III.

THE DIRECTIVE OF 1968 PASSED BY THE MANNATH SHRINE

ASSOCIATION IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ENSHRINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF DHARMASTHAAN

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Dharmasthaan, that prohibiting
women of a particular age group from entering the shrine is not violative of the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of Dharmasthaan. The claim for the
exclusion of women from religious worship to maintain the sanctity and dignity of this shrine is
constitutional and not oppose to the values of Liberty, Dignity and Equality or any of the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Dharmasthaan under Articles 14, 15,
17, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Rather, due to the allowance of entry of women in the
Mannath shrine has caused the violation of the Article 21 of Lord Kadamba as the juristic
person, violation of Article 26 and also violation of Article 25 of the devotees of Lord Kadamba.

[III.1]. Violation of Article 25

III.1.1.Violation of Article 25 of Devotees

1. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Dharmasthaan1 gives freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion to all persons. However this right is
subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of the Part III of
the Constitution.2
2. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that shrine devoted to Lord Kadamba known
as Mannath, is the holiest land for the Mahabhakts.3 The devout followers believe that (a)
Lord Kadamba derives powers from due to his abstinence from all forms of worldly
pleasures, particularly as he was a celibate; and (b) prayers must be offered only after
following a strict sacrifice over a period of 100 days by following the practices known as
the “Karvatam”.4 It applied to both men and women equally and entailed several
restrictions that resulted in a person being of pure body, mind and soul at the time of

1
Constitution of Dharmasthaan is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
2
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art. 25 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
3
Factsheet, ¶4.
4
Factsheet, ¶6.
 entering the Mannath shrine.5 Due to this, it is observed that some women find it difficult
to follow Karvatam.6
3. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the worshippers of Lord Kadamba as an
individual are entitled to the freedom of conscience, and the right to profess, practice and
propagate their religion.7 The right to profess their faith by worshipping at the Lord
Kadamba Shrine can be guaranteed only if the character of the deity as a celibate8 is
preserved and the prayers must be offered only upon the completion of Karvatam
followed over a period of 100 days.9 Due to the mentioned reason the directive of 1968 is
passed by the Mannath shrine Association.
4. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that if women between the age group of 12
to 60 years are permitted entry, then celibacy and austerity observed by Lord Kadamba
derived from his abstinence from all forms of worldly pleasures10, will be curtailed and
temple will lose its ancient cultural and religious significance which would directly
infringe upon the right of the worshippers of Lord Kadamba to practice their religion
guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

III.1.2. No Violation of Article 25

5. The right of an individual to worship a specific manifestation of the deity, in accordance

with the tenets of that faith or shrine, is protected by Article 25(1) of the Constitution.11 If
a person claims to have faith in a certain deity, the same has to be articulated in
accordance with the tenets of that faith.12 In the instant case, the petitioners have not
stated that they are devotees of Lord Kadamba who are aggrieved by the practices
followed in the Mannath shrine rather they are the journalist and some non-Mahabhakt
lawyers. So it is further submitted that there is no violation of Article 25(1) of them.
6. In the instant case, the Government of Dharmasthaan issued a public referendum to seek
the opinion of the citizens of Dharmasthaan. In the referendum the question framed was,

5
Factsheet, ¶5.
6
Ibid 4.
7
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. Art. 25, cl. 1 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
8
Factsheet, ¶6.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Naz Foundation Trust v. Suresh Kumar, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 0307.
12
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1310 (8th ed. 2018).
 “whether the practices of the Mannath shrine are in consonance of the personal beliefs of
the citizens of Dharmasthaan”. Within 12 hours from the closure of voting, the results of
the referendum were published that 95% of the citizens of Dharmasthaan voted in favour
of the referendum.13 Therefore, it is submitted that the majority of votes show that the
directive of 1968 passed by Mannath Shrine Association is in consonance of the personal
beliefs of the citizens of Dharmasthaan and is constitutional.

[III.2]. No Violation of Article 14 & 15

III.2.1. Cannot be made subject to the claim under Articles 14 & 15

7. The right to equality under Article 14 in matters of religion and religious beliefs has to be
viewed differently. It has to be adjudged amongst the worshippers of a particular religion
or shrine, who are aggrieved by certain practices which are found to be oppressive or
pernicious.14
8. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that in matters of religion and religious
practices, Article 14 can be invoked only by persons who are similarly situated, i.e.
persons belonging to the same faith, creed, or sect.15 In the instant case they have not
stated that they are devotees of Lord Kadamba who are aggrieved by the practices
followed in the Mannath shrine.
9. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that right of the worshippers of Lord
Kadamba under Article 25(1) cannot be made subject to the claim to enter the temple
under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, since they do not profess faith in the deity of
this shrine, but claim merely to be social activists.16

III.2.2. No Violation of Article 14

10. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the act in question does not violate
Article 14 of the Dharmasthaan Constitution. Article 14 states that:

13
Factsheet, ¶25.
14
Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, WP. (Civil) No. 373 (2006).
15
Ibid.
16
Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, WP. (Civil) No. 373 (2006).
 The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India.17

III.2.2.1. Article 14 permits Reasonable Classification

11. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that Article 14 permits classification which
is founded on intelligible differentia. Differential treatment does not per se amount to
violation of Article 14. Article 14 is said to be violated only when there is no reasonable
basis and there are several tests to decide whether a classification is reasonable or not.18
12. Mere discrimination or inequality of treatment does not amount to discrimination within
the ambit of Article 14.19 For an act not to violate Article 14, there must not be any
substantive unreasonableness20 in it, it should not be manifestly arbitrary,21 and it should
fulfil the following two conditions: (a) intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from other left out in the group. 22 This is done
by examining the purpose and policy of the act, which can be ascertained from its title,
preamble23 and provisions.24 (b) rational nexus25 that connects the object sought to be
achieved by the act with the intelligible differentia ascertained in (a).26 The
reasonableness of the nexus is to be ascertained with reference to the object of the
legislation and not on the basis of any moral considerations.27

III.2.2.2. Rational Nexus with the Object Sought to be achieved

13. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the exclusion of women in this temple is
not absolute or universal. It is limited to a particular age group, with the view to preserve
the character of the deity. Women outside the age group of 12 to 60 years are entitled to
worship at the Kadamba Temple. The usage and practise is primary to preserve the sacred
form and character of the deity in order to maintain the sanctity and dignity of this

17
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. Art. 14 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
18
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 909-911 (8th ed. 2018).
19
1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 62 (13th ed. 2011).
20
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board & Ors., A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2276.
21
Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1489.
22
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 771. ¶41
23
Kausha PN v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1457. ¶¶ 60-62.
24
P. B. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 908.
25
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404.
26
Hanif v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 731.
27
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138. ¶17
 shrine.28 It was further submitted that the objection to this custom is not being raised by
the worshippers of Lord Kadamba but by a journalist and non-Mahabhakt lawyers.
14. Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification of
persons, objects and transitions by legislature for purpose of achieving specific ends.29 In
the instant case women as a class were not prohibited from entering the temple, girls
below 12 years, and women above 60 years can freely enter this temple, and offer
worship. It is further submitted that the classification of women between the ages of 12 to
60 years, and men of the same age group, has a reasonable nexus with the object sought
to be achieved, which is to preserve the identity and manifestation of the Lord Kadamba
as a celibate and to permit the entry only after following a strict sacrifice over a period of
100 days by following the practices known as the “Karvatam”.30 So the instant case falls
within the purview of reasonable classification and there is no violation of Article 14.

III.2.3. No Violation of Article 15

15. Article 15 clause (1) & (2) mentions that the state shall not discriminate against any
citizen only on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth. It also states that no
citizen shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction on these grounds.31 The
word ‘only’ is of great significance as Article 15 comes into play when there is
discrimination on these grounds only, discrimination on the basis of other grounds
doesn’t attract the enforceability of Articles 15(1) & (2).32
16. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the restriction imposed on the women of
particular age group cannot be termed as discrimination on the basis of sex and hence
does not attract Article 15. It is further submitted that there are various other religious
institutions also where restrictions on the entry of both men and women exist on the basis
33
of religious beliefs and practices being followed since time immemorial. In the instant
case also the kind of restriction imposed on that particular age group of women is on the

28
Factsheet, ¶11.
29
S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N., (2014) 16 S.C.C. 72.
30
Factsheet, ¶6.
31
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. Art. 15 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
32
Dattatraya v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1953 BOM 311.
33
This list includes the Nizamuddin Dargah in New Delhi, Lord Kartikeya Temple in Pehowa, Haryana and
Pushkar, Rajasthan; Bhavani Deeksha Mandapam in Vijaywada; Patbausi Satra in Assam; Mangala Chandi Temple
in Bokaro, Jharkhand.; the Bhagati Maa Temple in Kanya Kumari, Kerala; Kamakhya temple, Visakhapatnam; the
Mata Temple in Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
 basis of religious beliefs and practices being followed by its devout followers in order to
maintain the sanctity and dignity of the shrine34

[III.3]. Violation of Art 26

17. Article 26 of the Constitution of Dharmasthaan, states that subject to public order,
morality and health, every religious denomination or any section of the society shall have
the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.35
18. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that in the instant case the worshippers of
Lord Kadamba qualifies to be a religious denomination under Article 26 of the
Constitution of Dharmasthaan. It is further submitted that by allowing the entry of
women of that particular age group in the shrine, Article 26(b), will be violated which
gives every religious denomination right to manage their own religious affairs.36

III.3.1. Qualifies to be a Religious Denomination under Article 26

19. The word ‘religious denomination’ under Article 26 means a religious sect having a
common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name.37 It is humbly
submitted before the apex court that in case of a denomination, there must be a common
faith of the community based on religion, and the community members must have
common religious tenets peculiar to themselves.38 In the instant case the following
conditions are being fulfilled so it qualifies to be a religious denomination under Article
26 of the Constitution of Dharmasthaan.
20. It is humbly submitted that when a particular community constitutes religious
denomination, then it is a mixed question of law and facts.39
40
21. In the mentioned cases, the court held that the followers of Madhavacharya the
Swetambar Sect of Jains41 the followers of the Zoroastrian religion,42 the Gowda

34
Factsheet, ¶6.
35
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art. 26(b) is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
36
Id.
37
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1308 (8th ed. 2018).
38
Ramaswami Mudaliar v. Commr, HRE, A.I.R. 1999 Mad 393; Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 4 S.C.C. 606.
39
Arya Vyasa Sabha v. Commissioner, HRE, A.I.R 1976 S.C. 475.
40
Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, A.I.R 1954 S.C. 282.
41
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 388.
42
Id.
 Saraswat Brahmins, the Dawood Bohras,43 Chishtia Soofies,44 the followers of
Vallabha,45 constitute religious denominations. A math in charge of Sivalli Brahmins
who constitutes a section of the followers of Madhavacharya falls under Article 26 as it
contemplates not merely a religious denomination but even a section thereof.46
22. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that a math or the spiritual fraternity can
legitimately fall within the purview of Article 26.47
23. A judicial view has been expressed that the followers of the Hindu religion, as such, even
though numerous and divided into many sects and sub-sects, can be regarded as a
‘religious denomination’, for if it were not so, then while an institution belonging to a
sect or a sub-sect of Hindus would get the protection of Article 26, an institution
belonging to the Hindus generally would be deprived of that protection.48
24. The term denomination can be used in a larger or a narrower sense depending on the
context, and, therefore, all the followers of a religion may quite appropriately be regarded
as constituting a religious denomination.49

III.3.2. Essential and Integral part of religion

25. The expression “matters of religion” is not limited to matters of doctrines or belief, it
extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contains a guarantee for rituals
and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as internal parts
of religion.50 What constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be
decided by the courts with reference to doctrines of the particular religion and included as
an integral part of the religion.51 In the instant case the exclusionary practise of women
from religious worship is founded in the religious text of the religious denomination.
Thus this form of exclusionary practise form essential and integral part of the religion.

43
Sri Venkataramana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255.
44
Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853.
45
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1402.
46
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1638.
47
Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, A.I.I.R 1954 S.C. 282.
48
Ramchandra v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1959 Ori 5.
49
SP Mittal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1938 S.C. 1.
50
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1402; Venkatramana Devaru v. State of Mysore,
A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255; Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 400; Commr., Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282.
51
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853.
 26. It is further submitted before the apex court that Mannath shrine was built at least two
centuries ago and it is the holiest land for the Mahabhakts.52 The deity in the shrine is in
the form of celibate and derives powers from due to his abstinence from all forms of
worldly pleasures, particularly celibacy and also, prayers must be offered only after
following a strict sacrifice over a period of 100 days by following the practices known as
the “Karvatam”. Due to this, it is observed that some women find it difficult to follow
Karvatam and they could not attain the purity of mind, body and soul to perfectly perform
Karvatam.53 This notion is believed and practiced by devout followers of this religion.54

III.3.2.1. The practice qualifies to be a valid custom

27. The characteristics and elements of a valid custom are that it must be of immemorial
existence, it must be reasonable, certain and continuous.55 In the instant case the all these
conditions are fulfilled hence the practice of prohibiting women qualifies to be a valid
custom.
28. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the custom and usage of restricting the
entry of women of the age group of 12 to 60 years followed in the Mannath shrine is Pre-
constitutional law as per Article 13(3) (a) of the Constitution which states that “law”
includes custom or usage, and would have the force of law. 56 It is further submitted that
‘laws in force’ contained in Article 13(1) (b) ‘does not in any way restrict the ambit of
the word law’ in Article 13(1) (a).57

III.3.3.Cannot be overtaken by Article 25(2) (b)

29. The words ‘religious institutions of a public character’ in Article 25(2)(b) include an
institution belonging to religious denomination and such an institution can thus be thrown
open to all sections of the Mahabhaktas under Article 25(2)(b). On the other hand, the
term ‘religion’ in Article 26(b) embraces religious practices which signifies that such
questions as who are the persons entitled to enter into a temple for worship, where they

52
Factsheet, ¶4.
53
Factsheet, ¶10.
54
Factsheet, ¶6.
55
Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 748; Bhimashya & Ors. v. Janabi
(Smt) Alia Janawwa, (2006) 13 S.C.C. 627 (India); Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors., (2008) 13
S.C.C. 119.
56
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art 13, cl. 3(a) is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
57
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art 13, cl. 3(b) is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
 are entitled to stand and worship, how the worship is to be concluded, are all matters of
religion coming within the purview of Article 26(b). This means that a denomination has
a right to exclude persons from participating in the worship according to the tenets of the
institution concerned. There thus arises a conflict between these two constitutional
provisions. In the interests of harmonizing these provisions, it becomes necessary to read
the one subject to the other.58
30. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that Article 25(2)(b) cannot be interpreted to
mean that customs and usages forming an essential part of the religion, are to be
overridden. Article 25(2)(b) would have no application since there is no absolute ban on
the entry of women, but only a limited restriction of particular age group of women,
based on faith, custom and belief, which has been observed since time immemorial by the
devout followers of this religion.59
31. With all places of worship of various religions in this country, which have their own
beliefs, practices, customs and usages, which may be considered to be exclusionary in
nature. In a secular polity, issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment,
must not ordinarily be interfered with by Courts.60 In the instant case art 26(b) cannot be
overridden by art 25(2)(b)

III.3.4. Not subject to Part III of Constitution of Dharmasthaan

32. Unlike Article 25, which is subject to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution,
Article 26 is subject only to public order, morality, and health, and not to the other
provisions of the Constitution. As a result, the Fundamental Rights of the denomination is
not subject to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.61

[III.4]. Violation of Article 21

III.4.1. Article 21 of Lord Kadamba as a Juristic Person has been Violated

33. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that upon the establishment of an idol, life is
infused into it, which flourishes with the continuous offering of prayers in the manner
stipulated in the ‘Shastras’ or religious authorities. Each idol possesses a unique nature, a

58
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1310 (8th ed. 2018).
59
Factsheet, ¶6.
60
Young Lawyers Associations v. State of Kerala, WP. (Civil) No. 373 (2006). ¶6.1
61
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art. 25& 26 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
 special character, which has its roots in the religion, and each temple accordingly
observes distinct traditions and rituals, which are respected and followed by reasonable
devotees.
34. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that deity has been considered as juristic
person by Supreme Court.62 The idol is a juristic person and the person in charge of the
idol will be competent to take all steps in a Court of law in the interests of that juristic
63
person In the case of Vidya Varuthi Thirthia Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar Hindu,64
deity was considered as juristic person and the court held that his interest should be
protected.65
35. The deity, having a distinct legal personality, is entitled to the rights under Articles 21, 25
and 26. In the instant case Lord Kadamba is a juristic person and thus is entitled to right
to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana. It is further
submitted before the court that the entrance of women in that temple will lead to
curtailment and deviation from his celibacy and austerity, they could not attain the purity
of mind, body and soul to perfectly perform Karvatam which the essential element
needed to enter into the shrine.66 This will lead to violation of right to maintain his
‘perpetual celibate’ status which is covered under the purview of right to privacy
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Dharmasthaan.
36. It was interpreted from the holy texts and the depictions on the walls of the holy caves
that, if a person enters the Mannath shrine, such person is very likely in his next birth to
enjoy a better quality of life and that death shall not be painful in any manner
whatsoever.67 After word began to spread about the benefits of entering the Mannath
shrine, every citizen was interested in entering the shrine, irrespective of the restrictions
and sacrifice involved.68 These unethical practices lead to the violation of right to
maintain the ‘celibate’ status of Lord Kadamba as a juristic person, which is the direct
infringement of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
Dharmasthaan.
62
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tapang Light Foundry & Co. (1984) 147 I.T.R. 581.
63
Abdul Qayum & Ors. v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All 485.
64
Vidya Varuthi Thirthia Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar, (1922).
65
Id.
66
Factsheet, ¶6.
67
Ibid.
68
Factsheet, ¶7.
 37. III.4.2. Dignity of Women has not been Violated
1. Article 21 of the Constitution of Dharmasthaan states that: - No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.69
2. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that Girls below 12 years, and women above
60 years can freely enter this Temple, and offer worship. The classification of women
between the ages of 12 to 60 years, and men of the same age group, has a reasonable
nexus70 with the object sought71 to be achieved, which is to preserve the identity and
manifestation of the Lord as a celibate and to maintain the sanctity and dignity of the
shrine. This is the underlying reason behind the custom which is in existence since time
immemorial. It is further submitted that there is no derogation of the dignity of women. It
is only to protect the manifestation and form of the deity celibacy and his austerity.
Therefore, it is believed that young women between the ages of 12 to 60 years should not
offer worship in the temple so that even the slightest deviation from celibacy and
austerity observed by the deity is not caused by the presence of such women.72

[III.5]. No Violation of Article 17

3. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. The enforcement
of any disability arising out of “untouchability” is to be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.73
4. The subject-matter of Article 17 is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical as it
had sense but the “practice as it had developed historically in this country”. Therefore,
treating of persons as untouchables either temporarily or otherwise for various reasons,
e.g., suffering from an epidemic or a contagious disease, or social observances associated
with birth or death, or social boycott resulting from caste or other disputes do not come
within the purview of Article 17. Article 17 is concerned with those regarded
untouchables in the course of historic development.74

69
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art. 21 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
70
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., A.I.R 1953 S.C. 404.
71
Hanif v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 731.
72
Factsheet, ¶6.
73
DHARMASTHAAN CONST. art. 17 is para-materia to the Constitution of India.
74
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Puranchand, A.I.R. 1958 MP 352.
 5. It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the object and core of Article 17 was to
prohibit untouchability based on ‘caste’ in the Hindu religion.75 No such caste-based or
religion-based untouchability is practiced at the Mannath shrine in the instant case. The
customs practiced by the devotees at the Mannath shrine do not flow from any practice
associated with untouchability under Article 17. The custom is not based on any alleged
impurity or disability. It is only to protect the manifestation and form of the deity
celibacy and austerity.
6. Therefore, it is believed that young women between the ages of 12 to 60 years should not
offer worship in the temple so that even the slightest deviation from celibacy and
austerity observed by the deity is not caused by the presence of such women. 76 Thus, it is
further submitted that article 17 is not being violated in the instant case.

75
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1048 (8th ed. 2018).
76
Factsheet, ¶6.