INTERNAL MOOT COURT (EVEN SEM-AY -2024-2025)

qq---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEFORE THE HONB’LE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

WP. NO. /2024

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

And

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

DRISTHI FOUNDATION PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF SHYRABAD . RESPONDENT

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER -

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TITLE PG.NO

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION 4
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-7
TABLE OF CASES 5-7
SATUTES REFERRED 7
ONLINE SOURCES REFERRED 7
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-10
5. ISSUES RAISED 11
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12-14
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION IS 15-17
MAINTAINABE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF SCINDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE 18-25

RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO
INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
OF SCINDIA?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY 26-29

TO THE SECULAR STRUCTURE OF THE UNION OF SCINDIA AS
ENSHRINED IN THE
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 2

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE BLACK MAGIC PROHIBITION 30-32
ORDINANCE REQUIRES STRICTER ENFORCEMENT TO
ADDRESS ONGOING SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES?

8. PRAYER 33

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

V. Versus

Hon’ble Honourable

Sec Section

U/S Under Section

Anr Another

Ors Others

SCR Supreme Court Reports

& And

ALL Allahabad Law Reports.

Pg Page

No Number

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

CASES PG.NO

Khyberi Tea Co. v. State of Assam , AIR 1964 SC 925. 15

K.S. Puttaswami v. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1. 16

National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996 SCC (1) 16
742.

K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725. 16

Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594. 16

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597. 18

State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803. 19

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568. 19

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 19997 SC 2218. 19

Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 2004 SC 20

2984.

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212. 21

State of Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 21
282.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 5

State of Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 23
282.

S. P. Mittal v. Union of India 1 1983 SCR (1) 729. 23

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290. 23

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 1994 AIR 2372. 24

St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, 1974 AIR 1389. 25

Aruna Roy v. Union of India ,AIR 2002 SC 3176. 25

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 27

2
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51 28

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 28

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) AIR1994 SC 1918 28

State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali AIR1952BOM84 28

Ram Prasad Seth v. State of Bihar (1953), 1953 AIR 215 29

A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P (1996) 9 SCC 548 29

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 1473. 31

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 6

Narendra Dabholkar v. State of Maharashtra. 31

STATUES REFERRED:

Indian Constitution.

ONLINE SOURCES REFERRED:

Manu Patra
SCC Online
LexisNexis
Hein Online
Indian Kanoon

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 32 of Indian
Constitution.

Article 32 . Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—

(1) The right to move the Supreme
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 8

.STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Shyrabad, a state within the Union of Scindia, has a population that is highly
religious and divided across various faiths. The predominant religious practices,
superstitions, and rituals are widespread, often consuming significant time and
financial resources of the people, particularly affecting development in the state.

2. The state’s focus on religious education over secular education has left the
populace, especially the youth, with limited employment opportunities. Many
educational institutions primarily impart religious teachings, sidelining secular
education, which has contributed to economic stagnation and social discontent among
the youth.

3. The state has numerous religious institutions led by influential leaders who exploit
the faith of their followers. Many of these leaders engage in questionable practices
such as superstitious rituals and mass prayers, often generating large donations from
pilgrims. Their fundamentalist practices have created divisions within families and
communities.

4. Frustrated by the economic disparity with other states and oppressive religious
practices, many young people in Shyrabad have taken a stand against these practices.
Numerous protests have erupted, led by moderate and intellectual groups, calling for
reform and action against exploitation under the guise of religion.

5. In response to increasing exploitation and the assassination of Dr. Malhotra, a noted

activist for anti-superstition laws, the state Governor passed the “Black Magic
Prohibition” ordinance in August 2021. This law aims to curb superstitions, black
magic, and inhumane rituals used to exploit people, specifying 12 banned practices,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 9

including human sacrifices, branding women as witches, and sexual exploitation
under the guise of supernatural powers.

6. Despite the ordinance, Sasaram Aapu, a self-proclaimed godman, continues to

exploit people’s religious beliefs for personal gain. His ashram has amassed
significant wealth by preying on the illiterate and vulnerable, particularly women,
children, and unemployed youth, manipulating their beliefs to carry out exploitative
and criminal acts, including sexual abuse and arms training.

7. Government authorities have been unsuccessful in intervening or halting the

activities at Sasaram Aapu’s ashram, where followers have been trained to defend the
ashram, preventing law enforcement from taking action.

8. The petitioner, Drishti Foundation, an NGO dedicated to combating religious

exploitation, has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Scindia. The foundation argues that the activities of so-called godmen like Sasaram
Aapu exploit the religious sentiments of the public and seeks court intervention to
shut down these institutions and confiscate their assets to add to Scindia’s national
wealth.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 10

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABE UNDER ARTICLE

32 OF SCINDIAN CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

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

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE SECULAR

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

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE BLACK MAGIC PROHIBITION ORDINANCE REQUIRES

STRICTER ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS ONGOING SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABE UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF SCINDIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, the petition is maintainable under Article
32 of the Indian Constitution, as it addresses the violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme
Court has the authority to entertain this writ since the action taken by the Baba made women’s
feel that their rights have been unduly deprived in furtherance of the principle of economic
and social justice. Furthermore, the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies does not
prevent the petitioners from approaching the Supreme Court directly, as the protection of
fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right. The mere existence of an alternative legal
remedy, such as filing a petition under Article 226 in the High Court, does not preclude the
petitioners from seeking relief in the Supreme Court when a breach of fundamental rights is
alleged.

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS

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

It is humbly submitted that, the activities exploiting religious sentiments in the State of
Scindia amount to an infringement of fundamental rights as per Articles 21, 25, 26, and 28 of
the Constitution of Scindia. Article 21 ensures the right to life with dignity, which is
compromised when individuals, particularly the vulnerable, are subjected to abuse and
exploitation by religious leaders. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom, but this right is
conditional, subject to public order, morality, and health, all of which are threatened by
exploitative practices that in still fear and promote superstitions. Under Article 26, religious

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 12

denominations are granted autonomy; however, this autonomy is limited and does not extend
to practices that harm or exploit followers, thus justifying state intervention. Lastly, Article
28 mandates secular education in institutions funded by the state, and the focus on religious
instruction over secular education violates the constitutional commitment to secularism.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that these exploitative activities infringe upon the
fundamental rights of the people of Scindia, warranting remedial action from the state.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE SECULAR

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

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the practices conducted by Sasaram
Aapu, and similar religious leaders fundamentally violate the secular fabric of Scindia, as
enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. The Constitution mandates that the state remain
neutral in religious affairs and protect individuals from exploitation based on religious beliefs.
While citizens enjoy the freedom to practice their faith, this right is limited by considerations
of public order, morality, and health, which the state is obligated to uphold. However, Sasaram
Aapu continues to operate by taking advantage of vulnerable, illiterate followers, amassing
wealth and control through fear, superstition, and manipulation. His actions, including the
exploitation of women and the arming of followers, directly threaten public safety and
individual well-being. The petitioner argues that these actions undermine the constitutional
values of dignity, safety, and social justice. In the interest of public welfare, the petitioner
respectfully requests that the Hon’ble Court intervene by directing the closure of exploitative
establishments and confiscation of assets derived from such fraudulent practices, ensuring the
protection and dignity of all citizens.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE BLACK MAGIC PROHIBITION ORDINANCE REQUIRES

STRICTER ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS ONGOING SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 13

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance
requires stricter enforcement to effectively combat ongoing superstitious practices that exploit
vulnerable populations. Current enforcement has proven inadequate, as such practices persist,
threatening public order and individual rights under Article 21. Stricter measures would align
with Articles 25 and 38, ensuring religious practices do not infringe on public health and
morality. Legal precedents, such as those set in the Narendra Dabholkar case, highlight the
importance of active state intervention to eradicate harmful superstitions. Enhanced
enforcement, coupled with public awareness campaigns, is crucial to safeguard individuals
and uphold constitutional value.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 14

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

SCINDIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the petition filed is maintainable since
it [1.1] Violates the fundamental rights of the people [1.2] Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Alternative Remedy is not a bar from exercising Fundamental Rights given under
Part III.

1.1 Violation of Certain Fundamental Rights.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 32 of Scindian Constitution1
provides right to move the Supreme Court , acting in a bona fide manner, in case of
violation of fundamental right, for the benefit of the society at large. Thus in the present case,
by virtue of power conferred under Article 32 of the constitution, Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the present writ.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the public interest litigation filed by the
petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia is maintainable as it:

• Violates Article 21 of Scindian Constitution.

• Violates Article 25, 26, 28 of Scindian Constitution.

In the case of Khyberi Tea Co. v. State of Assam2, the Supreme Court held that under Article

1
Ibid.
2
Khyberi Tea Co. v. State of Assam , AIR 1964 SC 925.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 15

32 of Indian Constitution, the court confines itself to the question of fundamental rights and
not any other question.

1.2 Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy is not a bar from approaching the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of Scindian Constitution.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Alternative Remedy is not a bar is not a bar from Approaching the Supreme Court Under
Article 32 of Scindian Constitution.

It is further humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, approaching the Supreme Court
under Art. 32 of Scindian Constitution for the protection of fundamental rights is itself a
fundamental right4. It is unnecessary to first approach the High Court and exhaust the remedy
under Article 226 of Scindian Constitution before approaching the Supreme Court5.

Therefore , it has been held in this Hon'ble court that, just a mere existence of an adequate
alternative legal remedy cannot be a good and sufficient ground for dismissing a
petition under Article 32 of Scindian Constitution6 if there is an existence of a
fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened of such right is alleged and is prima facie
established on the petition

In case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras7, the Supreme Court ruled that such a

4
K.S. Puttaswami v. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1.
5
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996 SCC (1) 742.
6
K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
7
Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 16

petition in which there is a violation of fundamental rights can come straight to the Supreme
Court without going to the High Court first.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 17

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES EXPLOITING THE RELIGIOUS
SENTIMENTS OF THE PEOPLE AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF SCINDIA?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, the activities exploiting the religious
sentiments of the people does amount to the infringement of fundamental rights of the people
as per Article 21, 25, 26, 28 of the Constitution of Scindia.

2.1 Article 21 of Constitution of Scindia.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Article 21 of the Constitution of
Scindia8, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is being violated. Article 21
encompasses not only the right to live but also the right to live with dignity. This includes
protection from exploitation, abuse, and inhumane treatment, all of which are central to
ensuring an individual’s dignity.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, In the present case the so-called religious
leaders, exploits the vulnerability of poor and illiterate individuals by manipulating their
religious sentiments, subjecting them to various forms of abuse, including sexual exploitation
and forced participation in violent and criminal activities. These actions directly undermine
the dignity of the individuals involved, violating their fundamental right to live with dignity
as guaranteed under Article 21. The individuals, particularly women and children, who are
subjected to such exploitation and abuse, are deprived of their dignity, autonomy, and basic
rights, thus violating the core principle of human dignity which is integral to Article 21.

In case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India9, The Supreme Court in this landmark

8
Ibid
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 18

Case expanded the scope of Article 21, emphasizing that the right to life and personal liberty
includes not only the right to live but also the right to live with dignity. The Court held that
any procedure depriving a person of their life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The
judgment laid down that “life” includes the right to a dignified life.

In case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan10 , The Supreme Court observed that

dignity is an essential aspect of the right to life. This case involved the issue of forced labor,
where the Court ruled that forced labor is a violation of the right to live with dignity under
Article 21 and right to live includes the right to live with dignity.

In case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India11 , The Supreme Court ruled
that Article 21 guarantees not just the physical right to live, but the right to a dignified life.
The Court emphasized that the state must take all necessary measures to ensure that
individuals are not subjected to inhumane treatment.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India12 , In this case, the Court ruled that the right to
live with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to be free from exploitation. The case
emphasized that every individual has the right to live free from any form of oppression or
exploitation that diminishes their dignity.

2.2 Article 25 of Constitution of Scindia.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Article 25 of the Constitution of
Scindia13 guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in Scindia. It provides that all persons

10
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803.
11
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
12
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 19997 SC 2218.
13
Ibid.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 19

in Scindia subject to public order, morality, health, other provisions were equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and have the right to freely profess practice and propagate religion.

2.2.1 Conditional Right.

Article 25 of the Constitution of Scindia states that the right to freedom of religion is subjected
to certain restrictions such as public order, morality, health, and other provisions. In case of
violation of such restrictions of public order, morality, health, and other provisions will result
in the violation of Art. 25 of Constitution of Scindia

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the activities conducted by Sasaram
Aapu and other religious leader in Shyrabad including exploitation, sexual abuse, and
manipulation of followers under the guise of religious practice not only infringes on the
personal freedom of individuals but also poses a threat to public order and morality.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, by insisting fear, promoting superstitions
and manipulating the religious belief of the people, these so called “Godmen” restrict the
ability of their followers to practise their faith freely and rational. Furthermore the use of
exploitative practises and a training of armed followers undermines the value of morality and
public safety that Article 25 seeks to protect. Therefore, these actions amount to a clear
violation of the Constitution right to practise religion freely and responsibly as safeguarded
under Article 25.

In case of Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police14 , The

14
Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 2004 SC 2984.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 20

Supreme Court held that the freedom of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order,
morality, and health. The Court emphasized that not all religious practices are protected,
especially if they interfere with public order or welfare. Thus, the state can impose reasonable
restrictions on religious activities conducted in public spaces to maintain order.

In case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat15, In this judgment,
the Supreme Court clarified that Article 25 is not an absolute right. Religious practices that
may conflict with broader societal interests can be restricted. The Court upheld a law
regulating religious practices to protect public health and morality, reaffirming that state-
imposed restrictions are valid if they serve a greater public purpose.

The Supreme Court held in case of State of Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Shirur Mutt16, the Court outlined that while religious freedom is protected, it is
not unrestricted. The Court asserted that state intervention is permissible when practices
undermine public order, morality, or health, underlining that the state has the power to impose
restrictions to balance individual freedom with societal welfare.

2.1 Article 26 of Constitution of Scindia.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 26 of the Constitution of
Scindia17 grants religious denominations the freedom to manage their own religious affairs,
established institutions for religious, to own and acquire movable and immovable property
for charitable purpose however these rights were expressly not absolute right and is limited
by consideration of public order, morality and health.

15
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212.
16
State of Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282.
17
Ibid.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 21

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the actions of Sasaram Aapu and other
religious leaders and the institutions under his control, such as his ashrams and religious
organisations, Article 26 of Constitution in the following ways:

2.1.1 Exploitation under the guise of Religious Practises.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Sasaram Aapu’s ashrams, where he
conducts exploitative practices such as sexual abuse, coercion, and fraud under the pretext of
religious authority, directly undermine the purpose of religious institutions. Instead of
promoting religious or charitable purposes, his institutions are used to manipulate and exploit
vulnerable individuals, particularly women, children, and the poor. This violates the principle
that institutions must operate for legitimate religious and charitable purposes and not for
personal or exploitative gains.

2.2.2 Threat to Public Order and Morality.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Sasaram Aapu’s use of religious
institutions to train followers in handling weapons, with the aim of protecting his operations
from government intervention, directly threatens public order. The Constitution allows the
state to impose restrictions on religious practices or institutions that pose a risk to public order
and safety. By encouraging violence and undermining the authority of the state, Sasaram
Aapu’s actions violate the limits of Article 26, as his activities go beyond the scope of
religious freedom into unlawful conduct that disrupts societal peace and security.

2.2.3. Misuse of Religious Authority.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, The very essence of Article 26 is to
protect the freedom of religious denominations to manage their affairs autonomously, but this
autonomy does not extend to activities that lead to harm or abuse. Sasaram Aapu’s actions,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 22

where he claims divine powers and engages in fraud, abuse, and coercion, misuse the religious
authority granted to him. By doing so, he is abusing the constitutional protections of religious
freedom and violating the spirit of Article 26, which is meant to protect the integrity and
welfare of religious institutions and their followers.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the institutions managed by Sasaram
Aapu and other religious leaders, rather than fulfilling religious or charitable purposes, have
become sites of exploitation and harm, violating the limitations set forth by Article 26 in the
interest of public order, morality, and health. These practices go beyond the protections
offered to religious institutions and warrant intervention by the state to protect the well-being
of individuals and the larger society.

In case of State of Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt18, The
Court held that the state can regulate or even control religious practices within institutions if
these practices contravene public policy, and the right to manage religious affairs is subject
to laws aimed at maintaining public order, morality, and health.

In case S. P. Mittal v. Union of India19 The Supreme Court reinforced that the freedom of
religion under Article 26 does not give religious institutions the right to operate beyond the
framework of laws that safeguard public interests and prevent exploitation or abuse.

In case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India20 The Supreme Court

18
State of Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282.
19
S. P. Mittal v. Union of India 1 1983 SCR (1) 729.
20
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 23

The Court observed that religious practices that violate public morality or human rights
cannot be protected under the guise of religious freedom.

2.3 Article 28 of Constitution of Scindia.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 28 of the Constitution of
Scindia21 guarantees the secular nature of educational institutions by stating , No religious
institution shall be provided in any educational institutions wholly maintained out of state
fund. This article ensures that public education which is funded by the state, remain free from
religious influence. The purpose of this provision is to uphold the secular characteristics of
the state by preventing religious education in state funded institutions where by fostering a
system of education that is inclusive neutral and devoid of any religious bias.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, in the present case, it is mentioned that,
“The various religious institutions in the state is imparting only religious education putting
the secular education into oblivion which has reduced drastically the people employment
avenues”. This neglect of secular education and emphasis solely on religious teaching
institutions especially those funded by public sources is violation of Article 21. Religious
instructions is not permissible in government funded institutions breach is this provision.

In case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka22, The Supreme Court held that
educational institutions must adhere to the secular principles of the Constitution and must not
impart religious instruction unless explicitly allowed under the Constitution. The judgment
emphasizes the need for balance between religious freedom and the secular nature of the state.

21
Ibid.
22
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 1994 AIR 2372.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 24

In case of St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat23 The Supreme Court clarified that
Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions that are fully funded by
the state, reinforcing the secular nature of public education and ensuring no religious bias in
state-funded educational institutions.

In case of Aruna Roy v. Union of India24 , The Supreme Court observed that educational
institutions receiving government funding should refrain from imparting religious education
and should focus on secular, non-discriminatory teaching. This judgment reinforced the
secular character of education in India and the restriction imposed by Article 28 of
Constitution.

23
St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, 1974 AIR 1389.
24
Aruna Roy v. Union of India ,AIR 2002 SC 3176.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 25

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE
SECULAR STRUCTURE OF THE UNION OF SCINDIA AS ENSHRINED IN THE
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA?

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the alleged activities carried out by so-
called religious leaders in their Ashrams and Maths, such as those by Sasaram Aapu, are
contrary to the secular structure of the Union of Scindia as enshrined in the Preamble of the
Constitution of Scindia. Also, Secularism in the Indian Constitution is the idea that the state
is separate from religion and that all religions are treated equally.

The Preamble of the Constitution of India includes the word "secular". The 42nd Amendment
to the Constitution in 1976 added the term "secular" to the Preamble. Secularism, as defined
in the Preamble, is more than just religious tolerance, it means actively preventing acts that,
under the cover of religion, violate individuals' rights and dignity, as well as the social fabric
of the nation.

3.1 A Basic Constitutional Principle of Secularism.

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the Secularism is a fundamental
principle of the Scindia Constitution, as stated clearly in the Preamble, which highlights the
state's desire to establishing a "Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic." Article
25 to Article 28 of the Constitution safeguard religious freedom and prohibit state promotion
of any religion over another, thereby mandating a secular approach to governance and state
affairs. Also state will not discriminate against or favour any religion.

3.1.1 Secularism in the Preamble as a Basis for Constitutional Morality.

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that ,In Scindia, secularism means that the
state should not only refrain from participating in religious concerns, but also prevent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 26

religious institutions or individuals from exploiting or imposing excessive influence on others
under the name of religion, which includes fraudulent and exploitative acts. The secular
nature of Scindia state, also stated in the Preamble, requires a clear separation of religion and
governance. It prohibits the exploitation of religious beliefs that can harm individual rights
and general good. Secularism, as defined in the Preamble, is more than just religious
tolerance; it entails actively preventing acts that, under the cover of religion, violate
individuals' rights and dignity, as well as the social fabric of the nation.

3.2 Alleged activities that violate secular values:

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the acts of Sasaram Aapu and related
leaders go against the secular nature of constitutional system by utilizing religion to:

• Continue superstitious and exploitative practices that impair societal welfare.

• Use religious sentiments for personal gain and impose forceful control over the public,
particularly vulnerable groups such as women and youth, as recorded in the facts.

These activities are opposed to secular ideals because they empower religious institutions to
exercise power that violates individual rights, equality, and social order values guaranteed by
Articles 14, 15, and 21.

In case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India25,the Supreme Court held that the practice of
Triple Talaq was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the principles of gender equality,
dignity, and secularism. This case sets a precedent for curbing religious practices that are
against constitutional morality and secular values.

_______________________________________________
25
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 27

In case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India26, The Court emphasized that secularism is a basic
feature of the Constitution, and the state has a duty to ensure that religious practices do not
disrupt public order, health, or morality.

In case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala27, This case underscored the balance between
religious freedom and the secular nature of the state, ruling that any religious practice that
undermines public order or morality can be restricted by the state.

3.2.1 The State's Function in Preserving Public Order and the Preamble:

It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, according to the Preamble's secular
commitment, the state is required to uphold public order and shield its inhabitants from
religious exploitation. The Constitution gives the state the authority to control and outlaw
behaviour that goes against public order, social welfare, or the ideals of a secular country,
even if it is religious in origin. No discrimination will be shown by the state against any person
on account of his religion or faith.

In case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)28, the Supreme Court emphasized that
secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, highlighting the duty of the state
to maintain neutrality in religious matters and to protect citizens from religious exploitation.

In case of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali29, the Bombay High Court held that the
state has the authority to regulate religious practices if such practices are inconsistent with
modern social norms or infringe upon public morality.
_________________________________________________
26
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51
27
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
28
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) AIR1994 SC 1918
29
State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali AIR1952BOM84

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 28

The petitioner argues that Sasaram Aapu’s activities, which include exploitation of followers
and even militarization of youth under religious pretexts, are not only immoral but also
threaten societal norms and security, justifying state intervention.

In case of Ram Prasad Seth v. State of Bihar (1953)30:This case underscored that religious
freedom does not cover practices that are against societal welfare or public interest. The
Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of religion cannot be used as a shield to carry
out activities that harm public interest.

This case supports the petitioner’s plea to close down exploitative ashrams and confiscate
assets, as such actions are within the state’s authority to prevent public harm and uphold
constitutional values.

In case of A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996)31, The Supreme
Court ruled that religious practices that infringe upon constitutional morality, public order, or
social reform goals can be restricted. This judgment supports the argument that so-called
religious leaders cannot use the guise of faith to abuse followers or create a dangerous
environment.

____________________________________________
30
Ram Prasad Seth v. State of Bihar (1953), 1953 AIR 215
31
A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P (1996) 9 SCC 548

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 29

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE BLACK MAGIC PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
REQUIRES STRICTER ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS ONGOING
SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, despite the enactment of the Black
Magic Prohibition Ordinance, superstitious practices continue to exploit and harm citizens,
demonstrating that current enforcement measures are insufficient. The ongoing activities by
figures like Sasaram Aapu in Shyrabad highlight the gap between the legislative intent of the
ordinance and its real-world implementation.

It is Further submitted before this hon’ble court that, The persistence of superstitious practices
despite the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance highlights significant enforcement gaps.
Incidents involving figures like Sasaram Aapu show that current measures fail to effectively
deter exploitative behaviors that leverage religious sentiments for personal gain. Stricter
enforcement would ensure that laws intended to protect citizens are executed with the
necessary rigor.

It is Further submitted before this hon’ble court that, the state’s duty to protect public safety
and uphold Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) extends to preventing harm arising
from fraudulent religious practices. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion but within the
bounds of public order, health, and morality. Practices that involve physical harm or mental
coercion breach these boundaries and justify stricter state intervention.

It is Further submitted before this hon’ble court that, Article 21 guarantees the right to life
and personal liberty, which includes the right to live free from fear and exploitation.
Superstitious practices that subject individuals to harm infringe on this right. The state has an
obligation to enforce laws that uphold this fundamental right.

It is Further submitted before this hon’ble court that, Article 25 ensures the freedom of
religion but limits it with considerations of public order, morality, and health. Practices based

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 30

on black magic and superstition that harm individuals are neither protected under religious
freedom nor constitutional morality.

It is Further submitted before this hon’ble court that, The Directive Principles of State Policy,
particularly Article 38, require the state to promote the welfare of its people by ensuring social
justice and eliminating inequalities. Enforcing laws against superstitious practices protects
vulnerable populations and prevents exploitation that undermines social equity.

The principle established in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India32
emphasized that the state must implement laws effectively to fulfill its constitutional
directives for promoting justice and preventing exploitation.

The Supreme Court in Narendra Dabholkar’s case and the context of the Maharashtra
Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori
Practices and Black Magic Act (2013) stressed that practices involving superstition harm
public health and disrupt public order. The ruling emphasized the need for legislative
measures to be strictly enforced to prevent exploitation.

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Narendra Dabholkar v. State of Maharashtra33

underlined that combating superstition requires proactive state action, including rigorous law
enforcement, to prevent practices that harm societal order. Effective enforcement requires
more than passing a law; it involves public education, dedicated task forces, and stringent
monitoring of religious and spiritual institutions.

32
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 1473.
33
Narendra Dabholkar v. State of Maharashtra.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 31

The ordinance should be backed by specialized investigative units to ensure violations are
detected and prosecuted.

Hence, stricter enforcement of the Black Magic Prohibition Ordinance is essential to uphold
constitutional rights, protect public welfare, and promote social justice. Supported by
constitutional mandates under Articles 21, 25, 38, and 39, and reinforced by legal precedents
like Narendra Dabholkar’s case, Shayara Bano, and Vineet Narain, it is clear that enforcement
must go beyond mere legislation. Effective enforcement, including dedicated task forces,
public education, and strict prosecution, would ensure that superstitious and exploitative
practices are eradicated, fulfilling the state’s duty to protect and serve its people.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 32

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:

1. Declare that the petition is maintainable.

2. Issue an order for the closure of all Ashram and Maths that are engaged in fraudlength and
exploitative religious practises.
3. Direct the confiscation of the assets amassed by the self-declared Godman and their
redistribution for the benefit of National wealth.

AND/OR

AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PROSECUTION SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER
PRAY.

All of which is humbly prayed,

Counsels for the Petitioner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 33