Team Code: P(NIU-141)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SENTARA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

FILLED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SENTARA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) ____/2019

- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION -

SENTARA YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS…………………………………..PETITIONER(S)

Versus

THE STATE OF KERIPURA & ORS……………………………………………………RESPONDANT(S)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF SERIPURA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………………....
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………...............
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………...............
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………………
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT…
1.1 That there is a violation of fundamental rights and the court has jurisdiction under Art. 32 to entertain
the petition………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.2 That the petition is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation……………………………………..
1.3 That the courts have the role in the matters where fundamental rights have been violated………..

2. THAT THE IMPUNGED RULE LAID DOWN IN RULE 3(b) OF THE SAID ACT VIOLATES
ART. 14 & ART. 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION……………………………………………………
2.1 That the exclusion of women amounts to discrimination under Art. 14 & Art. 15………………….
2.2 That the exclusion of women amounts to discriminate the equality as enriched in Art. 14………...

3. THAT THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 10 TO 50 YEARS

VIOLATES ART. 25 & ART. 26 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF SENTARA………………………
3.1 That the restriction of women violates their right to worship under Article 25 of the constitution of
Sentara…………………………………………………………………………………………………...
3.2 That the temple of Sentara do not constitute to be a religious denomination under Article 26 of the
constitution of Sentara…………………………………………………………………………………...

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………………...
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Sentara young women lawyers Association, in the instant matter, has approached the Hon’ble supreme
court of Sentara under Article 32 of the constitution of Sentara.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Sentara is a country located in subcontinent of Asia with a glorious and rich heritage and where
multifarious religious group co-exist. The social, legal and cultural conditions of Sentara are pari materia
to that of India.

2. The Temple of Sripura is a temple complex located at Keripura. It is sight of largest pilgrimage in the
world. The temple is dedicated to the Hindu celibate deity A. The Pilgrims has to trek the hill top of Neel
to reach the holy place which has 18 sacred steps, to worship lord “A” after undergoing strict religious
vows for 48 days.

3. It is a male only temple and women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, that is those who are in
menstruating age, are barred from entering the temple. However, the women between 10 to 50 years are
not prohibited to worship lord A in any temple, their entry is prohibited only in the temple of Sripura.

4. The exclusion of (a class of) women from the Temple is justified on the basis of ancient custom, which
was sanctioned by rule 3(b) framed by the Government under the authority of a certain Act namely “The
ABC Places of Worship (Authorization of Entry Act). Section 3 of the Act required that places of public
worship be open to all sections and classes of people, subject to special rules for religious denominations.
Rule 3(b), however, provided for the exclusion of “women at such time during which they are not by the
custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship.

5. However the board which maintains the temple has also expressed that the ban was in accordance with
centuries- old tradition. Lord A, being a Naishtika Brahmmchari (one who has vowed to remain celibate).
In the year 1991, in response to PIL filled before the Hon’ble Court of Keripula, the Hon’ble High Court
confirmed the practice and judged that the restriction of entry of women ages 10-50 to the temple was in
accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial and it directed the Board to uphold the
customary traditions of the temple.

6. Shraddha along with her other women lawyers approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking a
direction to allow entry of women into the temple without any age restrictions.

- The matter is listed for hearing at the Central High Court on 12th-13th Oct, 2019. –
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble court?

II
Whether the provisions laid down in the Rule 3(b) of the said act violates Art. 14 & Art. 15 of the
Constitution of Sentara?

III.
Whether the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, violates Art. 25 & Art. 26 of the
Constitution of Sentara?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITON IS MAINTAINABLE BRFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme court has the jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution of
Sentara to entertain the petition. The exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, that is those
who are in the menstruating age, are barred from entering the temple. It is submitted that the practice of
Exclusion of women as written hereinabove are the violation of the fundamental rights and hence the
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in form of a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”)
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Moreover, the exclusion of certain class of women amounts to
Untouchability and it is a violation of fundamental rights, therefore the writ petition is maintainable.

2. THAT THE PROVISION LAID DOWN IN RULE 3(B) OF THE SAID ACT VIOLATES ART. 14
& ART. 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SENTARA
The exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 is based on the fact of menstruation during which
they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship and is therefore based on
biological factor of womanhood. It is therefore discrimination based on sex and not protected by the
Article 26. It is submitted that the impugned rule, that restricts entry of women based on custom or usage,
violates the right of women to equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15
of the constitution of Sentara and is not protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of Sentara.

3. THAT THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 10 TO 50 YEARS

VIOLATES ART. 25 & ART. 26 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF SENTARA

In the instant matter the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years that is those who are in
menstruating age, barred from entering the temple. It is submitted that Hindu women have a right to enter
the temple as part of their right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is further
submitted that the devotees of the deity do not constitute a religious denomination as there is no exclusive
followers of this temple except general Hindu followers visiting any Hindu temple. Hence, the Rule 3(b)
of the said act ultra vires the Act itself.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

In the instant matter, Rule 3(b) of the act1 discriminates women’s right of enter the temple. Therefore, it
is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Art
32 of the constitution of Sentara. The exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, that is
those who are in the menstruating age, are barred from entering the temple. It is submitted that the
practice of Exclusion of women as written hereinabove are the violation of the fundamental rights and
hence the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in form of a Public Interest
Litigation (“PIL”) under Article 32 of the Constitution. Moreover, the exclusion violates the right to
practice religion2 and therefore, the present petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble court.

1.1 That there is a violation of fundamental rights and the court has jurisdiction under Art. 32 to
entertain the petition.

1.1.1 The right to approach this Hon'ble Court in case of violation or a threat to fundamental rights is
itself a fundamental right enshrined in Article 323 and is not merely a discretionary power of the Court4.
It is an absolute right5. It is submitted that to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court it is not
necessary that an actual violation of fundamental rights should take place, and even a threat of
infringement to the fundamental rights is sufficient6. A petition under Article 32 will be entertained even
if a prima facie case is made out that there is threat to fundamental rights, and it is not necessary for the
petitioner to wait till the actual threat has taken place7.

1.1.2 In the instant matter, the exclusion of women from the temple is justified on the basis of ancient
custom, which was sanctioned by Rule 3(b) framed by the government of keripula under the authority of
a certain act “The ABC places of Worship (Authorization of Entry Act)”8. It is submitted that the job of
the Judiciary to balance the principle ensuring that the government on the basis of any authority does not

1
The ABC places of worship(Authorization of Entry Act); Factsheet ¶4
2
Art. 25 of the constitution of Sentara which is peri materia to that of Indian Constitution.
3
Art. 32, the Constitution of Sentara; Kochhuni v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1959 SC 725.
4
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 (Hereinafter referred to as “Daryao Case”); Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B.
Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898
5
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
6
Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. S.R. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
7
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261.
8
Factsheet ¶4
 Arguments Advanced

Override fundamental right9. Democracy is the basic structure10 and altering it further violate the
fundamental rights of the citizen namely, Art. 14, 15, 25, 26. It will also alter the scheme of the
constitution by nullifying several provisions of Part IV, to name a few Art. 38, 51A etc. fundamental
rights and directive principles must be read together11. Therefore the present petition is maintainable
before the Hon’ble court.

1.1.3 A writ petition, generally, does not lie unless the opposite party is a state within the meaning of
Article 1212. Though the primary relief in a petition is against the State, those who have been benefitted
by the impugned order and who would necessarily be affected if the impugned order is quashed should
be made parties as respondents and appropriate relief can be granted by the court against such persons as
well13.

1.1.4 In the instant matter, women between the ages of 10 to 50 years are barred from entering the
temple14 and the same is sanctioned by the Rule 3(b)15 of the said act16. Section 3 of the Act require that
places of public worship be open to sections and classes of people, Subject to special rules for religious
denomination17. In the instant matter, the temple of Sripura do not constitute to be a religious
denomination. Hence, the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

1.1.5 Therefore, it is submitted that the court being guarantor and protector of the fundamental rights18,
it is the duty of the court to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution19 and
therefore, this Hon’ble court has the jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter.

9
IR Coelho v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362, ¶72; D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 550 (14th Ed. Lexis Nexis, Wadhwa
Nagpur).
10
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1 (Hereinafter referred to as “Kuldip Nayar case”); Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
11
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 206. ( Hereinafter referred to as “Minerva Mills case”)
12
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1962 SC 996.
13
C Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore, (1965) 1 SCR 360; D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India,586 (14th Ed. Lexis Nexis,
Wadhwa Nagpur)
14
Factsheet ¶3
15
Factsheet ¶4
16
The ABC place of worship (Authorization of Entry Act); Factsheet ¶4
17
Factsheet ¶4
18
Daryao case, Supra 4
19
Raja Rampal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184. (Hereinafter referred to as “Raja Rampal case”).
 Arguments Advanced

1.2 That the petition is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation.

1.2.1 A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights under Article 32 of the
Constitution20. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining action for judicial
redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion21 and such a person will have the locus
standi22. Public interest should be involved to file a PIL23. In the instant matter, the exclusion of women
amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex which is harmful to the dignity of womanhood. Therefore,
it is in public interest that petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Court to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens, basic structure of the Constitution and politico-legal system established under it.

1.3 That the courts have the role in the matters where fundamental rights have been violated

1.3.1 In the instant matter, the exclusion of women amounts to discrimination under Art. 15 of the
constitution of Sentara which is protected by the Rule 3(b) of the Act24. The impugned rule, which is
sanctioned by the government, ultra vires section 325 and therefore the act amounts to judicial review. It
is submitted that there is no scope for a general rule that the exercise of powers by the legislature is not
amenable to judicial review; such a proposition will be in contradiction to the spirit of our
Constitution26.

1.3.2 Moreover, provisions of the Constitution are required to be read conjointly as to the effect and
operation of fundamental rights of the citizens when the State action infringed the rights of the
individual27.

1.3.3 In UP Assembly case28 the court held, “If the legislatures trespass on the fundamental rights of the
citizens in a manner not justified by the relevant articles dealing with the said fundamental rights, their
legislative actions are liable to be struck down by courts in India. Therefore, though our legislatures

20
Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331, ¶ 95.
21
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892
22
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540
23
S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. Deve Gowda (1996) 6 SCC 81.
24
The ABC places of worship(Authorization of Entry Act)
25
Factsheet ¶4
26
Raja Rampal case, Supra19
27
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530.
28
Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly [1965] 1 SCR 413
 Argument Advanced

Have plenary powers, they function within the limits prescribed by the material and relevant provisions
of the Constitution”.

1.3.4 Written Constitution is the "higher law" and acts as a limitation upon the legislature and other
organs and the concept is one of 'limited government'. Judicial review is an incident of and flows from
this concept; the judicial wing is the interpreter of the Constitution and, therefore, of the limits of
authority of the different organs of the State29. In the instant matter, exclusion of women without any
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned law. Also, it is not based on
intelligible differentia which violates the right to equality and dignity30 of the women. Applying the
principle of "expression unius est exclusio alterius" (whatever has not been included has by implication
been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of
"irregularity of procedure" does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or
unconstitutionality31.

1.3.5 In the instant matter, there is an imminent threat of violation of the fundamental rights of the
women. The exclusion of women is discriminatory and attacks the very root and spirit of the
Constitution. This court has wide powers and it can make pass any order or direction in a matter pending
before it to do complete justice under Art. 14232. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present
petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court.

29
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India AIR1992SC320 ¶61.
30
Constitution of Sentara is Pari Materia to that of India; Factsheet ¶1.
31
Raja Rampal Case ¶253, Supra19.
32
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895.
 Argument Advanced

2. THAT THE IMPUNGED RULE LAID DOWN IN RULE 3(b) OF THE SAID ACT VIOLATES
ART. 14 & ART. 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 is based on the fact of menstruation during which
they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship33 and is therefore based on
biological factor of womanhood. It is therefore discrimination based on sex and not protected by the
Article 26. It is submitted that the impugned rule, that restricts entry of women based on custom or usage,
violates the right of women to equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15
of the constitution of Sentara and is not protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of Sentara34.

2.1 That the exclusion of women amounts to discrimination under Art. 14 & Art. 15

2.1.1 In the instant matter, the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 is based on the fact of
menstruation during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship
and is therefore based on biological factor of womanhood. It is therefore discrimination based on sex and
not protected by the Article 2635. It is submitted that women constitute a class of Hindus and they cannot
therefore classified based on sex alone and treated differently from other Hindus and excluded from place
of public worship. It is further submitted that constitutional legitimacy supersedes all religious beliefs
and, therefore, prohibition on entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years plays foul of the
constitutional principle. It is also submitted that it is not a custom as is conceived of by the authorities and
even if it is accepted as such, it is wholly unconstitutional as it creates an invidious discrimination
perpetrating sexual differences36.

2.1.2 It is submitted that superstitions which go contrary to the ethos of the Constitution cannot be
recognized by this Hon’ble Court37, nor be given protection under Article 26(b)38. It is submitted that the
impugned notifications are based on superstition and assuming they are honestly held beliefs, they cannot
be given legitimacy by this Hon’ble Court.

33
Factsheet ¶4
34
Constitution of Sentara is pari materia to that of Indian Constitution; ¶1
35
Constitution of Sentara is pari materia to that of Indian Constitution; ¶1
36
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N. (2016) 2 SCC 725
37
Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Anr 1966 3 SCR 242/ AIR 1966 SC 1119 ( Hereinafter referred
to as Sastri Yagnapurushadji case)
38
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (Sri Shirur Mutt case) AIR 1954
SC 282
 Arguments Advanced

2.1.3 In the instant matter, the exclusion is based upon the ancient custom39. It is submitted that the
custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable and cannot be opposed to public policy40.

2.2 That the exclusion of women amounts to discriminate the equality as enriched in Art. 14.

2.2.1 The denial of entry between the ages of 10 to 50 is based on the fact of menstruation during that
period alone and on other fact and is therefore based on biological factors of womanhood41. It is therefore
discrimination based on sex42 and not protected by the Article 26. It is submitted that women constitute a
class of Hindus and they cannot be therefore be classified based on sex alone and treated differently from
other Hindus and excluded from place of public worship. In the instant matter, the exclusion of women
based on menstruation is violative of Art. 14 & Art. 15 as it discriminates based on sex and is opposed to
gender justice43.

2.2.2 It is submitted that the Impugned Rule, that restricts entry of women based on custom or usage44,
violates the right of women to equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15
and 25 of the Constitution of India and is not protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

2.2.3 It is submitted that the Impugned Rule by denying entry of women into places of public worship
violates the right of women to equality before the law. The Impugned Rule makes an arbitrary
classification between Hindu men and Hindu women as such classification has no reasonable nexus with
the object of the Act45.

2.2.4 Further it is submitted that the Impugned Rule46 violates the right of women to equal protection of
laws47 as Hindu women are not provided the protection against discrimination in regard to temple entry as
opposed to Hindu men who are protected by virtue of Section 3 of the Act even though the Act applies
equally to Hindu women.

39
Factsheet ¶4
40
Bhimsaya & Ors. v. Janabi (Smt) Alias Janawwa, (2006) 13 SCC 627
41
Factsheet ¶3
42
Article 15 of the constitution of Sentara.
43
Charu Khurana v. Union of India, 2015 (1) SCC 192
44
Factsheet ¶4
45
U.P. Power corp. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra (2008) 10 SCC 139
46
Rule 3(b) of the ABC place of worship(Authorization of Entry Act); Factsheet ¶4
47
Article 14 of the constitution of Sentara which is pari materia to that of Indian constitution; Factsheet ¶1
 Arguments Advanced

2.2.5 It is submitted that the Impugned Rule facilitates the act of gender stereotyping which is contrary to
the principles of equality as enshrined in our Constitution. The impugned provision encourages sexual
stereotypes48.

2.2.6 It the present case the exclusionary practice violates Art. 14 as the classification lacks a
constitutional object. It is manifestly arbitrary as it is based on physiological factors alone, and does not
serve any valid object49. The practice of restricting women also violates Article 15(2)(b) since the temple
of Sentara is public place of worship being open and dedicated to the public.

2.2.7 It is submitted that the fundamental right to worship under Article 25(1)50 is a non-discriminatory
right, and is equally available to both men and women alike. The right of a women to enter the temple as a
devotee is an essential aspect of her right to worship, and is a necessary concomitant of the right to
equality guaranteed by Article 15.

Article 25(2) (b) is not merely an enabling provision, but provides a substantive rights. The exclusion
of women cannot be classified as an essential religious practice in the absence of any scriptural evidence
being adduced on the part of the respndant.

2.2.8 In the instant matter, the exclusionary practice results in discrimination against women as a class,
since a significant section of women are excluded from entering the temple51.

48
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association, 2008 (3) SCC 1
49
Supra45
50
Constitution of Sentara is pari materia to that of Indian constitution; Factsheet ¶1
51
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788
 Argument Advanced

3. THAT THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 10 TO 50 YEARS

VIOLATES ART. 25 & ART. 26 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF SENTARA

In the instant matter the exclusion of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years that is those who are in
menstruating age, barred from entering the temple52. It is submitted that Hindu women have a right to
enter the temple as part of their right to practice religion53. It is further submitted that the devotees of the
deity do not constitute a religious denomination as there is no exclusive followers of this temple except
general Hindu followers visiting any Hindu temple54. Hence, the Rule 3(b) of the said act ultra vires the
Act itself.

3.1 That the restriction of women violates their right to worship under Article 25 of the constitution of
Sentara

3.1.1 In the instant matter the restriction of women from entering the temple violates their right to worship
under Article 25 of the constitution of Sentara. It is submitted that Hindu women’s right to entry into
places of public worship is a matter of religion and forms part of their right to practice their religion55. It
is further submitted that that the word “worship” includes darshan, and that the right of entry being
claimed is for worship/darshan and is hence part of the guaranteed fundamental right under Article 2556.

3.1.2 In the instant matter, Article 25(2) (b) specifically enables the State to enact legislation to throw
open public temples to all classes of Hindus. It is submitted that The ABC Places of Worship
(Authorization of Entry) has been enacted in furtherance of the object of throwing open temples to all
classes of Hindus and is protected by Article 25(2) (b) of the Constitution of India57.

3.1.3 In the instant matter, Specifically, Section 3 of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorization
of Entry) Act prevents discrimination amongst Hindus or a class or section of Hindus and gives effect to
the right to enter places of public worship of women under Article 25. Therefore, It is submitted that

52
Factsheet ¶4
53
Article 25 of the constitution of Sentara.
54
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853; Raja Bira Kishore Deb, Hereditary Superintendent,
Jagannath Temple, P.O. and District Puri v. State of Orissa AIR 1964 SC 1501; S.P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 51
55
Article 25 of the constitution of Sentara which is pari materia to that of Indian constitution; Factsheet ¶1
56
Sastri Yagnapurushadji case; Supra 37
57
Factsheet ¶4
 Arguments Advanced

virtue of Section 3 of the Act58, women who are “Hindus” can enter “places of worship” including the
temple of Sripura, and worship or offer prayers there at, or perform any religious service therein.

3.1.4 It is further submitted that entry to the temple is not essential to religion and there is a difference
between “regulation of entry” and “complete prohibition of entry”. The factsheet59 is itself unclear in the
matter of restriction weather the temple of sripura is the male only temple or the women between the ages
10 to 50 years are only prohibited to enter the temple.

3.1.5 Thus, it is submitted that the right of women to enter places of the Sabarimala Temple, and worship
or offer prayers there at, or perform any religious service therein, is protected under Section 3 of the Act
read with Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

3.2 That the temple of Sentara do not constitute to be a religious denomination under Article 26 of the
constitution of Sentara

3.2.1 Article 26 begins with the opening words “Subject to public order, morality and health”. It is
submitted that if any rule or regulation of a religious denomination is immoral, it will not be protected
under Article 26. The word morality has been construed to mean morality as understood by the
Constitution60. It is submitted that gender justice, that is non-discrimination at the very least, is part of the
constitutional morality of India. The Impugned Rule is not only ultra vires the Act but also offends Article
26 of the Constitution itself.

3.2.2 It is submitted that the right to manage the affairs of religion must be exercised in a non-
discriminatory manner and such right does not permit the prevention of entry into temples of women
alone. Therefore, the impugned rule exclude women only from among the class of Hindus and hence is
not protected by Article 26. The Article may exclude a denomination of Hindus from entry into the
temple, but within that denomination, women cannot be excluded.

3.2.3 It is submitted that, Sripura is not a denominational temple61 but a temple for all Hindus and hence
Article 26(b) is not attracted to the facts of this case.

58
The ABC places of public worship (Authorization of Entry Act)
59
Factsheet ¶3
60
Manoj Narula v. Union of India, 2014 (9) SCC 1
61
Sri Shirur Mutt case; Supra38.
 PRAYER

THE PRAYER

Wherefore In the light of the Issue Raised, Arguments Advanced, Reasons Given and Authorities Cited,
This Court may be pleased to:

 ALLOW the petition.

 HOLD AND DECLARE that the practice of exclusion of women is unconstitutional.

 HOLD AND DECLARE that the rule 3(b) ultra vires the Act itself.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT, IN FAVOR OF
JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITITONERS