Team B - Petitioner Memorial
Team B - Petitioner Memorial
Team B - Petitioner Memorial
IN THE MATTER OF
v.
1|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................... 11
[A.2] That the legitimate expectation of Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct
the pilgrimage to the YD Temple was nullified. .................................................................. 18
[A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the doctrine of
proportionality making it unreasonable & untenable. ......................................................... 20
[B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right is regarded important by the constituent
assembly and internationally.................................................................................................... 28
1|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
[E.1] That there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights of the Vennites. ................ 37
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 39
2|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Paragraph
Sec. Section
& And
SC Supreme Court
Anr Another
Art Article
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors Others
3|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
v. Versus
4|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
SCC 522.
(1948) 1 KB 223.
5|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
2019.
669.
12. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392. 28,34
13. Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 24
752.
14. Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz (2016) 16 SCC 788. 20
6|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
20. K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others 23
725.
22. Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors, W.P. (C) 17
No. 3323.
SCC 225.
25. Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E 1972 23
T.L.N.J. 443.
161 Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
7|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
30. Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal AIR 1955 SC 228. 24
38. Rural Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1985 AIR 675. 28
41. Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5116. 29
42. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288; see also 24
Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM (PJ) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC
764.
SCC 443.
8|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
44. State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Kharak Singh v. 37
45. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 SCR 284. 26
499.
48. Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241. 34
INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. Davie v. Benson 133 US 333 20
2. R v. Oakes (1986) 26 DLR 2001 17
9|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
opportunities.
1972).
6. Elkin, C., Rattan, S., Devy, S., Ganesh, T. (2019)., Case study on 31
10 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
10. Abhisst K Thaker & Madhuri Parikh, The Dusk of Wildlife and the 32
(October) 73.
12. Guidelines For Ecotourism in And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 34
2011
BOOKS
11 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Article 32 of the Constitution of Sault the present writ petition has been preferred
in the matter of The Vennite Board v. State of Nerjia & Anr. The relevant provision has been
produced hereinbelow:
(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto 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 SC by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
HON'BLE COURT.
1
INDIA CONST. art. 32
12 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. BACKGROUND
Sault has a rich history, with trade routes from ancient civilizations running through the country.
This resulted in people from numerous cultural and religious backgrounds settling in Sault. As
a result, when the nation gained independence from colonial rule, secularism was included as
part of the preamble of its Constitution, not simply as a traditional separation of religion and
state, but in order for the state to protect religious pluralism, diversity, and tolerance.
One such religion is the Venna faith, which although has a small following of only a few tens
of thousands, is entirely localised to Sault. Vennites (followers of Venna) are primarily found
near the Vels Forest, a tropical rainforest in the north-eastern state of Nerija. Inside the Vels
Forest is a temple of Yussef Dayes (“YD”), who is considered as the deity of the Venna faith.
The mythology of YD is written in a holy book called the Vennology, which was written around
two thousand years ago. Chapter I of the Vennology sets out the crux of the religious beliefs of
the Vennites. These include the belief in YD as a deity and the moral and ethical code of all
Vennites. Chapter II of the Vennology contains the religious sacraments of the Vennites. This
chapter also contains a portion that prescribes a pilgrimage to the temple of YD by Vennites
which may be undertaken annually. The majority of Vennites consider Chapter III as not being
3.CONDUCTION OF PILGRIMAGE
The Vels Forest is also the habitat of the Ezrat Leopard, a highly endangered species of
Leopard, local to Sault. The Ezrat Leopard is in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The Vels Forest was declared as a ‘sanctuary’ in 2021.Vennites were undertaking pilgrimages
13 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
to the YD temple for many years prior to the Vels Forest being declared a ‘sanctuary’. In 2021
and 2022, the Vennites undertook the pilgrimage on two occasions. On both occasions,
permission was granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden to approximately 10,000 Vennites to
4. The State of Nerija decided to pass an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 titled
“The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2023” (“Act”). In August 2023, the Vennite Board
applied for a permit from the Chief Wildlife Warden of Nerija to enter the Vels Forest for the
purpose of their pilgrimage. However, the Chief Wildlife Warden, by an administrative order
dated August 25,2023 (“Order”), communicated the following: “The office of the Chief
Wildlife Warden is in receipt of the application seeking a permit to enter the Vels Forest for the
purpose of pilgrimage to the YD Temple. However, in view of Section 27(1A) and Section 28
of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the grant of permit for the purpose of pilgrimage cannot
be granted under law, and therefore, the request for permit is refused”
The Chief Wildlife Warden’s Order is arbitrary and untenable. The Vennite Board has a
Accordingly, the Court ought to pass a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Wildlife Warden
to grant the Vennite Board a permit for their pilgrimage. The amendment Act is violative of the
Vennites’ fundamental right to religion, and ought to be struck down as unconstitutional. The
14 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
~ISSUE-A~
~ISSUE-B~
~ISSUE-C~
What alternative measures can the State reasonably employ to mitigate the issues arising out
~ISSUE-D~
~ISSUE-E~
Whether the present writ of mandamus filed by the Vennite board before the SC of Sault is
maintainable?
15 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is humbly submitted that the Chief Wildlife Warden’s order is arbitrary on account of a
violation of Principle of Natural Justice coupled with nullification of the legitimate expectation
of Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple & lastly
untenable.
It is humbly submitted that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 25,
Art. 26(b) & Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution. It is also not in consonance with the
international standards and even Constituent assembly where there is recognition of right to
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the alternative measures State can reasonably
to employ to mitigate the issues arising from pilgrimages into the wildlife sanctuary&
implement immediate precautionary measure (pre & post harmful events), adopting the already
successful Green Pilgrimage Model & Compliance with strategies in consonance with
International Conventions.
It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 32
of the Constitution of Sault. Art. 32(2) confers power on this Court in its widest terms by
16 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
stating, "it is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs", but "it is much wider and
includes within its matrix power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be
appropriate for enforcement of the Fundamental Right in question" having the force of law.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that the Present Writ of Mandamus filed by
Vennite Board is maintainable on the grounds, firstly, that there has been a gross violation of
fundamental rights of Vennites under Art. 25,26 & 29 which brings them to Supreme Court.
Secondly, that existence of alternative remedy should not be a bar to approach this Hon’ble
17 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(1). The Counsel humbly submits that the Chief Wildlife Warden’s order is arbitrary on account
of firstly, [A.1] that there is a violation of PNJ, secondly [A.2] the legitimate expectation of
Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple was
nullified, & thirdly, [A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the
(2). It is humbly submitted that while issuing an order the Chief Wildlife Warden has violated
the PNJ. Lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard before caring out such an untenable
decision is violation of PNJ & this violation of PNJ should be heeded by the SC. The Supreme
Court has the power to prevent miscarriage of justice even if relates to administrative enquiries2
& inequalities.
(3) Earlier, the rigid view that the principles of natural justice applied only to judicial and quasi-
judicial acts and not to administrative acts, no longer holds the field. 3 The old distinction
between judicial act and administrative act has withered away. Today, even a pure
administrative action entailing civil consequences must be consistent with rules of natural
justice’4, and inconsistency with such needs to be countered by the SC,. It is emphasized before
the Court of Law that before taking such a decision which affects the fundamental rights of
pilgrimage which has been conducted in some form for as long as the Venna faith has been in
2
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262,272.
3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 285
4
Sahara Indian (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 151
18 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
existence the CWW did not take into consideration the reasonable opportunity to hear the
petitioners
(4) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India5, “It is well established that even where there is no
specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action
proposed to be taken against the individual which affects the rights of that individual, the duty
to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be
performed by the authority which has the power to …. damaging actions.” It is humbly
submitted that the Petitioners were at the mercy of CWW’s order & grant of permit under Sec.
28.
(5) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that if the purpose of the revision natural
justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice6, those basic Principle of Natural Justice should be
applied judicially for tenable decisions. Herein where the followers of the Venna Faith were at
the mercy of CWW. It was the duty of CWW to provide Vennites with a reasonable opportunity
to be heard.
(6) It is emphasized before the Hon’ble SC that the legitimate expectation carried out by the
Vennites to conduct their pilgrimage was nullified by the CWW’s order. Legitimate expectation
in the present case is not a mere anticipation, it is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of
law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the
public.7 Legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review. 8
5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
6
Supra Note 2.
7
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161.
8
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499.
19 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
(7) Legitimate expectation may arise— (a) if there is an express promise given by a public
authority; or (b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can
reasonably expect to continue; (c) Such an expectation must be reasonable.9 Now, primarily, in
lieu of (b) & (c), arose a legitimate expectation from the Chief Wildlife Warden to continue
such grant of permit under Sec. 27 & 28 because the pilgrimage has been conducted in some
form for as long as the Venna faith has been in existence. In its present form, the pilgrimage
(8) On a secondary level, restricted entry can be permitted only under the special permissions
to be given by Chief Wild Life Warden under Section 28 of the Act for specific purposes.
Among the specific purposes, whether the purpose of the petitioner and his men can be fit in.11
for which the recent case of R.Sasikumar case needs to be emphasized. It was held under Clause
(d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 28 of the Act, the tourism has also been mentioned as one of
the purposes and therefore, this Court feels that, insofar as the plea of the petitioner is
concerned, for the purpose of visiting the temple, where according to them, their community
deity is located, their plea can very well be considered by the respondents.
(9) It is humbly submitted before the Court in a case where at least in some years in the recent
past, permission needs to be obtained under Sec. 28 for worshipping the deity and casts such
obligation on CWW to permit it there exists a legitimate expectation of the people from public
authority to fulfil the duty deriving the power from substantive part of the principle. The
substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made that a benefit of a substantive
9
Madras City Wine Merchants’ Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 5 SCC 509.
10
Clarification.
11
R.Sasikumar v. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar & Ors. W.P.(MD)No.17475 of
2021.
20 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit that it will be continued
[A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the doctrine of
proportionality making it unreasonable & untenable.
(10) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that CWW’s order fails to qualify the test
of proportionality. In R v Oakes13, CJ. of the Canadian Supreme Court has observed that there
are three important components of the proportionality test which were also cited in the case of
Om Kumar v UOI14 and further in Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors.15
The components are - Firstly, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the
objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations.
Concisely, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Secondly, the means, must not
only be rationally connected to the objective in the first sense, but should impair as little as
possible the right to freedom in question. Thirdly, there must be 'proportionality' between the
(11) In the present case, CWW’s order did not touch upon the matter more than on a superficial
level. According to the facts & circumstances, it is illogical & whimsical on the part of CWW
to grant such an order i.e., blanket prohibition of pilgrimages without any consideration or
regard for the Vennite or Venna faith. It is urged before the court that complete prohibition is
not the solution comprising of a sensitive issue. As this will ultimately lead to a complete
shutdown of each and every activity which comes in the way of Protected Area(s). An approach
that balances both i.e., wildlife & human needs to be adopted. It is not permissible to use a
12
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727.
13
R v. Oakes (1986) 26 DLR 2001
14
Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
15
Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors, W.P. (C) No. 3323.
21 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
“sledgehammer to crack a nut”. As has been said many a time; “where paring knife suffices,
(12) . Administrative action in India affecting fundamental freedoms has always been tested on
the anvil of 'proportionality' in the last fifty years 17 .“Proportionality” involves “balancing test”
and “necessity test”. Whereas the former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive onerous
considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires infringement of human rights to the least
restrictive alternative.18 Therefore, it is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court there was no
recourse to neither test. This administrative action of CWW has led to violation of fundamental
rights
(13) In cases where if the concerned statute permitted the administrative authorities to exercise
arises whether a wrong choice is made by the administrator for imposing restriction or whether
the administrator has not properly balanced the fundamental right and the need for the
restriction or whether he has imposed the least of the restrictions or the reasonable quantum of
restriction etc. In such cases, the administrative action in our country, in our view, has to be
tested on the principle of 'proportionality', just as it is done in the case of the main legislation.19
(14) It is humbly requested to the Hon’ble Court wherein considering the Amendment Act the
CWW’ order did not succeed in qualifying the test i.e., not acting arbitrarily or whimsically
and acting in a fair, reasonable and objective manner without taking into account any
extraneous consideration, following the principles of natural justice, & taking a decision by
16
Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees
Assn. (2007) 4 SCC 669.
17
Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
18
Supra note 15.
19
Supra note 16.
22 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
due application of mind and by recording reasons and taking rational decision20 it has resulted
(15) The Counsel most humbly submits that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional because
firstly, [B.1] It is violative of Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution. Secondly, [B.2] It is violative
of Art. 26(b) of the Indian Constitution. Thirdly, [B.3] tumbling apart of Amendment Act under
Art. 14 of the Indian & lastly, [B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right is
(16) If the instant matter is booked in strait-jacket formula, it would prove to be fatal to the
matter before us is not simply about implementation of an Amendment Act which causes
inconvenience to people at the behest of some species. The issue before us is larger than that.
It is about religion. A discord about the same which has led to new interpretations as their
(17) Religion has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those
profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual being. It prescribes rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion. 23
It is
humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that one such religion is, Venna faith, primarily
found near the Vels Forest,.24 Venna has a following of tens of thousands localised to Sault.
20
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223.
21
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
22
Kanika Sharma, Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala Judgment NLIU LR 2, 298, (2019).
23
Davie v. Benson 133 US 333.
24
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
23 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
Yussef Dayes (“YD”) is considered as the deity of the Venna faith. The mythology of YD is
written in a holy book called the Vennology, written around 2000 years ago.
(18) Now, the crucial point here is that religion will form its foundational basis on some
religious practice & which will be protected under Art. 25. Article 25(1)25 states that the essence
of the test of essential religious practice has been evolved to protect right to freely profess,
practise & propagate the religion. The test of essential religious practices is applied in almost
every case where the court is to decide between the interests of the society and the freedom of
religion.26 As explained in the case of Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz27, “The
essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded and essential
practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belief. It is upon the
(19) The contention before this Hon’ble Court is to repute the pilgrimage to be an essential
religious practice. It is imperative upon the Court because pilgrimage, being as essential
religious practice, is protected under Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution & violation of the same
“…...the protection under Article 25 and 26 extend a guarantee for rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion and as to what really
constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts
with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion.”
(20) To substantiate, there is scriptural evidence of the same in Chapter I & Chapter II of
with each other leads to a conclusion invariably-(a) belief in YD deity and taking a pilgrimage
25
INDIAN CONST, art. 25 cl. 1.
26
Supra note 2.
27
Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz (2016) 16 SCC 788.
28
N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106.
24 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
to worship the deity forms the very crux and foundation of the Venna faith. (b) Unhindered
practice and a change in the part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the
(21) Further substantiating, material placed before the Court of holy book is enough to extend
the application of Art. 25 and assume it to be an integral part of religion. C.N. Eswara Iyer v.
case those practices are found to be essential and integral parts of their religion, the
Constitutional protection would extend to those practices. There should be materials placed
before the Court to demonstrate that a particular practice has attained the character of an
(22) To draw conclusion, an Amendment Act vis-à-vis Sec. 27(1A) & 27(1B) prohibiting a
protected essential religious practice under Art. 25 is violative of fundamental right guaranteed
under the Indian Constitution. It is submitted that an amendment should not alter the basic
structure of the Constitution or be repugnant to the objectives set out in the Preamble 32 and
cannot be exercised to make the Constitution unidentifiable by altering its basic concept
(23) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that under Art. 26(b) of the Indian
29
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5 J) v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1.
30
Ibid.
31
C.N. Eswara Iyer v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad
157.
32
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
33
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiarof Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC
282.
25 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
matters of religion which in this case. Therefore, Petitioners being the religious denomination
in this case, the Vennite Board. The Vennite Board shall have the right- to manage its own
(24) The words ‘religious denomination’ in Art. 26 of the Constitution must take their colour
from the word. It was held in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranan Avadhuta v. Commr. Of
individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their
spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith;35 common organisation, and designation by
distinctive name.36 A mere satisfaction of three conditions can be evidently confirmed from the
(25) In the case of K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others,37&
Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E.38 “When the question arises as to
whether or not a temple has been dedicated to a particular sect, the performance of the worship,
of the idol in accordance with the rites of the sect for whose benefit it was held might be treated
enough to satisfy the autonomy that needs to be granted to the Vennite Board for managing
their religious affairs. There is peculiarity in worshiping the idol “YD” and is uncommon to all
other sects, which was taken as a determining factor in another case as well.39
(26) From the time immemorial the said lands are treated as part and parcel of the Petitioner
& there is conclusively a complete dedication of the same in favour. In State of Tamil Nadu v.
34
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. Of Police (1983) 4 SCC 522.
35
Muthia Asari v. Madasami Asari (1965) 2 Mad LJ 220.
36
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51.
37
K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others 1972 T.L.N.J. 404.
38
Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E. 1972 T.L.N.J. 443.
39
Assistant Commsnr., H.R. & C.E. Salem, etc., v. Nattamai K.S. Ellappa 1987 SCC OnLine Mad 30.
26 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil,40, the court recognised the right of the Temple over Alagar
Hills as it had there had been long and continuous possession of the same. The YD Temple is
also in the long and continuous possession of the Vennites41and cannot be taken away. Applying
the Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal42 case to the present case, the Supreme court
allowed a right to passage to the temple through the reserved forest. In the present case, there
is a right over the YD temple by the Vennites as a matter of prolonged enjoyment of the property
and denying them entry into the temple will be a serious violation of their rights.
(27) It is humbly submitted before the Court of law that the law always frowns on un-canalised
and unfettered discretion conferred on any instrumentality of the State.43A law conferring
such power can be exercised arbitrarily so as to discriminate between persons and things
(28) Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of
procedure.45 It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before law and the
equal protection of the laws,46 Laws apply equally to all persons equally circumstanced.47
Article 1448 forbids class legislation; Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following
two tests:(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible
differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped
40
State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil (2020) 18 SCC 443.
41
Clarification.
42
Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal AIR 1955 SC 228.
43
Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288; Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM (PJ) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,
(2005) 7 SCC 764.
44
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 6th ed., 2010).
45
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613.
46
Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752.
47
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
48
INDIAN CONST., art. 14.
27 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
together in the class from others left out of it. (2) The differentia adopted as the basis of
classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved
(29) The impugned amendment act is not based on any intelligible differentia as the Act is
discriminatory prima facie. The differentia used by the Government is to protect the Ezrat
leopards has no basis because Section 2849 provides for circumstances for grant to any person
a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary namely: — (a) investigation or study of wild life and
purposes ancillary or incidental thereto; (b) photography; (c) scientific research; (d) tourism;
(e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary. Section 27(1)(A)50
of the present amendment act prohibits any pilgrim from entering the sanctuary. In R. Saikumar
v. Wildlife Warden51 the court took note that “pilgrimage cannot be separated from tourism”.
(30) It is most humbly submitted that the differentia which is the basis of the classification and
the Amendment are distinct things and there must be a nexus between them.52 To attract Article
14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation rests on a rational basis with
regards to the object which the Legislature has in view while making the law in question.53 The
Vennites had been undertaking pilgrimages to the YD temple for many years prior to the Vels
Forest being declared a ‘sanctuary’. Moreover, there is no official data recording any instances
of human-wildlife conflict between the Vennites and the Ezrat Leopard,54 prior to 2021. The
49
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, § 28, No. 53, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India).
50
The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022, § 27(1)(A).
51
Supra note 11.
52
In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380.
53
Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602.
54
Moot Proposition, ¶ 9.
28 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
data mentioned after 2021 was due to “self-defense”.55 It was not taken into consideration that
the vulnerable group is the human in the present case as compared to the leopard.
(31) In the light of argument that the said Act does not uphold the test of reasonable
classification and nexus with the object of the Act, and violates the spirit of Article 14.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Amendment Act should be
struck down as unconstitutional as violative of Art. 25, 26 & 14 of the Indian Constitution.
[B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right by the constituent assembly and
internationally
(32) Firstly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Humar Rights56 declares the freedom of
religion in the following terms: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone
or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practicing, worship and observance.” In order to give effect to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights the member states of the United Nations adopted the following
two covenants in 1966: (1) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 1857 of the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights ensures the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article
recognized the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. in 1992 the General
55
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
56
A18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
57
A18, Covenant on civil and political rights.
58
A 5, Article 5(d)(vii) of the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1966).
29 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
Assembly of the United Nations reaffirmed the rights of minorities to enjoy their own culture,
(33) The Republic of Ireland, by its Constitution adopted in 1937, devotes one Article
exclusively for religion. It reads: “Art 44: (1) The State acknowledges that the homage of public
worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and
honour religion. The concept of religious freedom as incorporated in Articles 25 and 26 of our
Constitution was largely based upon Article 44(2) of the Irish Constitution. Also, applying the
constituent assembly debates in the present case the freedom to propagate religion includes
(34) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the measures the State needs to
employ to mitigate the issues arising from pilgrimages into the wildlife sanctuary are firstly,
[C.1] implement immediate precautionary measure (pre & post harmful events). Secondly,
[C.2] adopting the green pilgrimage model & lastly, [C.3] compliance with strategies in
(35) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court Conflict between humans and wildlife –
which takes many forms and varies greatly in intensity – is one of the most serious threats to
India’s wildlife. It is essential, therefore, to place instances of conflict within a wider context
of an unresponsive legal/administrative climate.60 In 2021 and 2022, both years there were
59
Article 2 of the Declaration on the Right of Persons belonging to Religious nd linguistic Minorities.
60
Nidhi Gureja, Ashok Kumar and Suraj Saigal, Human-Wildlife Conflict in India, Prepared for NBSAP
https://kalpavriksh.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Human-wildlife-Conflicts-January-.2003.pdf.
30 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
numerous instances of conflict between the Vennites and the Ezrat Leopard61 to which State
paid no attention to. The unresponsiveness of administration has led to such ramifications that
(36) The mandate that “nothing operates in a vacuum” is especially applicable to managing
human–wildlife conflicts.62 The State needs to take immediate action with vigil to mitigate the
issues arising out the pilgrimage as to resolve the conflicts. As reiterated in the case of Rural
Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P.63, the Apex Court held that the Governments should
exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between the
preservation and utilisation of natural resources i.e., utilization of the Vels Forest for conducting
pilgrimage.
(37) In lieu of such, a situation could arise when the Central Government would have to
balance the conflicting interests of development and ecology and grant permission to use
forests for non-forest purposes; under the WPA, there is no question of any such balancing64.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that for the Pilgrimage to be conducted in a
safe & sound manner without any harm to the habitat of the Ezrat Leopard65 a balancing is
believe in alternate efficacious remedies for the welfare of both parties instead of the solution
(38) An alternative solution to prevent such situation with the harmonious dwelling of Humans
and animals. An effective precautionary measure that can be employed by the State reasonably
to mitigate the issues arising out the pilgrimages into the Wildlife Sanctuary will be firstly, (a)
61
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
62
Erry A. M Essmer, Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA, Human–Wildlife Conflicts 3(1):10–17, Spring 2009 Commentary, Human–wildlife
conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities.
63
Rural Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1985 AIR 675.
64
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392.
65
Moot Proposition, ¶ 8.
31 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
Deployment of Forest Staff & Forest Staff should be provided with firearms (b) a wildlife crime
cell (called Special Ezrat Leopard Special Task Force) should be established66 (c) Wildlife and
other specific training programmes may be organized for the field staff67 (d) it makes provision
for establishing dedicated control rooms, toll free numbers, and other departmental committees
to look into this conflict and provide recommendations for improvement (e) Lastly, using of
latest GPS technology powered collars68 for Ezrat Leopard taking pro-active role in a balanced
(39) Secondly, The State Forest Departments here could have undertaken all the practical
such as barbed wire fences, solar-powered electric fences, bio-fencing using cactus, and
boundary walls, amongst other things, to prevent the entry of wild animals69crossing the
animals70could support in mitigating the issue of conducting pilgrims into the Wildlife
Sanctuary.
(40) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble taking reference from the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (Normative Standards for Tourism activities and Project Tiger)
mishappening such guidelines need to be followed to dial-down the problem i.e. (a) ensuring
uniform, timely compensation for human deaths due to wild animals (b) procurement and
equipment, rescue vehicles and drugs.71 In this dynamic environment the success of mitigation
66
Chandrabhal Singh vi. Union of India D.B. Civil W.P. No. 2627 of 2019.
67
Shri B.C. Choudhury, Former Faculty, WII Dr. Abhijit Das, Scientist-D, WII.
68
Supra note 8.
69
Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5116.
70
National Tiger Conservation Authority (Normative Standards for Tourism activities and Project Tiger)
Guidelines, 2012.
71
Ibid.
32 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
action will rest mainly on the ability of the decision-makers and wildlife managers to recognise,
embrace, and incorporate differing stakeholder values, attitudes, and beliefs 72 working out a
(41) It is humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that avoidance of such an issue in the
near future for conducting the pilgrimage into the Wildlife Sanctuary can be done through
taking precautionary measures as mentioned above & in consonance with setting the trend for
Green Religious Pilgrimage Model. Before the Hon’ble Court is presented the best possible
solution that will ease the pressure allowing Petitioners to conduct Pilgrimage in a peaceful
manner. It will not only help in conducting the Pilgrimage smoothly but also NOT at the cost
(42) Green Pilgrimage model themes around adequate responsibility on man.73 It was a
successful model initiated in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, located in the Western
Ghats biodiversity hotspot in Tamil Nadu State. Green Pilgrimage integrates religious actors
into the model identifying the main threat for instance (a) Water Pollution (b) Waste and
Sanitation (c) Disturbance to Wildlife74. This model led to the development of practical
strategies to mitigate negative impacts on the Reserve, many of which have been adopted by
the Forest Department and other stakeholders. As a result of these efforts, observers and the
media lauded the 2017 pilgrimage festival as the greenest ever.75 The Aadi Amavasai festival
72
Supra note 3.
73
U.N. International Conference on Human Environment, (June 5-16-1972.
74
Elkin, C., Rattan, S., Devy, S., Ganesh, T. (2019)., Case study on ARC’s green pilgrimage work in Indian
protected areas. Available online: http://www.routledge.com/ ISBN:978-1-138-09118-4
75
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment 2017; The Hindu July 2017.
33 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
passed off peacefully at the Sorimuthu Ayyanar Temple inside Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger
Reserve (KMTR), thanks to the meticulous measures taken by the official machinery 76
these Green Pilgrimage Model gives us the long-term solution which could prove to be fruitful
to the wildlife & human community as well at hand but it is also submitted with this that the
proposed solutions are not exhaustive, and new solutions could be sought with the advent of
better research and collaboration with scientific bodies and experts in the field. The resort to
an alternative remedy though might seem complex at the outlay of it will prove to be a
promising solution in the long run and will ensure smooth development of continuing pilgrims
(44) The International Convention has time and again brought forth the issue of human-wildlife
governments.77 Taking cues from international policies and incorporating them in the national
Human-wildlife conflict management policy must be the way forward wherein the State must
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation, which leads to Human-
wildlife conflict78 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that timely implementation
of such management policy with due respect to international policies will mitigate the issue at
76
Setting the trend for green religious tourism. The Hindu, [Online].://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-
national/tptamilnadu/setting-the-trend-for-green-religious tourism/article19362254.ece (Accessed November
2017).
77
E Gross et. al., A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence, WWF, GLAND, SWITZERLAND,
(2021).
78
Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals, Civil Appeal Nos. 3438-
3439 of 2020.
34 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
(45) The UNFCCC along with CBD and the UNCCD79, attempts to improve human-wildlife.
The proposed IUCN SSC task force strategies, which are to be tabled in 2023 for mitigation of
human-wildlife conflict can be used in coming times as a directive for domestic policies. It was
established in the year 2016, this Task Force on human-wildlife conflict acts as an advisory
body on matters of wildlife conflict and focuses on interdisciplinary approaches to tackle with
the conflict. 80
(46) In lieu of such proposed solutions, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that
we as petitioners & society keep in mind that animals are incapable of claiming the rights on
their own. Therefore, it falls incumbent upon the citizens to take this duty as a responsibility
providing for a check on the prevention of harmful activities. To sum up, prevention can be
accomplished through effective law enforcement, early warning systems, and policy can be
framed in a way that takes into account both local conditions and international laws.81
(47) It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Art.
32 of the Constitution of India. Art. 32(2)82 confers power on this Court in its widest terms by
stating, "it is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs", but "it is much wider and
includes within its matrix power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be
appropriate for enforcement of the Fundamental Right in question".83 Moreover, the direction
79
Abhisst K Thaker & Madhuri Parikh, The Dusk of Wildlife and the Dawn of Conflict in India: A Legal
Monograph, (2021) 11 GJLDP (October) 73.
80
S. Leslie et. al., Human Wildlife Conflict mitigation: Lessons learned from global compensation and insurance
schemes, Annex Report, Hwc Safe Series, Wwf Tigers Alive, 11 (2019),
https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_human_wildlife_conflict_mitigation_annex.pdf.
81
Ibid.
82
Supra note 1.
83
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725, 733
35 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
that shall be issued by this court u/a 3284 shall have the force of law. 85 In light of the same, it
is humbly pleaded that this Hon'ble Court may issue the directions mentioned below in nature
of directing the State to provide relief against the breach of fundamental rights already
(48) It is humbly requested to the SC that it should be directing the Central government to
formulate guidelines87 for the entry of pilgrims into the protected areas with an aim of balancing
the conflicting interests88, whilst safeguarding the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It is
undeniable that only the least restrictive measure can be resorted to by the State, taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances89 and the authorities must assess the existence of any
alternative mechanism in furtherance of the goal. In the past, guidelines have been issued by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests for Ecotourism in and around Protected Areas.90
Along the same lines, the state may be directed to issue similar guidelines for planning,
(49) In furtherance of the same, directing the State of Nerija to formulate a set of guidelines-
State-Level Eco pilgrimage Strategy, which may cover aspects including, but not restricted to,
with a sound environmental design, educating the locals and deployment of trained personnel
inside the protected areas during the pilgrimage period, adequate monitoring and evaluation of
84
Supra note 1.
85
State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, (1985) 1 SCC 317; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC
655;Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P.) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622; Dinesh Trivedi, M.P.
v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 .
86
MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shram-Oleum Gas), (1978) 1 SCC 161.
87
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241.
88
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392.
89
Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 637.
90
Guidelines For Ecotourism In And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 2011
Http://Www.Indiaenvironmentportal.Org.In/Files/Guidelines%20for%20ecotourism.Pdf.
36 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
the impact of eco-pilgrimage. The state may also be directed to take reference from the
(50) The State of Nerija may be directed to formulate an Eco-Pilgrimage Plan (EPP)91 in
A. Identifying the YD Temple inside Protected Areas as ‘sacred groves’ with strict building
and expansion controls, in accordance with the Forest Conservation Act, 198092 and the
B. Identify (using GPS) and monitor the ecologically sensitive areas surrounding PAs, in
C. Assess carrying capacity of the Protected Area, at three levels: physical, real and
D. Set a ceiling level on number of pilgrims allowed to enter a Protected Area at any given
community benefit-sharing.
As an interim relief, directing the Chief Wildlife Warden to grant entry permission to the
91
Guidelines For Ecotourism in And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 2011
Http://Www.Indiaenvironmentportal.Org.In/Files/Guidelines%20for%20ecotourism.Pdf.
92
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India).
93
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
94
M.E. Geores,, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001.
37 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
(51) It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that the Present Writ of Mandamus filed by
Vennite Board is maintainable on the grounds, firstly, [E.1] that there has been a gross violation
of fundamental rights of Vennites under Art. 25,26 & 29 which brings them to Supreme Court.
Secondly, [E.2] that there is no alternative remedy suiting to the situation except for
[E.1] That there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights of the Vennites.
(52) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in case of gross violation of
fundamental rights of citizens, the citizens have the right to recourse under Art. 3295 of the
Indian Constitution. From the present facts & circumstances, it can be made out that by
completely prohibiting the Vennites from conducting their pilgrimage which is their essential
religious practice under Art. 25 prohibiting them from managing their religious affairs under
Art. 26 & lastly devoicing them from protecting their minority status under Art. 29 of the Sault
Constitution is utter violation of the fundamental rights which the solemn book of Constitution
aims to protect.
(53) It is highlighted before the Court that the right to take proceedings by original petition
straight in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights is guaranteed in
Art. 32 96
& in itself is a fundamental right. The fundamental right to move this Court can,
therefore, be properly described as the corner-stone of the democratic structure raised by the
Constitution. It is natural that this Court should regard itself ‘as the protector and guarantor of
fundamental rights’ and should declare that ‘it cannot, consistently with the responsibility laid
95
Supra note 1.
96
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996,999.
38 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such
rights.’97
(54) In the case of Charles Sobraj v. Central Jail,98 the Court held that whenever the
fundamental rights are flouted or legislative protection ignored to any citizens’ prejudice, the
Court will give appropriate relief. The Court’s writ will run breaking through stone walls and
iron bars to right the wrong and restore the rule of law99. The right conferred in Art. 32 being a
fundamental right cannot be abrogated, abridged or taken away by an Act of the legislature. It
has accordingly been held that a law which has the effect of retarding the assertion or
(55) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the existence of an alternative
remedy is no bar to the grant of remedy under Art. 32.101 In cases involving the breach of
fundamental rights, even under Art. 226, the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground
alternative remedy should not hold a bar in resolving the issue at hand which requires Supreme
Courts’s assistance in declaring an Amendment Act unconstitutional & declaring Chief Wildlife
Warden’s order Arbitrary & only possible under the hand of SC. As a petitioner’s challenge
under Art. 32 extends not only to the validity of a law but also to an executive order or action
97
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124.
98
Charles Sobraj v. Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104.
99
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
100
Supra_note 4.
101
Supra note 98.
102
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
39 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, may the Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold, adjudge, and declare that:
the issues arising out of the pilgrimage into the Wildlife Sanctuary.
40 | P a g e