Moot Problem 1

On August 21, 2014 the appellants, David as the first appellant and Mohan Purohit as the second
appellant, approached the Supreme Court and an order was sought inter alia, Suspension of the
punishment of the convicts and remand back the case to the Juvenile Board. Brief history of the
case is that David is a 17 years old boy who is an orphan being brought up at Bosconet Eureka, A
government Funded Orphanage in the vicinity of District Guradom, Waldhiem State, in the
Republic of Eureka. Albeit the Bosconet Eureka was controlled and administered by the
government of Eureka but it was maintained by Mr. K. Raju. David was very stoic and introvert
kind of child since he was an orphan and was brought up at an orphanage where he has never been
found in the company of studious orphans. On March 13, 2014, when only David and Mohan
Purohit, 15 years old son of Mr. K. Raju were there in the Bosconet Eureka with security guards
only, they planned to visit an exhibition organized by some NGO in nearby village. Since the
Warden and other authorities were not physically present at the Bosconet Eureka and couldn't have
been contacted, the security guard refused them to go outside. MohanPurohit being very shrewd
and crook, persuaded David to come along and climb the wall of Bosconet Eureka and
accompanies him for the exhibition. Both without coming into the notice of the security guard
climbed the wall and ran away. In the exhibition MohanPurohit had a quibble with a child of his
peer named Mohan (son of a wellknown businessman) as both of them wanted to buy the same toy
gun. When the quibble turned into a quarrel and eventually into a fight, David accompanied Mohan
Purohit and took an iron rod and aggressively strike it on the head of Mohan, resulting which boy
got fainted Mohan Purohit understanding the circumstances fled from that place immediately but
David was caught by the public as he kept standing there. He was thereafter given to the police and
police arrested him under the charge of murder and Mohan was taken to a nearby Civil Hospital.
After two days Mohan succumbed to head injury. Mohan Purohit was also arrested after three days
of the death of Mohan from the same Child Care Home. Medical evidence was given that Mohan
received head injury along with permanent dislocation of jaw and the head injury was sufficient
enough to cause death of a person of that age, i.e.; 18 years in ordinary course of nature. On 08
June, 2014 the Juvenile Board found David to be well aware of the circumstances and
consequences of his act and therefore commit his case to Sessions Court finding him capax of
committing an offence. Both of them were tried separately U/s 304/326 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) i.e.; David was tried by Sessions Court, Guradom
and Mohan Purohit was tried by Juvenile Board, Guradom. David submitted to the court that the
Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, David being Juvenile and his case should be remanded
back to Juvenile Board but his submission was rejected due to insufficiency of the evidence of age.
Juvenile Board, Guradom on 30 July, 2014 found Mohan Purohit guilty U/s 304/326 read with 34
of the IPC, 1860 and directed him to be sent to Special Home for a maximum period of one and
half years.
Later on that day an appeal seeking suspension of the sentence was preferred in the Court of
Session against the judgement and order passed by Juvenile Board Committee. Session Court
dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal was not maintainable as the Juvenile Board had
already proved the gravity of the case beyond reasonable doubts based on circumstantial and
medical evidence and no other question of law was raised by the appellant in the said appeal. A
1
petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed in the High Court by
David seeking remanding back of the case to the Juvenile board since Juvenile board had erred to
decide the case due to insufficiency of evidence and Sessions Court had been causing the abuse of
process of Law as it has no jurisdiction to try the case, accused being a minor. Another petition was
filed by MohanPurohit for Review of the order of the Court of Session Court. High court dismissed
both the petitions; on the ground of convict being capax of committing the offence and that the
conduct of the accused reflects intention to commit the crime in case of David and on the ground
that petition lack merits in the case of MohanPurohit. Both have now filed an appeal in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Eureka against the orders of the High Court. Supreme Court has now clubbed
both the appeals and has decided to hear the same. Argue the case from both the sides, i.e.;
Appellant and Respondents with a title of David and Anr. versus State of Waldhiem, David as
appellant No.1 and UjjwalPurohit as Appellant No.2.
Issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Eureka are as follows:
1. Whether the case of the appellant no.1 is liable to be remanded back to the Juvenile
Board Committee or not?
2. Whether the punishment of the appellant no.2 be suspended or not? *teams have however
liberty to frame and argue on further issues.

** The Legislations having the force of Law in the territories of Union of India shall be considered
the same as the Laws in force in The Republic of Eureka.

2
 MOOT PROBLEM 2

1. The Republic of Bharat is extremely diverse and has an enormous population size. In spite
of a stark digital divide persisting in the country, cheap access to internet has enabled the
citizens of Bharat [across all ages]to use and spend a major chunk of their daily time using
the internet and social media.
2. Where App is one of the most prominent online-messaging applications used in Bharat. In
fact, Bharat has a greater number of WhereApp users than any other country with an active
monthly user base of 390 million. Due to its immense popularity, WhereApp has time and
again gathered controversy for its role in several incidents of mob lynching, due to spread
of fake news and misinformation.
3. One of the most important features of WhereApp is the use of end- to-end encryption
technology, which ensures complete privacy of its user’s and helps in keeping the exchange
of messages between two or more people secure and private. Bharat’s Ministry of
Technology(“MoT”) in exercise of the powers conferred under the appropriate sections of
its Information Technology Act, enacted the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 (“IT Rules”) in May 2022. Soon
after the enactment, the IT Rules received a severe backlash due to its mandate of requiring
online-communication applications like WhereApp to help in the identification of “first-
originator” of information after receiving appropriate orders.
4. Ms Hermoine, a social activist immediately approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Bharat, citing various provisions of the IT Rules “problematic for people’s privacy”.
WhereApp also released an official statement, clearly highlighting that adherence to the
mandate under IT Rules will lead to a compromise in people’s right to free speech and
privacy. MoT responded and strongly rebutted this statement and said- “WhereApp’s
statement is an attempt to dictate terms to the world’s largest democracy. Through its
actions and deliberate defiance, WhereApp seeks to undermine Bharat’s legal system.
Furthermore, WhereApp is refusing to comply with the very regulations in the intermediary
guidelines on the basis of which it claims safe harbor protection from any criminal liability
in Bharat.”
3
 5. While the IT Rules debate was on going, the State of Bharat enacted their new
Telecommunications Act [hereinafter, “The Act”] with an aim to consolidate and amend the
laws governing provision, development, expansion and operation of telecommunication
services, telecommunication networks and telecommunication infrastructure and
assignment of spectrum, etc. There was a lot of hue and cry by digital rights organizations
and non-profit organizations concerning Section24(2)of The Act which states:

On the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of the public safety, the Central
Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central
or a State Government, may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, in the interest of
the sovereignty, integrity or security of Bharat, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
or preventing incitement to an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order:
Direct that any message or class of messages, to or from any person or class of persons, or relating
to any particular subject, brought for transmission by, or transmitted or received by any
telecommunication services or telecommunication network, shall not be transmitted, or shall be
intercepted or detained or disclosed to the officer mentioned in such order;
Direct that communications or class of communications to or from any person or class of persons,
or relating to any particular subject, transmitted or received by any telecommunication network
shall be suspended.
6. The Act which aims to unify and repeal several old statutes, now explicitly broadened the
definition of “telecommunication services”, and included Over-the-top (OTT) and internet-
based communication services as well.
7. Mr Harry, Founder of Humara Internet Foundation, working towards protecting digital
rights of the citizens, filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharat citing
Section 24(2) of The Actasun constitutional in its present form. Mr Harry during an address
to a media house said- “The new Telecommunications Act is an attack on end-to-end
encryption and the protection of fundamental rights of people and miserably fails to adhere
to the internationally recognized privacy principles endorsed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of
Bharat in its landmark judgment.” His stand garnered support from a wealth of digital rights
organizations and people, and soon became a hot topic of discussion for the prime-time
debates.
8. Responding to the statement made by Mr Harry, the Department of Telecommunications
(“DoT”) states-“Evidence suggests that the use of Darknet and end-to-endencrypted
messaging platforms have become a haven for terrorists. Therefore, we need to have strong
measures in place for effective surveillance and tracking of such anti-social elements. The
government is not asking for access through an unsecured backdoor but instead is
requesting for the digital equivalen to fasecured fortified ‘frontdoor’ with locks and bars.”
9. Since Ms Hermoine’s petition was sub-judice, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that
both the petitions involved similar set of question of facts and question of laws and
4
 therefore clubbed the petitions for a combined hearing on November 06, 2022. The Hon’ble
Court framed the following issues and directed that unless compelling reasons are shown no
further issues shall be taken up for hearing.

 Whether the petitions under Article 32 maintainable?

 Whether the relevant provisions made under IT Rules and Telecommunications Act, ultra
vires to the Constitution of Bharat?

 Whether the provisions under the IT Rules and Telecommunications Act are
incommensurate with the Government of Bharat’s policy on Telecommunications and
Information Technology?

NOTES:
All names, characters, places and incidents above are entirely fictional with resemblance to any
real-life equivalent being coincidental at best, mistaken at worst. Republic of Bharat is a country
with a Constitution and laws in pari material with that of Republic of India.

5
 Moot Problem 3

1. Besakih is a Hill located in the Balinese District of the State of West Java of Country
Indonesiana, and the site of the most important Hindu temple dedicated to presiding Deity
Ayyappan Sannidhanam. Besakih Temple has its own “Purana” which stated that He is an
“Eternal Celibate.” For the Purpose of Law He is considered a Juristic Person. The main
peculiarity about Besakih is that the near totality of its pilgrims are men. As a consequence, the
temple and its premises are configured as an all-male space, and the pilgrimage is configured as
a masculinity-defining practice.
2. Lord Ayyappan’s believers considered that to restrict a female between 10 to 50 Years (women
in fertile age) from accessing the temple at any point in time is an “Essential Religion Practice”.
3. In 1965, the State of West Java passed an Act and allowed discriminatory access if mandated
by religious custom. This resulted in legal backing to a discriminatory practice which was
earlier followed as a custom.
4. On 24-9-1990 a Public Interest Litigation was filed by an elderly male devotee before the State
that few young women were seen trekking Besakih Hills and offering prayers at the Besakih
Shrine. It was alleged in the PIL
a. That women performing prayers at Besakih is contrary to the customs and usages followed
by the temple.
b. That special treatment is being given to wives of V.I.Ps visiting the temple as they are
allowed to worship in the temple which is banned.
c. It also specify an instance of the first rice-feeding ceremony of the granddaughter of the
former Commissioner (Female) conducted at Besakih Temple in the presence of her daughter,
the mother of the child, and other relatives including other women, attached with a photograph
which appeared in the Jakarta Newspaper dated 19-8-1990.

6
5. In 1991, the West Java High Court, endorsed the ban imposed by the Temple Board to prevent
women (aged 10-50 years) to trek the hill and enter the shrine, upon the following
considerations-  it existed from time immemorial, the prohibition was an integral part of the
Hindu religion;  it did not violate the Constitutional Principles of non-discrimination (Art. 15),
Freedom of Religion (Art.25) and Right of religious denominations to manage their religious
affairs (Art. 26),  The 1965 Act Passed by the West Java State.
6. According to the West Java High Court, It was not discriminatory, since it concerned not all
women as a group, but just a part of them (i.e. age between 10- 50). 7. In 2005 some women
started raising their voice against this discriminatory practice. They even went to the temple to
worship, but were threatened and irated with dire consequences if they tried to surpass the
custom.
7. 8. In 2006, a Women NGO named SERUNI, presented a petition in The Supreme Court of
Indonesiana to lift the ban and argued that the practice was a violation of their Constitutional
Rights and questioned the validity of provisions of the West Java Act, 1965. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has decided to hear the petition on issues as outlined below:-
1. Whether this exclusionary practice amounts to “discrimination”, thereby resulting in
violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution?
2. Whether such practice of excluding women constitutes an “Essential Religious Practice”
and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of
right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion?
3. Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character, if so, is it permissible on the part
of a „religious denomination‟ managed by a statutory board and financed under the
Constitution out of the Consolidated Fund of West Java to indulge in such practices
violating constitutional principles/morality?
4. Whether provisions of the West Java Act, 1965 permits „religious denomination‟ to ban
entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years?
5. Whether Rules of the West Java Act, 1965 is ultra vires the West Java Act, 1965 and, if
treated intra vires, whether it will be violative of provisions of the Constitution?” Argue the
Case from both sides.

Note:- All the Statutes Should be used for the preparation of the Memorial should be based on
Indian Statutes

7
1. West Java Act, 1965 as Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules Act, 1965

2. Constitution of Indonesian as The Constitution of India, 1950 3. All other relevant laws

8
 Moot Problem 4

In the village of Mylapore in the State Ramil Wadu there is an eminent businessman turned
politician Rahul Raghuvanshi. He has been elected to Ramil Wadu assembly successfully 3
consecutive times. Rahul a management graduate from Annamalai University was an active
student in Youth Politics. He was The President of Janata Morcha Youth wing and thereafter he
joined Janata Morcha, he held several posts within the party and at a young age of 31 became
MLA. Rahul is a 2nd generation politician and son of renowned industrialist Bhargav
Raghuvanshi, Shri Raghav Raghuvanshi has been a 2 times MLA and 3 times MP from
Mylapore constituency, he also held the portfolio of Minister for Urban Development when
Janata Morcha was in power in the country .Rahul Raghuvanshi being an Industrialist owned
several factories which had huge manpower and Trade unions with political affiliation. Rahul
after procuring a degree in management from Annamalai University chose to pursue his family
business, in the course of his business he had to grapple with many problems relating to
workforce such as absenteeism, low productivity, and acrimonious disputes as the trade unions
had differences within themselves. A strike broke out in Mr. Raghuvanshi’s factory on account
of denial of bonus and incentives. There was labour unrest, sloganeering and chaos. The Trade
Union Leader Babu Shankar was affiliated to Samaj Saghatan the party which was in the
opposition and arch rival of Janata Morcha the Party in power.

Rahul Raghuvanshi was in a fix and catch 22 situation as the labourers besieged the bunglow of
Rahul Raghuvanshi at the behest of Babu Shankar on account of political rivalry there was wide
media coverage of the issue. On the 2nd February, 2019 situation was extremely turbulent hence
the local police imposed Section 144 of Cr.PC and also detained a few labourers U/S 151 of
Cr.PC. The detention of many labourers exceeded the prescribed time ordained by Cr.PC. As
Rahul Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the agitation, the family member of
a worker filed a Habeas Corpus petition on 6th February, 2019 Under Article 226 and 227 of
Shennai High Court at Ramil Wadu challenging the detention of several workers and also
claimed compensation. The Shennai Bench consisting of Chief justice allowed the petition and
gave relief to the prayers of the petitioners and also awarded compensation. The Trade Union
leader Babu Shankar urged

9
the leader of opposition in Ramil Wadu assembly to broach a debate on Rahul Raghuvanshi’s
undue influence and causing loss to poor labourers. This led to furor in the Assembly demanding
resignation of Rahul Raghuvanshi was the post of standing committee for Education and
Environment. Rahul Raghuvanshi did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protest
marches across the city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home minister tried to
control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the course of this chaos
Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 16th February 2019 in
the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj Sanghtans as ‘wild creatures’ and urged
the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters. This caused a furor and there
was law and order problem which resulted in casualties and damage to property. Rahul
Raghuvanshi was held responsible for whatever transpired and he was compelled to resign from
the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held. The speech delivered by Rahul
Raghuvanshi was regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two communities hence he
was booked under sec 153 A of IPC and a FIR was lodged against him on 17 th Febraury 2019
There was round the clock coverage of the incidents of violence by the media. The opposition
demanded an inquiry of the incidents and insisted on setting up a commission. A Commission was
constituted on 1st April, 2019 by the Ruling Party i.e Janata Morcha under the auspices of retired
judge, Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter on urgent basis. The
commission submitted its report before the House on 30 th June, 2019. There was election hence
the commission report was debated fiercely then kept in abeyance. Samaj Sanghatan captured
Power and Muthuswamy Nair became the Chief Minister in November 2019 and the commission
report was again debated with disruptions in the House. Though Rahul Raghuvanshi was booked
under sec 153 A of IPC and a FIR was lodged against him on 17 th February 2019, he was not
arrested due to the political influence. The home minister finally demanded arrest of Rahul
Raghuvanshi and Rahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and produced before magistrate on 12th
November 2019. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and convicted Rahul Raghu
Vanshi for 3 years imprisonment on 18th November 2019. The order was challenged in court of
sessions court, on 22nd November, 2019 the order was upheld and eventually it was challenged in
Shennai High Court on 27th December 2019. The High Court admitted the appeal and overruled
conviction on 16th July, 2021 of Rahul Raghuvanshi and found that lower courts made gross error
in passing such orders. The State challenged the High Court order of acquittal in the Supreme
Court of India in August 2021.

10
Issues:

1) Is he said appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court?

2) Is the High court justified in setting aside the session court’s order?

3) Does the case have anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as per the relevant
legal provisions?

4) Is sanction required for prosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of state assembly?

5) Is the government bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan commission as regards its
implementation or not?

11
 Moot Problem 5

Nalini, a 28 year old Software Engineer was working with one BPO Company Pune. She
used to travel to her workplace and back by her company transport or Public Transport of
by an Auto Rickshaw. On the evening of 07/10/2019 i.e. the day of the incident as she
was working till late she missed the company transport and therefore near Reliance Mall
on Nagar road she accepted the offer of lift by Sachin Mishra – Accused no. 1 in the cab
driven by himself and in which the other two accused viz. Vikram Jadhav Accused no. 2
(Security Guard) and Aniket Salwi Accused no. 3 were already sitting and present in the
cab. They promised to take her to her house in Katraj whereupon she placed total trust on
these strangers. However, the brutes took advantage of the fact of her being the only
woman in the cab, they abducted her to satisfy their insatiable lust. She was stripped
naked and kept in that condition for hours committing gang rape on her repeatedly.

They picked up Nalini from Reliance Mall and subsequently drove her to Hadapsar by
Magarpatta and from there onwards to Manjari Phata and then to Abalwadi. There
onwards accused took her to Shankar Parvati Mangal Karyalaya on Nagar Road where
they raped her. In mean time T. Ramlinga (Approver) joined them and he too raped
Nalini. Then they drove to Dargah at Chandan Nagar where the four and further to Vadu
Fata by Markal Road where they raped her again. Thereafter they drove her to Zarevedi
Fata where the accused Sachin Mishra, Vikram Jadhav, aniket Salwi brutally killed her
by first strangulating her by dupatta and then by crushing her face and head with heavy
stones to camouflage her identity in order to destroy the evidence. However, Nalini’s
parents successfully followed up with the investigation team and upon registration of the
crime on 08/10/0219 and with assistance of further investigation all accused person were
arrested on 14/10/2019.

The Trial took place against all these accused in the Trial Court, Pune. Trio accused in
this case were held guilty for the Gang Rape and murder and all the three accused were
sentenced to death U/S 376 (A), 397, 302, 404, 120(B) of IPC for this horrific crime vide
order dated 20/07/2021. But T. Ramalinga (Approver) was sentenced to 7 years
imprisonment. All the three accused filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court against
the decision of the Trial Court Pune to set aside the conviction and sentence.

12
Issues are as follows –

1. Whether the appeal against conviction is maintainable?

13
 Moot Problem 6
Drishti Foundation v. Union of Indiva

Shivrashtra is a state in the Union of Indiva. The population of the state on the basis of religious
faith comprises 40% Hindus, 25% Muslims, 15% Christians and the remaining 20% belong to
various smaller groups like Parsis, Tribal and Non-tribals and Non-believers. The state is
predominately a hilly area with four holy rivers flowing through it and the people are very
religious by nature. A large number of population being illiterate, carries out primitive
occupations. Religious practices, superstitions and rituals, take much of their time and money
which has greatly affected the development of the State.

The state is known all over the world for its religious centers. The various religious institutions
in the state are imparting only religious education putting the secular education into oblivion
which has reduced drastically the people’s employment avenues. As the state is a pilgrimage
center, the religious leaders, Gurus and Prophets of various religions in the state are vying with
one another because of huge donations offered by the pilgrims.

Accordingly, mass prayers, retreats, yagnas, penance services etc. are conducted very frequently.
The religious leaders, so called God men in order to continue their hold, have created a kind of
fear in the mind of their followers by way of fundamentalist practices and attitudes, which
further created divisions in the society and often within the families too.

The youths of the State, who were boiling with anger and frustration looking at the economic
progress of other states, often revolted against those oppressive and suppressive religious
practices that prevailed in their states. There were many protests by many groups headed by
moderates, intellectuals and non-believers on various occasions in different parts of the State.

Dr. Virendra Panhalkar, the 70 years old social activist, who was shot dead on 20 th August, 2020
in one city of the State of Shivrashtra, had waged a long and lonely battle for an Anti-
Supersitition Law.

Within a week after the vicious assassination of Dr. Panhalkar, the Governor of Shivrashtra
signed the ‘Black Magic Prohibition’ Ordinance. It came in to force from 26th August, 2020 all
over the State of Shivrashtra.

14
The ordinance is aimed at banning superstitious practices, inhuman rituals and black magic that
have been the used to exploit people in the name of religious beliefs.

This law is against fraudulent and exploitative practices, such practices have no place in an
enlightened society. In the entire text there is not a single word about God or Religion.

The essential purpose of this law is to bring social awakening and awareness in the society and to
create a healthy and safe social environment with a view to protect the common people in the
society against the evil and sinister practices thriving on ignorance.

The draft Bill clearly specifies 12 such practices.

These includes, claiming to perform surgery with just fingers or to change the sex of the foetus in
the womb, sexual exploitation under the guise of claims of supernatural powers, branding
women as witches and causing them physical harm, human sacrifices and other Aghori practices.

Inspite of coming into force of the above legislation the superstitious activities are no rise. The
people of State of Shivrashtra are being exploited by the self-declared God like Babaram
Maharaj, who has amassed huge wealth by exploiting the religious sentiments of the people.
Under the garb of religious practices he started to exploit illiterate and poor women & children
and employed youths. He uses their energies by providing them training to play with rifles and
arms for his own protection and to prevent Govt. authorities to take any action against him. He
poses himself as god or Supernatural power to attract women and he sexually abused many
women’s too. The ban his activities the govt. of Shivrashtra tried to enter in to his Ashram but
could not succeed.

In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, Drishti Foundation which is NGO working
against the exploitation of the religious feelings of the people by such so called Godman
Babaram, has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution of Indiva
challenging the activities of exploitation being carried out by the so called Baba’s in their Matths
and Ashrams and has prayed therein that all these Matths and Ashrams which are carrying out
the activities of exploiting the religious feeling of the people should be closed and all the assets
acquired by these Baba’s be confiscated and added to the national wealth of Indiva.

15
Looking in to the facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme court of Indiva, has placed
the present PIL for final disposal at the stage of admission and has framed following issues:-

Issues:-

1. Whether the PIL is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indiva for hearing and
admission?

2. Whether the activities exploiting the religious sentiments of the people amount to
infringement of Fundamental Rights of the people of Indiva?

3. Whether the alleged activities are contrary to the secular structure of Union of
Indiva as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of Indiva?

4. Whether the ban on such Matths / Ashrams would violate the fundamental rights of the
people to follow the religious faith of their choice?

5. Whether amendment in the present laws is necessary to deal sternly with such Baba’s?

Note: - The laws and Constitution of India are same as Indiva.

16