive, and any grievances or challenges related to its
enforcement should be directed towards the appropriate executive authorities rather than the judiciary.

In Indiva separation of functions is followed. The three branches of the government are the executive,
the legislature and the judiciary. Although the three have distinct functions to perform, their scope
sometimes meet. Separation of powers is an organizational structure where responsibilities,
authorities, and powers are divided between groups rather than being centrally held. Separation of
powers is most closely associated with political systems, in which the legislative, executive, and
judicial powers of government are vested in separate bodies. Separation of powers refers to the
division of powers into distinct branches of government, each with their own responsibilities.

The doctrine of separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, although not
specifically mentioned. The legislature cannot pass a law violating this principle. The functions of the
three organs are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Article 50: This article puts an obligation over the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.
But, since this falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is not enforceable.

Asif Hameed & Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others.

While the concept of separation of powers in the United States serves as a foundational principle
delineating the responsibilities of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, its manifestation
may vary in other constitutional frameworks. In our context, the delineation of duties among the three
organs of the state underscores their autonomy within their respective spheres. It is imperative to
uphold the principle of non-interference, ensuring that each organ operates independently without
encroaching upon the domain of another.
Specifically, the judiciary, while entrusted with the critical role of interpreting laws and adjudicating
disputes, does not possess the authority to dictate legislative action to the parliament. Rather, its
mandate lies in the interpretation and application of existing laws, ensuring adherence to constitutional
principles and safeguarding the rule of law. This demarcation of roles fosters a system of checks and
balances, wherein each branch acts as a guardian of the constitution while respecting the autonomy of
the others.Furthermore, the notion of autonomy within each organ underscores the need for mutual
respect and cooperation among them. While distinct in function, the branches of government must
collaborate within the confines of their respective roles to facilitate effective governance and uphold
the interests of the populace.
MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 15
 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
Therefore, while the judiciary may not direct legislative action, it plays a crucial role in ensuring the
legality and constitutionality of enacted laws, thereby contributing to the preservation of democratic
norms and the rule of law.
In essence, the principle of separation of powers, though not explicitly enumerated like in the U.S.
Constitution, remains fundamental to our constitutional framework. By maintaining the autonomy of
each organ and prohibiting encroachment into the domain of others, we uphold the integrity of our
governance structure and ensure accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF

THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE PEOPLE OF INDIVA?

No, the Activities exploiting the religious sentiments of the people does amount to infringement of
fundamental rights of the people as per Art. 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India.

Art. 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in India. It provides that all
persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions:

 Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and

 Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

This means that all Indian citizens are entitled to the aforementioned rights provided that these do not
contradict a public order, morality, health and other provisions.

It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall not prevent the state from
making any law relating to:
 Regulation or restriction of any economic, financial, political, or any secular activity associated
with religious practice.
 Providing social welfare and reform.
 Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and sections of the
Hindus.

A religion is, therefore, not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward
expression in acts as well. Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of
religious belief, are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines.
Religion is the belief which binds spiritual nature of men to supernatural being. It includes
worship, belief, faith, devotion etc and extends to rituals.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

In Lily Thomas V. Union of India.

The Supreme Court explained that religion was a matter of faith stemming from the depth of the
heart and mind and that religion, faith or devotion were not easily interchangeable. The Court
further said that if the person feigned to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain
or benefit, it would be religious bigotry.

This means that the state can either condition the working of existing law(s) or make new law(s) so as to
regulate and restrict financial, political, economical, or other secular activities associated with faiths. It
further facilitates social welfare and reform or opening of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character that is open to all sections and classes of Hindus.

In Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali the Bombay High Court held that Art. 25 and 26 not only prevents
doctrines or beliefs of religion but also the acts done in pursuance of religion. It thus guarantees
ceremonies, modes of worship, rituals, observances, etc. which are an integral part of religion. What is
the essential or integral part of a religion has to be determined in the light of the doctrines and practices
that are regarded by the community as a part of their religion and also must be included in them.

WHAT IS RELIGION?

Religion is one of the fundamental organizations of any general public. It is an all inclusive framework.
Religion can be characterized as, “a social framework in which there is regular confidence, revere,
ceremonies, traditions and customs.” The meaning of Religion given by Durkheim is an all around
acknowledged definition and he says, “Religion is a brought together arrangement of convictions and
practices with respect to holy thing which join into one single good group”. There are different religions on
the planet and the significant ones are Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam and
Farsi. The thoughts and confidence of every single religion contrasts somehow or the other.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

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 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.

Sharyara Bano v. Union Of India AIR 2017 SCC 1388.

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. 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.”

Art. 26 (subject to public order, morality, and health) confers a right on every religious denomination or
any section of such religious denomination of:

 Establishing and maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

 Managing its affair with regard to religion;
 Owing and acquiring property (movable and immovable);
 Administering the property in accordance with the law.

Art. 28 prohibits:

 Providing religious instructions in any educational institutions that are maintained wholly out of

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
the state funds.
 The above shall not apply to those educational institutions administered by the states but
established under endowment or trust requiring religious instruction to be imparted in such
institution.
 Any person attending state recognized or state-funded educational institution is not required to
take part in religious instruction or attend any workshop conducted in such an institution or
premises of such educational institution.

Religious experience is a unique personal experience for most who seek it. “It is an independent functioning of the
human mind, something unique, possessing an autonomous character. In reality it is a relationship between the
followers.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

A.S. Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

In this case, Justice Hansaria observed that “our constitution makers had used the word “religion” in
these two art. (Art. 25 and 26) in the sense conveyed by the word ‘dharma’.” He further explained
the difference between religion and dharma as religion is enriched by visionary methodology and
theology, whereas dharma blooms in the realm of direct experience. Religion contributes to the
changing phases of a culture; dharma enhances the beauty of spirituality. Religion may inspire one to
build a fragile, mortal home for God; dharma helps one to recognize the immortal shrine in the heart.

Article 25 to Article 28 of the Indian Constitution puts forth the right to freedom of religion. Article
25(1) guarantees to every person the ‘freedom of conscience’ and the right to profess, practice and
propagate any religion of one’s choice in compliance to ‘public order, morality and health.’ The term
‘conscience’ highlights the celestial and spiritual part of the religion that is much ahead of the State’s
control.

People are free to choose their own religion, even as it lashed out at a “very, very harmful kind” of
“public interes” Religious faith is a part of the fundamental right to privacy.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE
III

WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE SECULAR

STRUCTURE OF UNION OF INDIVA AS ENSHRINED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?
Secularism in India, unlike the West, was not designed to create a wall of separation between church and
state. It was shaped to assure minorities that their culture, religion, and identity would be protected and
that a majoritarian view would not be imposed on them.

Thus, Indian secularism goes much beyond mere state Secularism in India, unlike the West, was not
designed to create a wall of separation between church and state.It was shaped to assure minorities that
their culture, religion, and identity would be protected and that a majoritarian view would not be
imposed on them.

1. Secularism means developing, understanding and respect for different religions. It is believed that
the word ‘Secularism’ has its origin in late medieval Europe. In 1948, during the constituent
assembly debate, a demand was made by the KT Shah to include the word ‘Secular’ in the
Preamble to the Constitution.

2. The members of the assembly though agreed to the secular nature of the constitution but it was not
incorporated in the Preamble. Later, in 1976 the Indira Gandhi government enacted the 42nd
Amendment Act and the word ‘Secular’ was added to the Preamble. The 42nd Amendment Act
also known as the ‘Mini Constitution’, is the most comprehensive amendment to the Constitution.

3. In the much-disputed Ayodhya case, it was held by the apex court that the constitution postulates
equality of all faiths. Through Tolerance and mutual co-existence, the secular commitment of our
country and its people can be nourished.

4. Secularism as contemplated by the Constitution of INDIVA has the following distinguishing

features:

 The state will not identify itself with aor be controlled by any religion;
 While the state guarantees to everyone the right to profess whatever religion one chooses to
follow, it will not accord any preferential treatment to any of them.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

 No discrimination will be shown by the state against any person on account of his religion or
faith.
 The right of every citizen, subject to any general condition, to enter any offices under the state
and religious tolerance form the heart and soul of secularism as envisaged by the constitution.
It secures the conditions of creating a fraternity of the Indian people which assures both the
dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation.

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the righ to
manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism
ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from
religion.
Various religious institutions in the state are imparting only religious education putting the secular
education into oblivion which has reduced drastically the people’s employment avenues.

If we were to stop here, secularism would be rendered redundant because “just as the freedom of religion
does not necessarily need secularism to support it, equality of religions can be established via the
fundamental right of equality.”But secularism is not mere equality of religions. The second reason that
secularism was adopted as a fundamental principle is that “secularism extends beyond equality and
freedom to declare that the state is not aligned to any particular religion.”Thus, secularism was also
intended to assure minorities that the religion of the majority community would not be given any
preference by the State. It is “this particular commitment that establishes the credentials of a Secular
state.”For example, since Pakistan had become a theocratic state, such an assurance for Indian Muslims
was essential. Due to this assurance, a massive majority of Muslims decided to stay in India.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 23

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

The 9-judge bench, in this case, ruled that Secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution of India. It
also observed that religion and politics cannot be mixed together. If the State follows unsecular policies
or courses of action then it acts contrary to the constitutional mandate. In a State, all are equal and
should be treated equally. Religion has no place in the matters of State. Freedom of religion as a
fundamental right is guaranteed to all persons in INDIVA but from the point of view of the State,
religion, faith, and belief are immaterial.

The faith that one instils in their religion often becomes the reason for conflict with others. The aspect of
supernatural powers and forces governing religions most of the time drives all the believers towards
opposing sciences and logic. What one’s religion allows other religions might not, this is where the
conflict arises.

In a certain context even if an idea or principle has not been promoted by religion, people at a higher
authority in terms of religion and the so-called holy learned leaders interpret and propagate such
meanings that are completely against humanity, morality and against the rights of other human beings.
Nobody stands against upholding the concept of following religious duties, it is rather promoted and the
support for such ideals eventually gives rise to mass movements and mob violence. Time and again
INDIVAhas seen religion and freedom of religion being used as a means to acquire monetary gains,
commit crimes, obtain political fame and retaining the position of power and gaining everyone’s
support.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE BAN ON SUCH MATHS/ASHRAMS WOULD VIOLATE THE

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

Yes, ban on such Maths/Ashrams would violate the fundamental rights of the people to follow the
religious faith and discourage them to worship god, visit temples or masjid. It will lead to people losing
faith in god.

Art. 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in India. It provides that all
persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions:

 Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and

 Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

This means that all Indian citizens are entitled to the aforementioned rights provided that these do not
contradict a public order, morality, health and other provisions.

It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall not prevent the state from
making any law relating to:
 Regulation or restriction of any economic, financial, political, or any secular activity associated
with religious practice.
 Providing social welfare and reform.
 Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and sections of the
Hindus.

This means that the state can either condition the working of existing law(s) or make new law(s) so as to
regulate and restrict financial, political, economical, or other secular activities associated with faiths. It
further facilitates social welfare and reform or opening of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character that is open to all sections and classes of Hindus.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA
Thus, the ban on such Maths/Ashrams does violate the fundamental rights of the people to follow the
religious faith of their choice as these Maths and Ashrams have been a place for religious and for people
to pray.

Bans on Maths/Ashram does lose faith in religion and in God. Fundamental rights are subject to certain
conditions which the Baba in the present case has not violated and it is the choice of people that they
profess the teaching of the Baba. The Constitution of INDIVA provides the people of INDIVA to
profess and practice religion which they chose to practice. The people of INDIVA who are following the
baba have not made a single complaint of fraud, mis-representation, inducement and other kinds of
allegations. Therefore, the people of INDIVA are following the Baba with their own consent and
conscience therefore to ban ashrams would be an extreme step directly resulting on violating of
fundamental rights of the people of India.

The people of Shivrashtra, a state which is known all over the world for its religious centers, have not
raised a complaint or objection towards the action taken by the Baba. It is prejudice to ban the
Maths/Ashrams based on a superstition that all Baba’s are corrupt and have violated the sentiments of
the people.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE V

WHETHER INSTEAD OF CLOSING DOWN SUCH MATH’S/ASHRAINS, KEEPING THESE

MATH’S/ASHROMS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION WOULD BE A VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE?

Art. 26 (subject to public order, morality, and health) confers a right on every religious denomination or
any section of such religious denomination of:

 Establishing and maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

 Managing its affair with regard to religion;
 Owing and acquiring property (movable and immovable);
 Administering the property in accordance with the law.

The word ‘religious denomination’ is not defined in the constitution. The word ‘denomination’ came to
be considered by the SC in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious endowment Madras v. Shri
Laxmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt. In this case, the meaning of ‘Denomination’ was culled
out from the Oxford dictionary, “A collection of individuals classed together under the same name, a
religious sect or body having a common faith and organization designated by a distinctive name”.

Art. 26 does not deal with the right of an individual but is confined to a religious denomination. The Art.
refers to a denomination of any religion, whether it is a majority or a minority religion, just as Art. 25
refers to all persons, whether they belong to the majority or a minority religion.

Art. 26 (d) says that a religious denomination has the right to administer its own property but it should
be in accordance with Law. In Durgah Committee Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali the Supreme Court
observed that if the religious denomination never had the right to administer property or if it has lost its
right then such right cannot be created under Art. 26 and therefore cannot be invoked.

Fundamental rights are there for the protection of one’s right to practice religion but no right can exist in
absolute independence without any condition. Same way Art. 25 of the constitution which calls for one’s
rights to freedom of religion but it is subject to public order.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

Therefore, it will not be a viable option to close down the Maths and Ashrams as it would violate the
fundamental rights of the people which is protected under Art. 26 of the Constitution of INDIVAwhich
states freedom to manage religious affairs. Therefore, instead of closing down the Maths and Ashrams
and putting those under government supervision could violate the fundamental rights of the citizens of
India.

The Baba’s have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; to
manage its own affairs in matters of religion; to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
to administer such property in accordance with law. The people of this state have no objection towards
the same and have not claimed that their rights have been infringed or violated by the act of the Baba.

Right to manage its own affairs in the ‘Matters of Religion’

Matter of religion includes religious practices, rituals, observances, ceremonies, mode and manner of
worship, etc., regarded as the essential and integral part of the religion. For instance, in Acharaj Singh v.
State of Bihar it was held that, if Bhog offered to the deity is a well-established practice of that religious
institution, such a practice should be regarded as a part of that religion.

Similarly, the Baba has tried to create a healthy and safe social environment with a view to protect the
common people in the society against the evil and sinister practices thriving on ignorance. He trained
poor woman and children to play with rifles and arms so that they can protect themselves from evil.

Baba’s have the right to manage their own affairs if the public is devotee and not objecting towards the
same.

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

 DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

ISSUE VI

WHETHER AMENDMENT IN THE PRESENT LAWS IS NECESSARY TO DEAL STERNLY

WITH SUCH BABA’S?

No, it is not necessary to deal sternly with such Babas who are genuinely assisting the innocent public
against exploitation, educating people, and fostering bravery. These spiritual leaders often play a vital role
in bringing about social awakening and awareness in society. Amendments within the legal framework
should aim for the betterment of people rather than unjustly disgracing Babas who may be falsely accused.

It's crucial to recognize that false allegations and malicious prosecutions can unjustly tarnish the reputation
of Babas who are sincerely dedicated to serving society. Instead of succumbing to public pressure or
misconceptions, legal proceedings should adhere to principles of fairness and evidence-based judgment.

In instances where a Baba is found to have engaged in wrongdoing, the appropriate course of action should
be pursued under criminal law, as outlined in section 508 of the Indian Penal Code. This ensures that justice
is served while respecting the rights of both the accused and the victims.

Therefore, a balanced approach is necessary, where Babas are not unjustly persecuted but are held
accountable through legal means if they are found to have committed offenses. This ensures that the
integrity of genuine spiritual leaders is preserved while addressing any instances of misconduct effectively
and fairly.

ACHARAYA MAHARAJSHRI ... VS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

The learned counsel submits that the Act violates Art. 26(c) of the Constitution which offers to every
religious denomination the fundamental right "to own and acquire movable and immovable property"
subject only to "public order, morality and health". He submits that the Act aims at agrarian reform but
is not concerned with "public order, morality and health". Since it deprives religious denominations of
their ownership of property, it transgresses Article 26(c) and is invalid. He also draws our attention to
Article 25(1) which has subjected the rights therein not only to public order, morality and health, but
also to "the other provisions of Part III". Ho, therefore, submits that the right guaranteed under Article
26(c) is Rot subject to "the other pro visions of Part III" and therefore, there cart be no acquisition of
property under Article 31 of the Constitution

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

CONCLUSION

Although religion empowers INDIVA and gives millions the hope to live and strive for success and a

better life, it also provides a scope of deception, violence and hypocrisy. Time and again religion has

been used by several as a medium to achieve a powerful position in the society, humiliate others and

suppress strata of people. The misogyny attached to religion cannot be ignored as well.

Several times inhuman activities and discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, colour, gender is

acquitted by religion as it is proclaimed to be a duty given by God to man. Religion is taken and twisted

by humans which leads others towards the illusion. Freedom of Religion gives everyone the right to

practice, profess and propagate the religions of their choice, belief and faith but there has to be a more

severe and rigid boundary of its limitations. Sometimes one individual accessing their freedom of

religion violates and infringes the rights of others which in turn leads to a conflict that goes against

public order and peace.

Inhumanity and crimes committed in the name of religious freedom have to be stopped as well.

Religious freedom can never do away with the concept of behaving and acting in a humane manner. It

can never go against the strength and harmony of the country. The State needs to step in more frequently

and prevent the abuse of power. Strict legal action against people responsible for inflicting violence

against minorities has to be taken. Political parties based on caste and religion should be prohibited, and

a set of rules should be formulated for political parties.

The state should be more responsible for publicly condemning religious violence and should take more

efforts to look into reports of harassment and assault during communal violence for securing justice.

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

DRISHTI FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIVA

PRAYER

In the light of the arguments presented, cases referred and authorities cited, the counsel for the Appellant

humbly pray this Honourable Court to:

1. Shouldn’t allow the appeal filed;

2. The PIL filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of INDIVA before the SC is not maintainable;

3. The practice of activities by Baba’s which were supported by the Math’s and Ashram does not
violate the Art. 21, 32 and Art. 25-28;

4. Discharge the charges of Sec 295A against the accused Godman Babaram since he is only
following religious activities according to Constitution.

5. That the defendant has not violated the fundamental rights of the indigenous people and has not
caused religious degradation;

6. Not to ban Math’s/Ashram as it neither harms the religious feelings of the people nor affects the
Fundamental Rights of the citizens; and/or

7. Pass any other order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Defendant Shall be Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Place:

Date: --/--/--

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT)

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