Memorial Respondent

29th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2020
TEAM CODE :3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DHARMASTHAN STATE
WRIT PETITION NO:
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
SNEHA RETREAT CENTRE (PETITIONER)
STATE OF DHARMASTHAN (RESPONDENT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1|Page
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------------6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------7
STATEMENT OF FACTS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-----------------------------------------------------------------------------18
1. Whether the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of India is
maintainable ?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
1.1 Does Sneha Retreat Centre have locus standi ?------------------------------------------19
1.2 Whether there is a balance between the restriction and freedom?----------------------19
2. Whether section (3) of the act read with section 2 (c) of the act and paragraph 9 of the
schedule violates fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 25 (1) of the
Constitution ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
2.1 Are the restriction reasonable ? -------------------------------------------------------------20
2.1. 1 Public order and morality-------------------------------------------------------------23
2.2 Is there a necessity for this legislation ? ---------------------------------------------------23
2.2. 1 Is there a nexus between the act enacted and the object ought to achieve------26
2.3 Whether article 25 of the constitution is violated ? ---------------------------------------27

2|Page
2.3.1 Whether the act includes essential religious practices ? --------------------------27
2.3.2 Restriction for public order and health ? --------------------------------------------28
3. Whether section 14 of the act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Article 14

and excessive legislative Power?-----------------------------------------------------------------29
PRAYER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
3|Page
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES INCORPORATED
1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Criminal Procedure Code ,1974
4. Drugs and Magic Remedies(Objectionable Advertisements )Act , 1954 (Central Act 21 of
1954)
5. The Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and
other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013
6. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
JOURNAL ARTICLE
1. http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article48.htm
2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation
3. https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/forensic-experts-one-step-closer-to-closing-burari-
mass-suicides-case-1372529-2018-10-22
4. "Jehovah's Witnesses: Official Statement to the Media on Blood Transfusions". CESNUR.
June 15, 2000
5. Ellen Barry (24 August 2013). "Battling Superstition, Indian Paid With His Life". New York
Times. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
6.Of Occult Practices, Possession and the Priest, By Fr Soroj Mullick, SDB
DICTIONARIES
1. G.Bryan , ‘ Black’s Law Dicitionary’,9th Ed.,2009, West Group

2. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
WEBSITES VISITED
4|Page
1. www. india kanoon .org. com

2. www.livelaw.com
3. www.legalserviceindia.com
4. www.legalcrystal.com
5. . https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/forensic-experts-one-step-closer-to-closing-
burari-mass-suicides-case-1372529-2018-10-22
6. Casemine
CASES CITED
1. DeepakbajajvstateofMaharastaAIR2009SC628
2. GunwantKaurvMunicipalCommittee,Bhatinda,AIR1970SC802:(1969)3SCC769.
3. BhagwanSinghAndAnr.vsChiefSettlementCommissioner,AIR1968PH63.
4. Divineretreatcentrev.Stateofkeralaandothers2008(1)KHC1047:2008(1)KLD437:2008(3)SCAL
5. HamdardDhawakhanavUnionOfIndia1960AIR554,1960SCR(2)671
6. stateofmadrasvVGRao,AIR152SC196;HarakChandVUnionOfIndia,AIR170SC1453
7. chintamanraovstateofmadhyapradesh,AIR1951SC118:1950SCR759
8. StateofMadrasvRowAIR1952SC195:1952SCR583
9. RamjiLalModivsStateofUP (19571957AIR620,1957SCR860
10. BengalImmunityCompanyLtd.v.TheStateofBihar(1955(2)SCR606,632,&633)
11. R.M.D.Chamarbaughwalav.TheUnionofIndia(1957SCR930,935)
12. MahantMotiDas&Ors.v.S.P.SahiAIR1959AIR(SC)942,948).
13. pathummavstateofkerala,AIR1978SC771:(1978)2SCC1
14. stateofmadrasvsV.GRao1952AIR196,1952SCR597
15. NarendrakumarvUnionofIndia
16. HamdardDawakhana(Wakf)LalKuan,DelhiandAnotherv/sUnionofIndiaandOthers
17. GulamAbbasvStateofUttarPradeshJT1988(1)SC502,1988Supp(1)SCC426
18. AcharyaMaharajashriNarendraPrasadjiAnandPrsadjiMaharajv.StateOfGujrat,AIR1974SC2098:
(1975)1SCC11
19. revstainslausvstateofmp,AIR1977SC908
20. InreDelhiLawsActcase,AIR1951SC332:1951SCR747;CASES,I,39
21. .Gwaliorrayon,millsv.Asstt.Commr.ofsalestax,AIR1974SC1660:(1974)4SCC98:JAIN,CASESI,48
22. VHarakchandv.unionofindiaV,AIR1970SC1453:(1969)2SCC166
5|Page
23.KunjBeharilalv.Stateofhimachelpradesh,VAIR2000SC1069:(2000)3SCC40
INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Art Article
FIR First Information Report
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
& And
Anr Another
Ed Edition
Govt Government
Ors Others
Sec Section
SC Supreme Court
KHC Kerala High Court
FSL Forensic Science Laboratory
SCC Supreme Court Cases
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Vol Volume
v Versus
pg Page Number
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
6|Page
The petitioner humble submits this memorial in response to the petition filed before this humble
court. The petitioner invoice write jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of India. it
sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
Article 226
It empowers anyone to approach the high court for the enforcement of the fundamental right
conferred in part 3 or any other purpose .
it provides that notwithstanding article 32 , every high court shall have the power throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction ,to issue to any person or authority
including in appropriate cases any government within those territories , directions ,order or writs
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition ,quo warrento and
certiorary or any of them .
the supreme court can also issue orders and directions apart from issuing writs or is not restricted
to powers of British court to issue writs1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Dharmasthan is a State in the Indian Union. Population of the State is 71645718. Literacy of the
State is 45%. On 16-4-2019, the leading newspaper of the State, the Dharmasthan Times
published the following report:
In the state of Dharmasthan, spiritualism has become a holy cover for unholy deeds. Among the
many kinds of mafia thriving in Dharmasthan, the most powerful is of fake Godmen and
Godwomen.
Santhu Mahavir alias Swami Mokshanandha (35), wanted by the Interpol since 2014, was
arrested two years ago. He was accused of cheating a Gulf-based woman from Dharmasthan of
Rs. 45 lakh. Investigations later proved that Santhu Mahavir, who started his career as an
astrologer to become a popular Godman in Dharmasthan, was up to many more exploits. A jet-
setting guru revered by many film stars, top police officials and politicians until he was arrested,
1
deepak bajaj v state of Maharasta AIR 2009 SC 628
7|Page
Santhu Mahavir was sentenced by a Sessions Court in 2018 to 16 years' rigorous imprisonment
for raping two minor girls. Other charges against him included real estate swindle, tiger skin
trade etc. The state police had seized CDs from his ashram containing visuals of the "guru"
persecuting the minor girls.
Santhu Mahavir’s arrest had triggered a flood of complaints from many parts of the State against
scores of God men and God women, accusing them of cheque fraud, tax dodging, cheating, rape
and even murder.
Within weeks, the state police arrested more than a dozen "spiritual gurus" belonging to various
religions and castes-many with swanky ashrams and devotees not only from the State but other
parts of the country, and even abroad.
On 25-05-2019 the Dharmasthan Times published another report which contained the following
allegation against a Christian Retreat Centre.
Claimed to be the largest Catholic healing centre in India, the Sneha Retreat Centre in Kalkotti,
Dharmasthan, was in news recently after one of the devotees sent an anonymous letter to the
Chief Minister. The letter reportedly carried serious charges including, forceful confinement and
murder charges against the Centre. Soon the Director General of Police constituted a high-level
team headed by an Inspector General of Police to inquire into the charges. The probe team found
that several persons were locked in cells in the name of healing. Persons showing violent signs
were often injected with unknown drugs by untrained hands. Besides the FIR filed at Kalkotti
City police station, the team has also filed a report before the First Class Judicial Magistrate. The
team has also recommended a probe into the foreign funding of the healing centre.
In June and July 2019, most of the newspapers in the state published reports regarding incidents
of exploitation of the ordinary people in the society, using inhuman, evil and sinister
practices, sorcery and practices of black magic.
On 6-11-2019 Dharmasthan Legislative Assembly passed Dharmasthan Prevention and

Eradication of Inhuman Sorcery and Black Magic bill, 2019 and it became an Act (given as
Appendix) and came into force with effect from 12-11-2019.
8|Page
On 3-12-2018 Sneha Retreat Centre filed writ petition challenging the Validity (vires) of the Act
on the following among other grounds
1. Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2 (c) of the Act and paragraph 9 of the Schedule
violates his fundamental right under Art 19(1) (a) and Art 25(1) of the Constitution.
2. Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and excessive

delegation of legislative power.
On behalf of the State, all contentions were refuted .
THE PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
THE DHARMASTHAN PREVENTION AND ERADICATION OF INHUMAN EVIL

PRACTICES, SORCERY AND BLACK MAGIC ACT, 2019
Preamble: WHEREAS, an alarming number of incidents of-exploitation of the common people

in the society, using inhuman, evil or sinister practices, sorcery and practices of black magic
by conmen had come to light;
AND WHEREAS, under the circumstances it became absolutely necessary for the Government
to take appropriate and stringent social and legal measures to effectively prevent the spread
of evil, inhuman and harmful practices, usages and back magic, sorcery and to save the
common people from falling prey to the sinister designs of black magicians and conmen , whose
antisocial and harmful activities are threatening to damage the very social fibre of the society
and driving the common people, on account of their ignorance, to take recourse to black
magicians and conmen;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of India, in Article 51 A(g) proclaims it to be the fundamental
duty of every citizen of India "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of
inquiry and reform";
Be it enacted in the Seventieth year of the Republic of India as follows:-
9|Page
1. Short title, extent and commencement : (1) This Act may be called the Dharmasthan
Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Act, 2019. (2) It
extends to the whole of the State of Dharmasthan. (3) It shall come into force at once.
2. Definitions: ( 1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Code" means the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1 974);
(b) "Government" means Government of Dharmasthan;
(c) "Inhuman, or sinister evil practices and black magic" means any act specified in the Schedule,
done by any person by himself or through any other person;
(d) “Magic Remedy” includes a talisman, mantra, or any other charm of any kind claimed to
possess miraculous powers for or in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation treatment or prevention of
any disease or for affecting or influencing in any manner the structure or any organic function of
human beings or animals or affecting the future of human beings or animals.
(e) "Offender" means any person who has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or has
committed any act constituting an offence specified in the Schedule;
(f) "Person" includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or

not.
(g) "Propagate" means issuance or publication, including publication in electronic form of

advertisements, literature, articles or books relating to inhuman, evil or sinster practices, sorcery
and black magic and includes any form of direct or indirect help, abetment, participation or co-
operation with regard to inhuman, evil or sinster practices, sorcery or black magic;
(h) "Schedule" means the Schedule appended to this Act ;
(i) "Sorcery" means supernatural magic performed by using the power of evil spirits, separate
from religion and science;
(j) "Victim" means a person who is harmed or injured physically or mentally, extorted,
threatened or exploited financially or sexually or whose dignity is offended by the commission of
an offence under this Act;
10 | P a g e
(2) Words and expressions used, but not defined herein, shall have the respective meanings
assigned to them in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, l954
(Central Act 21 of 1954) and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) or
in any other law for the time being in force. 3. Prevention and eradication of inhuman, evil or
sinister practices, sorcery and black magic : (1) No person shall by himself or through any other
person, promote, propagate or practice or cause to promote, propagate or practice inhuman, evil
or sinister practices, black magic or sorcery specified in the Schedule.
(2) Whoever commit any act in violation of sub - section (1) shall on conviction be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extent to
seven years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extent
up to fifty thousand rupees.
Provided that if as a consequence of any offence punishable under this sub section, death of
the victim occurs, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 300
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and shall on conviction be punished
accordingly.
Provided further that if the said act causes grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Central Act 45 of 1860) the offender shall be deemed to have
committed an offence u/s 326 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and shall on conviction be punished
accordingly.
(3) Whoever abets the commission of any act or offence punishable under Sub-Section (2),
shall be deemed to have committed that offence and shall on conviction be punished with the
same punishment provided for such offences.
(4) Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under Sub Section (2), shall on
conviction be punished with the same punishment as provided under section 511 of Indian Penal
Code 1860 ( Central Act 45/1 860)
(5) Consent of the victim shall not be a defence under this section.
4. The offences to be cognizable and non bailable : The offences punishable under this Act shall
cognizable and non-bailable.
11 | P a g e
5. (1) Prohibition on any activity of sorcery or advertisement etc : No person shall carry on any
activity of administering magic remedies or Sorcery or take any part in the publication of any
advertisement referring to any magic remedies or sorcery which directly or indirectly claims to
be efficacious for any purposes specified in the schedule.
(2) Any person who commits any act in violation of sub- section (1) shall on conviction be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may
extent to 7 years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which
may extent up to fifty thousand rupees.
6. Offences by companies : (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a
company whether incorporated or not the company as well as every person in charge of, and
responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of the
offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or that the commission of offence is attributable to any neglect on
the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation: - For the purpose of this section -
(a) “Company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other Association of
individuals; and (b) "Director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
7. Jurisdiction to try offences : Any offence punishable under sub- section (2) and the 2nd
proviso of Sub Section (2) of section 3 and section 5 shall be triable by a Court of Judicial
First Class Magistrate and the offences punishable under the first proviso to sub-section (2)
12 | P a g e
of section 3 shall be triable only by a Court of Session and the offences punishable
under Sub - Sections (3) and(4) of Section 3 and Section 6 shall be triable by the Court of
competent jurisdiction as the case may be and the procedure under the Code shall mutatis
mutandis apply for the trial of offences under this Act.
8. Powers of entry, search etc : (1) Subject to general or special orders issued in this behalf by
the State Government from time to time, a police officer may, within the local limits of the area
of his jurisdiction,
(i) enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary,
any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being
committed;
(ii) seize any material, instrument or advertisement which he has reason to believe has been or is
being used for any act or commission of an offence which is in contravention of the provisions of
this Act; and
(iii) examine any record, document or material object found in any place mentioned in clause
(i), and seize the same, if he has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the
commission of an offence punishable under this Act.
(2) The provisions of the Code shall , so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure made
under this Act as they apply to such search or seizure made under the authority of warrant issued
under section 94 of the Code.
(3) Where any Police Officer seizes anything under clause (ii) or (iii) of subsection (1), he shall
as soon as may be inform the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area and take his
orders as to the custody thereof.
9. Application of provisions of the Code : The provisions of the Code shall apply to the
investigation and trial of the offences under this Act.
10. Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law : The provisions of this Act
shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
13 | P a g e
11. Publication of fact of conviction : Where any person is convicted of any offence punishable
under this Act, it shall be competent for the court convicting such offender to cause the name and
place of residence of such person to be published by the police in the local newspapers where
such offence has taken place together with the fact that such offender had been convicted under
this Act and such other particulars as the court may deem fit and appropriate to be allowed to be
published.
12. Awareness programs : The Government may undertake programs to spread awareness in the
society about the ill-effects of inhuman, evil or sinister practices, and black magic or sorcery
and to provide proper counseling and medical relief to the injured victims in Government/Private
hospitals through appropriate ways and authorities as may be prescribed.
13. Power to make rules : (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
14. Power to amend the Schedule : (1) The State Government may by notification published in
the Official Gazette add, amend or alter the Schedule.
(2) Every such notification issued under Sub-Section (1), shall be laid before the State
legislature.
15. Savings : For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall
apply in respect of the following, namely:-
(i) The form of worship performed at any religious or spiritual places.
(ii) Teaching of ancient Saints and traditional learning, its practice and propagation and
circulation thereof.
(iii) To state about the miracles of the deceased saints, propagation , publicity and circulation of
the same and the propagation, publicity and distribution of the literature about the miracles of
religious preachers .
(iv) The performance of religious rituals at places such as home, temple, church, mosque or other
religious places, which do not cause physical harm to any person.
14 | P a g e
(v) All religious celebrations, festivals, prayers, processions and any other act relating thereto.
(vi) The advice in regard to vasthusastra, or advice by astrologers unless such advice results in
cheating, defrauding or exploiting any person.
(vii) Any traditional religious rites and acts which the State government may notify in the official
gazette.
16. Power to remove difficulties : ( 1) lf any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions
of this Act, within two years of the coming into force of the Act, the State Government may by
order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, as may appear to it to be necessary for removing the difficulty.
(2) Every order made under Sub - Section (i) shall be laid as soon as may be, after it is made,
before the State Legislature.
SCHEDULE
SEE SECTION 2(1)(h) :
(1) Performing any inhuman, evil or sinister act, black magic or sorcery, parading naked or
putting a ban on a person's daily activities or uses such alleged powers to extol1, threaten or
intimidate people or assaulting any person in search of precious things, bounty or hidden
treasure or instigate, advice or encourage committing of such inhuman acts.
(2) Instilling an impression by declaring that a power inapprehensible by senses has influenced
one's body or that a person is possessed of such power, and thereby create fear in the mind of
another or to threaten another of evil consequences for not following the advice of such person.
(3) Under the pretext of expelling ghost, assaulting any person or tying the person with rope or
chain, beating by stick or whip causing pain to the person, hanging a person to roof fixing with
rope or plucking hair or causing pain by way of touching heated object to organs or body
of a person , or inflicting pain by any other means; forcing a person to perform sexual act,
practice inhuman acts, putting urine or human excreta forcibly in the mouth of a person or
practice any similar acts.
15 | P a g e
(4) To create panic in the minds of public in general on the pretext of invoking ghost or
threaten to invoke ghost creating an impression that there is some super natural power
inapprehensible by senses, and preventing a person from taking medical treatment or
threatening a person with death or causing physical pain or causing financial loss by practicing
or tending to practice black magic, sorcery or inhuman, evil or sinister act.
(5) (a) To create an impression that one has special supernatural powers or that he is the
incarnation and thereby indulging in sexual activity with another person.
(b) To indulge in sexual act with a woman who is unable to conceive, assuring her of
motherhood through supernatural power.
(6) Involving in evil practices against women by forcing isolation, prohibiting re-entry into the
village or facilitating segregation of menstruating postpartum women; and subjecting women to
inhuman or humiliating practices such as parading them naked in the name of worship or
otherwise.
(7) Forcing any person to carry on evil practices such as causing hurt or killing of an animal or
bird.
(8) The practice of piercing rod or arrow from one side of cheek or tongue to other side.
(9) Prohibiting and preventing a person from taking medical treatment for any illness and
instead giving him treatment like mantra-tantra or chanting prayers or deliverance retreat or such
other things.
THE ISSUE
On 3-12-2018 Sneha Retreat Centre filed writ petition challenging the Validity (vires) of the
dharmasthan prevention and eradication of inhuman evil practices, sorcery and black magic act,
2019 on the grounds of excessive legislative power and violation of fundamental rights. On
16 | P a g e
behalf of the state of Dharmastan , all the contentions are refuted. the matter has been listed for
final hearing before the high court.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. whether the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india is
maintainable?
II. whether Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2 (c) of the Act and paragraph 9 of the
Schedule violates fundamental right under Art 19(1) (a) and Art 25(1) of the Constitution.
III. whether Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and
excessive delegation of legislative power.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. whether the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of India is
maintainable?
no the writ is not maintainable as the provisions of the act are not violative to art 19,art25
or art14.
the writ petition is filed by Sneha Retreat Centre who does not have a locus standi in the
case.
II. whether Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2 (c) of the Act and paragraph 9 of the
no , sec 3 of the act only mentions of Prevention and eradication of inhuman, evil or
sinister practices, sorcery and black magic, it only provides restriction for promoting,
propogating and practicing or causing to promote, propagate or practice inhuman, evil
or sinister practices, black magic or sorcery specified in the Schedule. And reasonable
restrictions imposed for public order or morality and heath are not violative to art 19 or
art 25.
17 | P a g e
III. whether Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and
excessive delegation of legislative power.
no, art 14 of the act does not give way to violation of art 14 of the constitution as it is
stated that such amendment shall be laid before the State legislature.
To save its time , the legislature concentrate on defining the essential principles and
policies in the legislation and leaves and task of enunciation of details to the
administration . besides , many socio-economic schemes undertaken by government and
very technical and complicities ; the legislature is hardly competent to work out their
details and so the matter has necessarily to be left to the professional administrators.2
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of India is
maintainable?
The petition filed is not maintainable as there is not prima facie violation of art19(1)(a)
,art25 or art 14.
If the petition makes a frivolous, vexatious ,or prima facie unjust claim , or a claim
which may not appropriately be tried ,or seek a relief ,or seeks a relief which the court
cannot grant in the petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction ,the court may order to
decline the writ petition.3
"The controversy in the High Court, in proceedings arising under Article 226 ordinarily is
whether a decision of or a proceeding before, a Court or tribunal or authority, should be
allowed to stand or should be quashed, for want of jurisdiction or on account of errors of
law apparent on the face of the record.4
1.1 Does Sneha Retreat Centre have locus standi ?
2
MP Jain,Indian Constitutional Law ,7th Edition ,pg117
3
Gunwant Kaur v Municipal Committee ,Bhatinda,AIR 1970 SC 802:(1969) 3 SCC 769.
4
Bhagwan Singh And Anr. vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, AIR 1968 P H 63.
18 | P a g e
Sneha Retreat Centre does not have a locus standi in this case as the act does not have
anything effecting them unless they are doing something unlawful .
In the case Divine retreat centre v. State of Kerala and others 5it was also held that the
appellant has no locus to challenge the impugned order in as much as it is not an accused
in any criminal case. It was also contended that even the accused in a criminal case has
no right of hearing until filing of a report under S.173 of the code (Crpc).
There was a allegation that Sneha Retreat centre was committing serious offences
including, forceful confinement and murder charges against the Centre. Persons showing
violent signs were often injected with unknown drugs by untrained hands. Besides the
FIR filed at Kalkotti City police station, the team has also filed a report before the First
Class Judicial Magistrate. The team has also recommended a probe into the foreign
funding of the healing centre. The act of Sneha retreat centre is an offense under ipc sec
340,ipc sec300 and does not necessary fall under this act.
1.2 whether there is a balance between the restriction and freedom

A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the
legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e.; a
balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (a) to (g) and the social
control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19.It is the substance of the legislation and
not its appearance or form which it to be taken into consideration while assessing its
validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’.6
2. whether Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2 (c) of the Act and paragraph 9 of the
sec 3 of the act reads as follows :
5
2008(1) KHC 1047: 2008 (1) KLD
437:2008(3)SCAL
6
http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article48.htm
19 | P a g e
Prevention and eradication of inhuman, evil or sinister practices, sorcery and black
magic : (1) No person shall by himself or through any other person, promote, propagate
or practice or cause to promote, propagate or practice inhuman, evil or sinister
practices, black magic or sorcery specified in the Schedule.
(2) Whoever commit any act in violation of sub - section (1) shall on conviction be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which
may extent to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees
but which may extent up to fifty thousand rupees.
Provided that if as a consequence of any offence punishable under this sub section,
death of the victim occurs, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence
under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and shall on
conviction be punished accordingly.
Provided further that if the said act causes grievous hurt as defined under Section
320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Central Act 45 of 1860) the offender shall be
deemed to have committed an offence u/s 326 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and shall on
conviction be punished accordingly.
(3) Whoever abets the commission of any act or offence punishable under Sub-Section
(2), shall be deemed to have committed that offence and shall on conviction be
punished with the same punishment provided for such offences.
(4) Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under Sub Section (2), shall on
conviction be punished with the same punishment as provided under section 511 of
Indian Penal Code 1860 ( Central Act 45/1 860)
(5) Consent of the victim shall not be a defence under this section.
Art 19 does not prohibit reasonable restriction .

2.1 Are the restriction reasonable?
Sec 19(2) clrearly reads :
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
20 | P a g e
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,

defamation or incitement to an offence
In the case of Hamdard Dhawakhana v Union Of India7 , the validity of the drugs and magic
remedies (objectable advertisement )act 1945 was challenged . the act was passed with the object
to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases and to prohibit the advertisement for
certain purpose of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities .
the act was challenged on the ground that it violates the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) but the court held that every advertisement does not fall within the
scope of freedom of speech and expression .the advertisement for propagation of ideas , no doubt
,falls within the ambit of article 19(1)(a) but the advertisement for the promotion of business or
trade does not fall within the promotion of business or trade in public interest is not
unconstitutional . The court held the act valid.
The court is to determine finally whether or not a restriction is reasonable and in determining the
reasonableness of the restriction the court take in account the nature of the of the right alleged to
have be violated , the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, then the
disproportion of the imposition ad prevailing conditions at the time8
for adjudging reasonableness of a restriction , the courts consider such factors as :the duration
and extent of the restrictions; the circumstances under which and the manner in which , that
imposition has been authorize. the nature of the right infringed , the underlying purpose of the
restrictions imposed, the extent and the urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby , the
disproportion of the imposition the prevailing conditions at the time , all these considerations
enter into the judicial verdict.9
In Dharam dutt v union of Indian, the supreme court has held that the when the constitutional
validity of any legislative enactment is challenged on the ground of being violative of any of the
fundamental rights enumerated in article 19(1),the court shall first ask what is the sweep of
7
1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671
8
state of madras v VG Rao ,AIR 152 SC 196;Harak Chand V Union Of India, AIR 170 SC 1453
9
chintaman rao v state of madhya pradesh,AIR 1951 SC118:1950 SCR 759;State of Madras v Row AIR 1952 SC195 :
1952 SCR 583
21 | P a g e
fundamental right guaranteed by the relevant sub-clause out of sub -clause (a) to (g) of clause
(1). If the right canvassed falls within the sweep and expanse of any of the sub- clause of clause
19(1),then the next question to be asked would be , whether the impugned law imposes a
reasonable restriction falling within the scope of clause (2) to(6) respectively . however , if the
right sought to be canvassed does not fall within the sweep of fundamental rights but is a ere
concomitant or adjunct or expansion or incidence of that right the validity therefore is not to be
tested by reference to (2) to(6).
In M/s. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ( 1954 SCR 674 , 682).
There he held that "in order to decide whether a particular legislative measure contravenes any of
the provisions of Part III of the Constitution it is necessary to examine with some strictness the
substance of the legislation in order to decide what the legislature has really done. Of course the
legislature cannot bypass such constitutional prohibition by employing indirect methods and
therefore the Court has to look behind the form and appearance to discover the true character and
nature of the legislation."
Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of

any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution, the reason behind forming the act should be
approach as a whole and not through its single parts.
A legislation should be read keeping in mind the actual intention of the authority what it meant
10
to fulfill.
2.1.2 public order and morality
supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi vs State of UP (1957)11. At issue was a challenge to S. 295A
of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised insulting religious beliefs with an intent to outrage
religious feelings of any class. It was held that the focus was on the phrase “in the interests of”,
and held that being substantially broader than a term such as “for the maintenance of”, it allowed
10
Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
11
1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860
22 | P a g e
the government wide leeway in restricting speech. In other words, as long as the State could
show that there was some connection between the law, and public order, it would be
constitutional.
the main object and purpose of the Act is to prevent people from self-medicating with regard to
various serious diseases, and to prevent people from falling in trap of conmen . All this have a
deleterious effect on the health of the community and is likely to affect the well-being of the
people. it was thought necessary in the interest of public health that the puffing up of the
advertisements is put to a complete check .
2.2 Is there a necessity for this legislation
In order to do so it is legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as history of the
legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief
which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure
and the true reason for the remedy;12
The sc has emphasized in Pathumma13 that in interpreting he constitutional provision, the Court
should keep in mind the social setting of the country so as to show a complete consciousness and
deep awareness of growing requirement of the society, the increasing needs of nation, the
burning problems of the day and complex issues facing the people which the legislation in its
wisdom through beneficial legislation seek to solve .The judicial approach should be dynamic
rather than static , pragmatic and not pedantic , and elastic rather than rigid .
In the state of Dharmasthan, spiritualism has become a holy cover for unholy deeds. Among the
many kinds of mafia thriving in Dharmasthan, the most powerful is of fake God men and God
women.
Santhu Mahavir alias Swami Mokshanandha (35), wanted by the Interpol since 2014, was
arrested two years ago. He was accused of cheating a Gulf-based woman from Dharmasthan of
Rs. 45 lakh. Investigations later proved that Santhu Mahavir, who started his career as an
astrologer to become a popular Godman in Dharmasthan, was up to many more exploits. A jet-
12
Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar ( 1955 (2) SCR 606 , 632, & 633); R. M. D. Chamarbaughwala
v. The Union of India ( 1957 SCR 930 , 935); Mahant Moti Das & Ors. v. S. P. Sahi AIR 1959 AIR(SC) 942 , 948).
13
pathumma v state of kerala ,AIR 1978 SC 771:(1978)2 SCC1
23 | P a g e
setting guru revered by many film stars, top police officials and politicians until he was arrested,
Santhu Mahavir was sentenced by a Sessions Court in 2018 to 16 years' rigorous imprisonment
for raping two minor girls. Other charges against him included real estate swindle, tiger skin
trade etc. The state police had seized CDs from his ashram containing visuals of the "guru"
persecuting the minor girls.
The Jodhpur High Court on Monday rejected a plea filed by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu
challenging the life imprisonment sentence imposed on him for raping a minor girl. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment in April last year by Jodhpur Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Court. He was found guilty of various charges, including sections related to trafficking,
wrongful confinement, outraging modesty, rape, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and some sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act.The court had also sentenced two other accused, Shilpi and Sharad to 20
years jail term each in connection with the case.14
the Burari case is a classic example of a 'ritual gone wrong', The Delhi government's forensic
science laboratory's (FSL) report says Lalit had struggled to remove the noose from around his
neck. "His hands were over his neck that bore his own nail marks. This is known as 'struggle for
existence'. Primitive reflexes tell your brain to stop. But you can't. When they realised that the
ritual was going wrong, it was too late," said the board member. The report also says they had
renovated their house recently and suicide wasn't the idea. "They didn't want to die. It was an
'accidental mass death' during a ritual," the member said.15
The Bible commands Christians to "abstain . . . from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses
believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have
consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian
medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If a baptized member
of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own
actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his
14
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/asaram-verdict-today-security-beefed-up-in-3-
states-media-entry-banned/articleshow/63903700.cms?
utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
15
https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/forensic-experts-one-step-closer-to-closing-burari-mass-suicides-
case-1372529-2018-10-22
24 | P a g e
own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. Jehovah's
Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions.
Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious
convictions.16
In state of Madras vs V.G Rao 17it was held that each case has to be examined on its own merit
and there is no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness applicable to all cases.
While the reasonableness of the restriction has to be considered with regard to the exercise of the
right, it does not necessarily exclude from the consideration of the court the question of
reasonableness of the procedural part of the law and four out of five judge bench agreed that if at
the prima facie it appears that any organization is creating disturbance to maintain law and order,
the government can declare it unlawful without notification. The court also stated that both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be examined from the
point of view of the reasonableness; that is to say, the court should consider not only the factors
such as the duration and the extent of the restrictions but also the circumstances under which and
the manner in which their imposition has been authorized.
Wyndham E. B. Lloyd in his book 'Hundred years of medicine' published in 1936 wrote about
the outstanding evils which arise from the use of secret remedies and nostrums. It also drew
attention to the dangers of advertisements in regard to them and what the British Medical
Association had said about them.
This material shows the history of the legislation, the ascertained evil intended to be cured and
the circumstances in which the enactment was passed.
In Narendra kumar v Union of India18 the SC held that the issue as to whether or not a restriction
is irrational prohibition is a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of
the case.
16
"Jehovah's Witnesses: Official Statement to the Media on Blood Transfusions". CESNUR. June 15, 2000
17
1952 AIR 196, 1952 SCR 597
18
1960 AIR 430, 1960 SCR (2) 375
25 | P a g e
"that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into
consideration matters of common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every
state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation;"19
Thus it is open to the court for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the Act to take
all these facts into consideration and in the present case we find that there was the evil of self-
medication, which both in this country and in other countries, the medical profession and those,
who were conversant with its dangers, had brought to the notice of the people at large and the
Government in particular. They had also warned against the dangers of self-medication and of
the consequences of unethical advertisement relating to proprietary medicines particularising
those diseases which were more likely to be affected by the evil. There is reason, therefore, for
us to assume that the state of facts existed at the time of the legislation which necessitated the
Act. These facts we have already set out it is not necessary to reiterate them.20
2.2.1 Is there a nexus between the act enacted and the object ought to achieve
It is clear from the preamble that the act seeks to strike at the inhuman, evil or sinister
practices, sorcery and practices of black magic by conmen.
The act also provides how the religious practices will be unaffected in this act.
The act also have a balance between rights and restriction, it saves religious practices in
sec 15 of the act. there is also a balance in case of art19(1)(a) as sec 2(g) of the act clearly
prohibits 'propagation ' of inhuman, evil or sinister practices, sorcery and black magic.
2.3 Whether art 25 of the constitution is violated

This act does not affect the religious practices as sec 15 provides how religious pratices
and customs are protected under this act ,and even if the definitions included any practice
that is related to a particular religion ,it is too remote.
In Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh 21it was held that in order that a practice should
be treated as a part of religion, it is necessary that it be regarded by the said religion as its
essential and integral part .This nation is necessary otherwise even purely secular
19
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi and Another v/s Union of India and Others
20
ibid
21
JT 1988 (1) SC 502, 1988 Supp (1) SCC 426
26 | P a g e
practices, not essential to religion, will be clothed with religious sanction and many claim
may be treated as religious practice under art 25.
The state is not however ,prevented from making any law regulating or restricting any economic,
financial ,political or other secular activities which may be associated with religious practice
[25(2)(a)];or any law providing for social welfare and reforms ,or for throwing open Hindu
religious institution of a public character to all classes and section of the Hindu .22
In an early case , the SC has observed that " no right in an organized society can be absolute
.enjoyment of one's right must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others .where in
a free play of social forces it in not possible to bring about a voluntary, harmony, the state has to
step in to set right the imbalance between competing inters ".23
2.3.1 Whether the act includes essential religious practices
For adjudging reasonableness of a restriction, the court consider such factors as : the duration
and the extent of the restriction; the circumstances under which, and the manner in which ,that
imposition has been authorized. the nature of the right infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restrictions imposed, the extend and the urgency of evil sought to be remedied thereby , the
disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time , all these considerations
enter into the judicial verdict. 24
The doctrine of “essentiality” was invented by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the
‘Shirur Mutt’ case in 1954. The court held that the term “religion” will cover all rituals and
practices “integral” to a religion, and took upon itself the responsibility of determining the
essential and non-essential practices of a religion.
Essential religious practice test is a contentious doctrine evolved by the court to protect only
such religious practices which were essential and integral to the religion25.
22
[art25(2)(b)].
23
Acharya Maharajashri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prsadji Maharaj v. State Of Gujrat,AIR 1974 SC 2098:(1975) 1
SCC 11
24
chintaman rao v state of madhya pradesh , AIR 1951 SC 118:1950 SCR 759
25
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha Swamiyar
27 | P a g e
However, apart from the traditional and straightforward analysis of whether or not a religious
claim amounts to an essential religious practice, Chandrachud J. also advances an important
alternative argument: that “the test of essentiality is infused with … necessary limitations”
(paragraph 50), limitations that are grounded in constitutional morality, and the constitutional
values of dignity and freedom. 26
sec 15 clearly saves the essential religious practices followed in Dharmasthan.
Nothing provided in the schedule forms an essential part of the any religious practice.
2.3.2 restriction for public order and health
In the aftermath of Dabholkar's murder, journalist Ellen Barry wrote an article for the New York
Times about the murder and interviewed a sociologist at the University of Pune about the Anti-
Superstition and Black Magic Act ,who explained that the bill had been continually watered
down over the years, due to rising opposition from Hindus and affected castes, stating:
What today stands as the draft legislation is a much mellowed-down position. It is a slippery area
that we are talking about — what is faith, and what is blind faith. There is a very thin line
dividing it.27
If a thing disturbs the current of the life of the community and does not merely affect an
individual , it would amount to disturbance of public order and health.28
With widespread forms of occult practices, the spirit-world is gaining attention today. Practice of
exorcism/deliverance – rituals, prayers, incantations, and other methods used in the expulsion of
evil spirits – is prevalent today.29
The second follows on from the first: as Jurinski (2004:3) remarks in the case of the USA, “the
courts have become arbiters of what kinds of restrictions the government can impose on religious
practice, and what role religion will play in public life.” In fact, the courts seldom restrict
themselves to being keepers of religious boundaries. As Sen (2007:6) observes, comparing India
26
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2018
27
Ellen Barry (24 August 2013). "Battling Superstition, Indian Paid With His Life". New York Times. Retrieved 8 April
2016.
28
rev stainslaus v state of mp,AIR 1977 SC 908
29
Of Occult Practices, Possession and the Priest, By Fr Soroj Mullick, SDB –
28 | P a g e
and the United States, “the line between interpretation of law and legislation often gets blurred in
Supreme Court rulings. … This has meant that the Court … actively intervenes and shapes
public discourse.”30
3. Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and excessive

delegation of legislative power.
In art 14 it clearly states that the chage is to be laid before the state legislature .
art 14 of the act is reads as:
14. Power to amend the Schedule : (1) The State Government may by notification published in
the Official Gazette add, amend or alter the Schedule.
(2) Every such notification issued under Sub-Section (1), shall be laid before the State
legislature.
The American courts have evolved the principle that the congress can delegate legislative powers
to the executive subject to the stipulation that it lays down the policies and establishes standards
while leaving to the administrative authorities the making of subordinate rules within the
prescribed limits.31
In India , on the question of delegation of its legislative power by a legislature to the executive,
the position is very much similar to that in the U.S.A .The prevailing principle is that essential
powers of legislation, namely, the function of laying down legislative policy in respect of a
measure and its formulation As a rule of conduct, cannot be delegated. The legislature must
declare the policy of the law and the legal principles which are to control any given cases and
must provide a standard to guide the officials or the body in power to execute the Law.32
The supreme court held section 3 (1)(f) valid subject to the stipulation that when a section of an
act was selected for application, whether it was modified or not, it must be done so as not to
effect any change of policy in the act regarded as a whole. The notification in question was held
invalid as it effected a radical change in the policy of the act which was that no municipality
30
For a discussion, see Baxi (2007).
31
M P Jain , Indian Constitutional Law ,7 Edition,pg 118
32
In re Delhi Laws Act case, AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCR 747; CASES,I,39; Gwalior rayon, mills v.Asstt .Commr.of
sales tax, AIR 1974 SC 1660 : (1974) 4 SCC 98: JAIN, CASES I,48
29 | P a g e
competent to tax could be thrust upon a locality without giving its inhabitants a chance of being
heard and objecting to it. This policy, the court held ,could not be changed by the delegated
authority. But it is only rarely that a statutory provision is declared invalid on the ground of
excessive delegation.33
The most effective method to control delegated legislation is through the doctrine of ultra virus
which means that a court can declare delegated legislation ultra virus if it falls outside the limits
of the power to make delegated legislation which may have been conferred on the delegate.
Delegated Legislation is thus subject to judicial control.34
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:
1. That, the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution is not maintainable in the
court of law.
2. The section 3 of the act when read with section 2 (c) of the act and paragraph 9 of the
schedule doesn't violate fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 25 (1) of
the constitution.
3. Section 14 of the act doesn't give way to the violation of Article 14 of the constitution.
And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
33
VHarakchand v.union of indiaV,AIR 1970 SC 1453:(1969) 2 SCC 166, is one of the example
of a delegation being held excessive ; and so invalid
34
Kunj Behari lal v. State of himachel pradesh, VAIR 2000 SC 1069: (2000) 3 SCC 40
30 | P a g e
Sd/-
(Counsel for Respondent)
31 | P a g e

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

29th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2020

29th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2020

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DHARMASTHAN STATE

WRIT PETITION NO:

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SNEHA RETREAT CENTRE (PETITIONER)

STATE OF DHARMASTHAN (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------7

2.2 Is there a necessity for this legislation ? ---------------------------------------------------23

2.3 Whether article 25 of the constitution is violated ? ---------------------------------------27

2.3.1 Whether the act includes essential religious practices ? --------------------------27

2.3.2 Restriction for public order and health ? --------------------------------------------28

3. Whether section 14 of the act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Article 14

1. Constitution of India, 1950

1. G.Bryan , ‘ Black’s Law Dicitionary’,9th Ed.,2009, West Group

1. www. india kanoon .org. com

AIR All India Reporter

FIR First Information Report

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

KHC Kerala High Court

FSL Forensic Science Laboratory

SCC Supreme Court Cases

POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 6-11-2019 Dharmasthan Legislative Assembly passed Dharmasthan Prevention and

2. Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and excessive

On behalf of the State, all contentions were refuted .

THE PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

THE DHARMASTHAN PREVENTION AND ERADICATION OF INHUMAN EVIL

Preamble: WHEREAS, an alarming number of incidents of-exploitation of the common people

Be it enacted in the Seventieth year of the Republic of India as follows:-

2. Definitions: ( 1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(b) "Government" means Government of Dharmasthan;

(f) "Person" includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or

(g) "Propagate" means issuance or publication, including publication in electronic form of

(h) "Schedule" means the Schedule appended to this Act ;

Explanation: - For the purpose of this section -

(i) The form of worship performed at any religious or spiritual places.

SEE SECTION 2(1)(h) :

1.1 Does Sneha Retreat Centre have locus standi ?

1.2 whether there is a balance between the restriction and freedom

sec 3 of the act reads as follows :

Art 19 does not prohibit reasonable restriction .

foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,

Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of

2.1.2 public order and morality

2.2 Is there a necessity for this legislation

2.3 Whether art 25 of the constitution is violated

2.3.1 Whether the act includes essential religious practices

sec 15 clearly saves the essential religious practices followed in Dharmasthan.

2.3.2 restriction for public order and health

3. Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of Art 14 and excessive

art 14 of the act is reads as:

(Counsel for Respondent)

You might also like