NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

BEFORE THE APEX COURT OF GARFIELD

Civil Appeal NO. /2023

IN THE MATTER

LAW ADDICT …….….PETITIONER

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF INDUS …..……RESPONDENT

(WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

S.NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 03

2. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 04

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 06

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 07

5. ISSUES RAISED 08

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 09

7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED 10-12

8. PRAYER 13

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVATIONS FULL FORM

& AND

UOI Union Of India

AIR All India Report

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ors Others

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Report

Pvt. Private

Vol. Volume

Anr. Another

ed Edition
 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES

CASE
PAGE NO.
STATUTES

Constitution of Indian , 1950

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)Act , 2021

The Trade Marks Act , 1999

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the Respondent are before this Apex Court of Indus in all
the matters the petitioner have invoked and linked by this Court under Article 321 and 1322 of
the Constitution of Garfield

The respondent most humbly and respectfully submit before the jurisdiction of the present
court and accept that it has the power and authority to preside over the present case.

1
Public interest litigation (PIL) can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Article 32 guarantees every citizen the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. This right is not limited to cases where the aggrieved party is directly affected. Any person
or group of persons can file a PIL on behalf of a public interest, even if they are not directly affected by the
issue.

2
Article 132 This article deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It empowers the Supreme
Court to entertain appeals against the judgments or orders of high courts and other courts or tribunals in India
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

 The government has imposed a ban on the wearing of turbans in government

institutions, citing the need to maintain public order.
 The ban on wearing turban is applicable to all individuals, irrespective of their
religious beliefs, and is not targeted towards any particular community.
 This ban extends to all individuals entering or working within government premises.
 The ban is imposed as a measure to ensure the safety and security of government
institutions and to avoid any potential disturbances.
 It is argued by the defendant that the ban is necessary to maintain a neutral and
uniform environment within government institutions.
 The ban aims to promote a sense of equality and inclusivity within government
institutions by eliminating visible religious symbols.
 The plaintiffs, argue that wearing a turban is an essential religious practice for them,
deeply rooted in their beliefs.
 The plaintiffs assert that the turban ban infringes upon their constitutional right to
freedom of religion, a fundamental right protected by the constitution
 It is noted that members of another community had previously accepted a similar
government order without protest.
 ISSUE RAISED

[ISSUE- 1] Whether wearing a turban is a part of Essential Religious practice in the

Zarians community protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

[ISSUE-2] Whether the Government orders amounts to ‘discrimination’, thereby

resulting in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution?

[ISSUE-3] Whether a Zarians can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage its
own religious affairs?

[ISSUE- 4] . Whether prescription of turban is not legally permissible, as being

violative of petitioners’ Fundamental Rights inter-alia guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(a), (i.e., freedom of expression) and 21 (i.e., privacy) of the Constitution.

[ISSUE -5]Whether the government's interest in maintaining public order and

neutrality a compelling government interest that justifies the ban on wearing turbans in
government institutions?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE- 1] Whether wearing a turban is a part of Essential Religious practice in the

Zarians community protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Religious practices should

not sprung from merely
superstitious beliefs. The
beliefs and
practices should be
fundamental to the religion. It
is submitted that there is no
fundamental
change to the religion.
Essential and Integral part of a
religion are to be determined
by the
court. Scriptures of the
religion are important to
substantiate the beliefs of
appellants. Thus
the beliefs of the petitioners
as contended in the Writ
petition are not an
‘essential’ and
‘integral’ part of the saras
religion
Religious practices should not sprung from merely superstitious beliefs. The beliefs
and practices should be fundamental to the religion. It is submitted that there is no
fundamental change to the religion. Essential and Integral part of a religion are to be
determined by the court. Scriptures of the religion are important to substantiate the beliefs of
appellants. Thus the beliefs of the petitioners as contended in the PIL are not an
‘essential’ and ‘integral’ part of the Kryptonium religion.
[ISSUE-2] ] Whether the Government orders amounts to ‘discrimination’, thereby
resulting in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution?

No rights in an organized
society can be absolute.
Enjoyment of one's
rights must be consistent with
the enjoyment of rights also by
others. As Article 25 is subject
to other parts of part III of
constitution there should be no
violation of Article 21.
Practices
other than essential and
integral can be regulated by
legislation in the interest of
public order,
morality, health, social
welfare, and reforms. Article
25 protects only those
practices which
form essence of the religion
No rights in an organized society can be absolute. Enjoyment of one's rights must be
consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others. As Article 25 is subject to other parts
of part III of constitution there should be no violation of Article 21. Practices other than
essential and integral can be regulated by legislation in the interest of public order, morality,
health, social welfare, and reforms. Article 25 protects only those practices which form
essence of the religion.The government's objective is to maintain public order and security in
government institutions, which is a legitimate aim. The ban is a reasonable restriction on
religious freedom and does not have a discriminatory intent.

[ISSUE-3] Whether a Zarians can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage its
own religious affairs.

t is humbly submitted before

the hon‘ble court that No,
salafi cannot assert their right
to manage
its own religious affairs
because according to Section
26(b) of Indistan‘s
constitution, 1950,
subject to public order,
morality and health, every
religious denomination or any
section thereof
shall have the right to manage
its own affairs in matters of
religion‖
It is humbly submitted before the hon‘ble court that No, Zarain community cannot assert their
right to manage its own religious affairs because according to Section 26(b) of Indus
constitution, 1950, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination
or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. It
can be argued that the right to manage religious affairs is not absolute and can be subjected to
reasonable restrictions. It can assert that the government's ban on wearing a turban in
government institutions is a reasonable restriction aimed at maintaining public order and
security. The ban on turbans in government institutions does not significantly interfere with
the Zarians' ability to practice their religion. They point to the opportunities for religious
expression in private settings and places of worship. They maintain that the ban is narrowly
tailored to address concerns about public order and neutrality within government institutions
without unduly restricting religious freedom.

[ISSUE- 4] Whether prescription of turban is not legally permissible, as being violative

of petitioners’ Fundamental Rights inter-alia guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a),
(i.e., freedom of expression) and 21 (i.e., privacy) of the Constitution.

Article 19(1)(a) protects the freedom of expression, including through attire, there are
situations where this right must be balanced against other compelling interests. In the context
of government institutions, maintaining a uniform dress code may be necessary for public
order and administrative efficiency. The government has the authority to prescribe reasonable
dress codes in certain settings, and such regulations are well within the limits of its
administrative discretion. This authority is exercised to ensure the smooth functioning of
government institutions and does not specifically target freedom of expression. The
Government has made efforts to accommodate the religious beliefs of the affected
communities. They point to the provision of alternative spaces for religious observances
outside of government institutions. It argues that these efforts demonstrate the Government's
commitment to religious tolerance and respect for diverse beliefs. The ban on turbans strikes
a balance between individual privacy and the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and
neutrality. It acknowledges that privacy is a fundamental right, but they maintain that this
right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitations in the context of maintaining
a peaceful and inclusive public sphere.

[ISSUE -5] Whether the government's interest in maintaining public order and
neutrality a compelling government interest that justifies the ban on wearing turbans in
government institutions?

The government has a compelling interest in maintaining public order and neutrality,
particularly within government institutions. They emphasize that government institutions play
a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, providing essential services, and fostering a sense
of unity and cohesion among citizens. Visible religious symbols, such as turbans, can
potentially create distractions, disrupt the impartiality of government officials, and undermine
the neutrality of government institutions. Moreover, it can create an atmosphere of tension
and unease, especially for those who may feel uncomfortable or offended by the presence of
specific religious symbols. The government has the authority to prescribe reasonable dress
codes in certain settings, and such regulations are well within the limits of its administrative
discretion. This authority is exercised to ensure the smooth functioning of government
institutions and does not specifically target freedom of expression.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

[ISSUE- 1] Whether wearing a turban is a part of Essential Religious practice in the

Zarian community protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
[ISSUE-2] Whether the Government orders amount to ‘discrimination’, thereby
resulting in a violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution?

The Government's order banning turbans in government institutions is justified by a

compelling government interest in maintaining public order and neutrality. It argues that
visible religious symbols, such as turbans, can potentially create distractions, disrupt the
impartiality of government officials, and undermine the neutrality of government institutions.
The primary objective is to demonstrate that government orders do not amount to
discrimination but are a reasonable and necessary measure to achieve legitimate
governmental goals.

Individuals have adequate alternative means of expressing their religious beliefs outside of
government institutions. It points to the opportunities for religious expression in private
settings and places of worship. It maintains that the law does not significantly restrict
individuals' ability to practice their religion.

Law is not intended to discriminate against any particular religion or group. But it maintains
that the law is based on legitimate concerns about public order and neutrality, not on religious
prejudice.

Article 25: By allowing the Zarain Community people to wear turbans in government
institutions would hinder their emancipation and go against the constitutional spirit of
"positive secularism".

As per Article 25 of the Constitution maintains that all people are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public
order, morality, and health.

Apart from the section above the provision Article 25(2)(a) adds that the state shall be
entitled to regulate or restrict any economic, financial political or other secular activities
which may be associated with religious practice.

On some occasions of communal and public disturbances, the prohibitive orders can
also include banning of the use of loudspeaker and such electronic devices employed
in religious profession and practice. For instance, the Commissioner of Police in Calcutta
prohibited the use of loudspeakers for prayer in Mosques located in some residential areas in
the city. On challenge, his ban order was held constitutional. The right to profess one‘s
religion includes also the right to use all lawful means required for such acts provided they
don‘t destroy public peace and order. The protection given under article 25 (1), however,
does not divest the citizens from their duty to co-operate with the State to maintain public
order so that people may live their ordinary life in dignity.
The Exercise of Religion Subject to State Restriction:- The Constitution of the
democratic States guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one‘s religious
beliefs in overt ways. But this freedom is to be ensured in a balanced manner so as not to
endanger the security and well being of the society, the maintenance of which is the
prerogative of the State for the proper growth and progress of the people. Hence,
Constitutions provide also the power to regulate and even to restrict this freedom. The
manner and various reasons under which religious freedom comes under State restriction in
India will be discussed in the proceeding sections. The freedom of religion as restrictively
guaranteed by Article25 [1] is further subjected to the exceptions provided by sub -
clauses {a} and {b} of clause 2 of the same article.

In S.R. Bommai V. Union of IndiaAIR 1994 SCC (3)1 case, the Supreme Court held that
in the Indian context secularism has a positive context. So, secular activity can be regulated
by the state by enacting the law. when there is any kind of problem in maintaining the public
order morality health and other provisions contained in part 3 of the constitution the
state has the right to impose the reasonable restrictions to maintain the peace and balance
in the society.

The constitution permits reasonable restriction to be imposed on individual‘s liberties

in the interest of society. Justice Mukherjee J. in A.K Gopalan V. State of
MadrasAIR 1950 SCC(3) 1 case, it was observed that there cannot be any such thing
as absolute and an uncontrolled Liberty wholly freed from restraint for that would lead to
Anarchy and disorder the possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such
reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country which
is essential to be the safety health is General order and moral of the community.

The practices should form essence of the religion

The freedom of practice would extend only to those rites and observances which are of the
essence of the religion and would not cover secular activities which go by the name of
religion and are no part of true religion. It has been stated by the Supreme Court that ‘' the
protection under article .25 extends a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies, and
modes of worship which are integral parts of the religion.'' N.adithyan v. Travancore
Dewaswom Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538.

Practice to 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 caution is necessary because even purely
secular, not essential to religion will be clothed with the religious sanction and may claim
to be treated as a religious practice within the meaning of Article 25. They can be abrogated
by legislation subject to other fundamental rights. DURGA DAS.BASU, Commentary on the
constitution of India, volume3. 10 3Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 3057

Therefore, the protection under Article 25 is with respect to religious practices that form the
essential and integral part of the religion. All other practices can be regulated by legislation in
the interest of public order, morality, health, social welfare, and reforms.10 Hence, the beliefs
and practices are not protected under Art.25, as they do not form an essential and integral part
of the religion.

Thereby, the respondents humbly submit that there is no violation of the fundamental of the
petitioners under Article25 and the law made by government does not violate any
fundamental right of people.

Similar cases: It is humbly submitted that in the republic of India in the state of Karnatka in a
similar circumstance where government ban to wear religious attire at government
institutions. Directions are issued by the institutions for muslim girls not to wear religious
attire at schools to follow dress code.

And according to Karnatka Education Act,1983, that the every institution has the right to set
up a dress code for their institution and must be abide by all the students. When the students
joined the institution/college they all consented to follow all the rules and regulation of the
institution.

It referred to the global consensus that uniforms and dress codes will be imposed in
educational institutions. The State government‘s imposition of a dress code is a
reasonable restriction and does not offend constitutionally protected rights as it is
“religion-neutral” and “universally applicable” to all students. It noted that the dress
code in fact promotes the principles of “Secularism and equality”

As per Section 7(2)(v)17 of the Karnatka Education Act, 1983 students of all
educational institutions shall behave as one family, without restricting themselves to
one class of persons, jointly maintain and uphold public order. Under Section 133 of the
Act, the government reserves the right to issue appropriate directions to schools and colleges
to ensure maintenance of public order.

And if we talk about not to wear religious attire In School,Colleges, education is an

important stage in students lives. As per the Circular, Development Committees of all
schools and colleges have been created to make proper use of government grants,
improve basic infrastructure and facilities, and maintain the quality of education. Schools and
colleges are directed to operate as per the decisions of the development committees.
Any supervisory committees (in government schools and colleges— School
Development and Monitoring Committee or College Development Community) may create
policies/rules/codes of conduct in accordance with government rules, to facilitate a smooth
functioning atmosphere for the students. The decisions of the committees will be applicable
to their respective institutions. All schools and colleges have adopted methods to allow
all students to participate in uniform learning programs.

The Apex Court in Asha Renjan & ors V. State of Bihar & Ors18 [(2017) 4 SCC 397]
accepted the balance test when competing rights are involved and has taken a view that
individual interest must yield to larger public interest. Thus, conflict over competing rights
can be resolved not by negating individual rights, but by upholding larger rights to
remain, to hold such relationships between institution and students.

In Fathima Thasneem V. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No. 35293 of 2018 case, it was decided by
the Kerala High Court in 2018, that the petitioners in this case were Muslim students
who challenged their school‘s uniform policy prohibiting the wearing of the hijab. The
school was a private Christian educational institution. The High Court held that it was
for the institution to decide its dress code.

In Fathema Hussain Sayed V. Bharat Education Society case, AIR 2003 Bom 75 it was
decided by the Bombay High Court in 2002. In this case, the petitioner was a class six
Muslim student who wished to wear the hijab to school. She was prohibited by the
principal of the school from wearing the hijab. The Muslim student challenged this,
claiming that the prohibition violated her Right to Religious Expression under Article
25 of the Constitution. Relying on Islamic scriptures, the Court said since the student
was studying in an all-girls‘ section of the school, she did not have to wear a hijab as per
religious practice.

Applicability of Article 14: Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees that all citizens
are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The government
argues that the law regarding not to wear religious attire at public institutions does not violate
this article because it applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their religious affiliation
or beliefs.

Article 14 of the Constitution by treating students from all communities equally. He further
argued that Article 25 rights are regulated by Article 14, and that there cannot be religious
symbols in secular educational institutions.

Indus government objective is to promote oneness and national integration. What if a person
can refuse to show their face during security check at an airport, claiming the turban, Ghugat,
burqa as their fundamental right, or ask to perform hawan at the India Gate or in court as part
of their fundamental right.

And government of Indus there main motive to create this law is to follow discipline, and no
one has been discriminated against on the ground of religion.

For example, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, can also prescribe dress
codes for government employees to maintain uniformity and professionalism in the
workplace. Rule 3 of this Act states that government employees should strictly observe the
Central Government's dress code instructions, which may vary depending on the department
and the nature of work.

APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 15: prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race,

caste, sex or place of birth.
The government emphasizes that its laws are narrowly tailored to achieve the legitimate
interest of maintaining public order and neutrality. They argue that the restrictions are not
intended to prohibit the practice of religion but rather to regulate its outward expression in
specific settings.

And this is not the first time government is making law regarding not to wear religious attire
at public/government institution. They have done this before also with Marians as they also
can’t wear their religious attire at government institutions.

And government law does not do any discrimination against any community but it is need to
maintain public order and neutrality. It emphasizes that these laws are narrowly tailored, non-
discriminatory, and necessary to fulfill the government's responsibility to all citizens.

[ISSUE-3] Whether a Zarians can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage its
own religious affairs?
It is humbly submitted before
the hon‘ble court that No,
salafi cannot assert their right
to manage
its own religious affairs during
the institution or college hours
because institution too have
their
norms or code of disciplines,
rules and regulations which
must be followed by each and
every
student.
No, Zarians cannot assert their right to manage its own religious affairs during the institution
or college hours because institution too have their norms or code of disciplines, rules and
regulations which must be followed by each and every citizen of indus.

No citizen of indus has a right to wear something or do something during institution

hours which represent their religion because school/college/government instituions is a
place where all religious students come together as ―one to learn, educate and to
experience. Uniform is the best way which treats all citizens as ―one irrespective of their
religion which is already prescribed by the Karnatka Education Act, 1983, (section
133{2}, 7{2}[iv]).

In this matter, Zarians community people assert their right to wear turban in
school/college/government institutions as according to them it is their ―essential practice
which cannot be suspended even for the hours but firstly it was hardly argued that
turban being a matter of attire can be justifiably treated as an essential religious
practice of Kryptonium.

Secondly, it is only there custom/practice as like (Gungat Pratha) in Rajasthan, which

can be changed with time. In fact, the turban holds significant symbolic and cultural
importance for Zarias, it is not an essential practice of the Zaria faith. They maintain that
Zarias can still adhere to their core beliefs and practices without wearing a turban. This
emphasize that the turban is an external expression of faith, not a defining element of the
faith itself.

Thirdly, if we see that if nose rings a long-standing tradition in South Indus can be suspended
during the institution hours and the Indie girls have no problem despite of their long-
standing tradition than turban as their cultural practice can also be suspend/removed
during institution hours.

Also, if such proposal of allowing turban in university/schools/government institutions will

be allowed even it is of same color as the uniform color will divide the people and the
feeling of ―social-separatenes will arise between them, which will be not desirable for the
students and even for college.

It is also asserted that the preambular goals of ―” justice, equality, liberty and fraternity”
would be better served by removing any religious differences, inequalities and treating
student alike before attaining the age of adulthood.

This allowance will also put an end to the main motive of the uniform that is to bring the
feeling of secularism, equality/ togetherness, uniformity, unity irrespective of their religion,
caste, race, creed etc in the students. If every other person is allowed to represent their
religion at the place of learning than motive of schools, books, uniform come to an end. As
uniform fosters the sense of ‗equality‘ amongst students and that, ―”if the student of one
faith insist on a particular dress it would not be conducive to the pious atmosphere of the
school.”

It was stated that ‘‘homogeneity among the people in the matter of uniform and not to prepare
religious attire would prepare them to grow without any distinction on the basis of religious
symbol’’
According to Section 26(b) of Indus constitution, 1950, subject to public order,
morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion‖ the state cannot interfere in the exercise of
this unless they run counter to public order, health or morality, Such as in Masud
Alam v. Commissioner of PoliceAIR 1956 CAL 9 case, that "Indus is a secular State and
under Article 25 of the Constitution, all persons are at liberty to freely practice their religion.
During the enjoyment of the right under Article 25 a clear distinction must be drawn
between religious faith and belief and religious practices. The State only protects the
religious faith and belief. If the religious practices run counter to public order, morality or
health, then the religious practices must give way before the good of the people of the
State as a whole". In Indus, every individual is at liberty to make a choice of his dress code
but the educational institutions/government institutions where the dress code is notified
by the state; that educational institution might become a place of confrontation if the
students are allowed to wear religious clothes. However, the people’s have the freedom to
wear any dress of their own choice outside the educational/government institutions.

Article 26 (b) Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
10Masud Alam v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1956

Accordingly, every religious denomination or organization enjoys complete freedom in

the matters of deciding what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the
religion they hold but union of Indus follows the ‘‘positive secularism’’ where if any
custom, rites harms the general interest of the large public, disrupt the law and order,
harmony than state has a full right to interfere and stop that custom/rite to maintain the peace,
harmony in the country.

However, in some cases, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to pass a strict definition of
‘matters of religion’ as protected under clause (b) of article 26 of the Constitution limiting
them only to those essentials and obligatory overt acts necessary to express one’s faith.
These are the instances where the Court found that certain acts of rituals though
sanctioned by a particular religion, if allowed to perform would violate, on reasonable
grounds, social solidarity and even cause harm to life like:-

In the Case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta,

AIR 1984 SCR (1) 447 the Supreme Court held that ―the Tandava dance in procession or at
public places by Ananda Margis carrying Lethal weapons and human skulls is not an
essential religious rite of the followers of Anand Marga and hence the order under Section
144, Cr.P.C. prohibiting such procession in the interest of ‘Public’ order and ‘morality’ is not
a violation of the rights of petitioners under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It was
proved that, yes every religious denomination has the right to manage its own religious
affairs but with certain reasonable restrictions and the Court, has the right to determine
whether a particular rite or ceremony is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular
religion or not.

n the case of Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SCR 629 and West
Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SCR 629 , the Supreme Court held that the sacrifice of
cow on the Bakrid day was not an essential part of Mohammedan religion. It is optional and
not an obligatory and hence could be prohibited by State under clause (2)(a) of Article 25.

In the Case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SCR
(1) 561 , the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of the government. The Supreme
Court held that the expression ‘‘affairs of the temple’’ as referred to in section 16 of
the impugned Act could not include religious affairs of the temple as guaranteed in article
26 (b) of the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the impugned
Act did not violate the constitutional protection given to religious denomination to
manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

In the case of Ratilal Premchand Gandhi v. State of BombayAIR1954 SCR 1035, The
Manager of a Jain public temple and Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties in
Bombay challenged before the Bombay High Court the constitutional validity of the Bombay
Public Trust Act of 1950. It was done on the ground that the provisions of the Bombay
Act of 1950 contravened freedom to practice religion as guaranteed in article 25 (1)
and freedom to manage matters of religion as protected by article 26 (b) of the
Constitution. The Bombay High Court denied the petition in the light of sub- clause (c) and
(d) of article 26 of the Constitution, which provides the State with authority to enact the
legislation as given in the Bombay Act. Therefore, the Bombay High Court resolved the
case in favour of the State on the basis of the definition that the Court gave to
religion in the instant case.

[ISSUE- 4]
[ISSUE-5]

.
 PRAYER

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

, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES STATED , THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO

 To dismiss the PIL challenging Section7 of the Transgender Persons

(Protection of Rights) Act , 2021 as not being ultra vires to the principles
of the constitution and the fundamental rights of Grainfield.
 To uphold the constitutionality of the Section 7 of the Act and affirm that
its is in line with the legislative intent of the Act and its objective to
protect the rights of transgender person .
o To set aside the decree of injunction granted by the High Court of
Santora in Favor of CIS Hospital , thereby allowing SG hospital to
compensation of 20 lakhs.
 To assert that the advertisement infringement and violates the rights of
SG Hospital

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT IN THE INTERESTD OF NUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE ,
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.