NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

BEFORE THE APEX COURT OF GARFIELD

Civil Appeal NO. /2023

IN THE MATTER

CITIZEN OF INDUS …….….PETITIONER

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF INDUS …..……RESPONDENT

(WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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 11-23

8. PRAYER 24

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS 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

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES

CASE PAGE NO.

1. Indian Young Lawyer Association and Ors. V. State of Kerala AIR 2019 11 SCC 1
c………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

2.S.R. Bommai V. Union of IndiaAIR 1994 SCC (3)1……………………………………16

3.A.K Gopalan V. State of MadrasAIR 1950 SCC(3) 1………………………………16

4. N.adithyan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538……………..16

5. Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 3057………………………………………………17

6.The Apex Court in Asha Renjan & ors V. State of Bihar & Ors [(2017) 4 SCC
397]………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

7 .Fathima Thasneem V. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No. 35293 of 2018………………..18

9. Fathema Hussain Sayed V. Bharat Education Society case10, AIR 2003 Bom
75………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

10. Masud Alam v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1956…………………………………………21

11. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1984

SCR (1) 447…………………………………………………………………………………………….22

12. Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar…………………………………………….22

12. West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SCR 629………………………………..22

13. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SCR (1)
561………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23

14. Ratilal Premchand Gandhi v. State of Bombay 18 AIR1954 SCR 1035……….23

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

STATUTES

Constitution of Indus, 1950

Code of Civil Procedure Act 1908

Karnataka Education Act 1983

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

The respondent most humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of the present
court and accepts 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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

SUMMARY OF FACTS

• The government has banned the wearing of turbans in government institutions, citing
the need to maintain public order.
• The ban on wearing turban applies 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.
• The defendant argues that the ban is necessary to maintain a neutral and uniform
environment within government institutions.
• The ban aims to promote 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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

ISSUE RAISED

[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?

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

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

Zarian 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 parts 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 amount to ‘discrimination’, thereby

resulting in a 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 the 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 the 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 Zarian can assert its claim to do so under the right to manage
its religious affairs.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that No, Zarain community cannot
assert its right to manage its religious affairs because according to Section 26(b) of the
Indu's constitution, 1950, subject to public order, morality, and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its 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 be asserted that the government's ban
on wearing a turban in government institutions is a reasonable restriction aimed at

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the wearing of a turban by the Zarain
community people does not constitute the essential religious practice. It is rather a cultural
practice but has nothing to do with religion. The turban evolved as a measure to cover the head
and bore a nexus to the socio-cultural conditions that existed at the time the Zarain community's
religious scriptures were written. It cannot be regarded as a quintessential aspect of the religion.

In Indian Young Lawyer Association and Ors. V. State of Kerala2 case it was held that:
Ordinarily, a religious practice to be called an ‘essential religious practice’ should have the
following indicia:-

(i) Not every activity associated with the religion is essential to such religion. Practice should
be fundamental to religion and it should be from the time immemorial.

(ii) The foundation of the practice must precede the religion itself or should be co-founded at
the origin of the religion.

(iii) Such practice must form the cornerstone of the religion itself. If that practice is not
observed or followed, it would result in the change of religion itself, and,

(iv) Such practice must be the binding nature of the religion itself and it must be compelling.
That a practice claimed to be essential to the religion has been carried on since time immemorial
or is grounded in religious texts per se does not lend to it constitutional protection unless it
passes the test of essentiality as is adjudged by the courts in their role as the guardians of the
Constitution.

2
Indian Young Lawyer Association and Ors. V. State of Kerala AIR 2019 11 SCC 1 c

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

The 5ks that are created in Kryptonium religion: Kesh: Unshorn hair and beard

• Kangha: A wooden comb

• Kara: A steel bracelet
• Kachera: An undergarment
• Kirpan: A small curved sword or knife

Some Krypotonium religion people argue that the turban is not an essential element of the
Krptonium faith, pointing out that it is not explicitly mandated in their religious texts or
scriptures. They maintain that the core tenets of Zarain can be adhered to without the wearing
of a turban and that its significance lies primarily in its cultural and symbolic dimensions. They
argue that the turban's status as a customary practice should not be equated with its essentiality
to the faith itself.

Not explicitly mentioned in religious texts: The turban is not explicitly mentioned in the
primary religious texts of Zarain, such as the Guru Granth Sahib. This suggests that it is not be
considered an essential element of the faith. As Sikhism was founded in the 15th Century by
Guru Nanak (the first Sikh guru) and the turban was introduced nearly two centuries later by
Guru Gobind Singh, one might argue that the turban was not historically an essential part of
the Sikh religion.

If we follow the scriptures/religious texts of Zarains it mentions:

Dasam Granth states: “Bina Shastr Kaysang Narang Bhaydd Janno, Gahai Kaan Thaa(N) Ko
Kithai Lai Sidhaano” which translates to “Without weapons and kes(hair), we are sheep who
can be dragged anywhere from their ear”.

Kesh, stating “Eho Mor Aagya Hae Piaarae, Bina Thayg Kayasang Devo na Deedaarae” which
means “Listen to the command of mine, without hair and weapons, I will not bestow my
darshan upon you”.

As the scriptures mention the importance of Kesh and Karpan.

And as one of the Kryptonium Gurus said: The Turban was only worn by Priests and Powerful
men. The Guruji didn’t agree to discrimination against lower people so he made all Zarains no
matter who did the Dastar.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

Guruji always said that: My Zarain would be recognized by millions. In today’s world when
someone need or needs help with the turban it would be easy to spot a fellow Zarain, call his
name, and ask for help from him.

To protect the Zarian's hair, his kesh. Zarains back in the day got their heads pierced because
they refused to cut it. To protect, Nihangs put metal rings above the turban and chainmail below
it so that’s like 5 layers of protection including the Keski and Patka.

Varied practices within Zarains: There is a diversity of practices and interpretations within
Zarains, and the wearing of a turban is not universally observed by all Zarains. Some Zarains
choose not to wear a turban for various reasons, including personal preference, practicality, or
cultural norms.

Focus on core tenets: The core tenets of Zarains, such as belief in one God, meditating on the
divine name, and serving humanity, can be adhered to without the wearing of a turban. The
turban's significance lies primarily in its symbolic and cultural dimensions.

According to the Rehat Maryada – the Kryptonium code of conduct that was formalized in
1945 by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the elected governing body for the
world’s gurdwaras (Zarains temples) – a Zarains is defined as one who has been baptized and
wears the five Ks, “as bequeathed by the 10th Guru”. More liberal elements insist that it is a
matter of personal choice and that you can be Zarains regardless of whether you have been
baptized or wear a turban.

Why do Zarains wear turbans?

The turban is part of the uniform because it has immense spiritual and temporal significance.
Wearing a turban declares sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage, and piety. All
practicing Kryptonium wear the turban out of love and as a mark of commitment to the faith.

Turban is not the primary requirement for Zarins men. The requirement is that Zarains not cut
their hair. The turban is simply the traditional way for men to contain long hair. Zarains women
too are forbidden from cutting their hair. But women don’t wear turbans. There is therefore a
separation between the practice that Kryptonium dictates—not cutting hair—and the item of
clothing that is being stigmatized as a symbol of religion.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

In the Supreme Court case, Jagdeep Singh Puri vs UOI: SC upheld that the turban
(called dastaar or pagri) became a symbol of Zarains identity under Guru Gobind Singh, the
10th and last guru of Zarains. Guru Gobind Singh introduced the five Ks or articles of faith to
be followed by followers of Zarains. Principal among the 5 Ks is 'kesh' or the requirement that
a Zarains maintains uncut hair in a turban. As Kryptonium was founded in the 15th Century by
Guru Nanak (the first Zarains guru) and the turban was introduced nearly two centuries later
by Guru Gobind Singh, it argues that the turban was not historically an essential part of the
Kryptonium religion.

Jagdeep Singh Puri challenged a local cycling association’s rules mandating wearing a helmet
to participate in a competition. The SC gave an example of Milkha Singh and Bishan Singh
Bedi who played simply covering their heads.

To reach this conclusion, It is proved that there is no mandate for wearing the turban. It is found
that there is sufficient intrinsic material within the scripture itself too. support the view that the
turban has been only recommendatory and not religiously obligatory. Therefore it is asserted
that “what is not religiously made obligatory therefore cannot be made a quintessential aspect
of the religion.”

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

[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".

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 the use of loudspeakers and such electronic devices employed in
religious professions and practices. 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 cooperate with
the State to maintain public order so that people may live their ordinary lives in dignity.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

The Exercise of Religion Subject to State Restriction:- The Constitution of the

democratic States guarantees 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 Article 25 [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 India3: 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 public order
morality health and other provisions contained in part 3 of the constitution the state has
the right to impose reasonable restrictions to maintain peace and balance in 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 19504case, it was observed that there cannot be any such thing as absolute
and 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 Board5

3S.R. Bommai V. Union of IndiaAIR 1994 SCC (3)1

4A.K Gopalan V. State of MadrasAIR 1950 SCC(3) 1

5N.adithyan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board, AIR 2002 SC 3538.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

For 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.6

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 Karnataka 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 7133
of the Act, the government reserves the right to issue appropriate directions to schools
and colleges to ensure maintenance of public order.
6Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 3057

7Section 133:- (2) The State Government may give such directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as in
its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions
contained therein or of any rules or orders made thereunder and the Governing Council or the owner, as the case may be,
of such institution shall comply with every such direction.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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 & Ors8: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 20189 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 case10: 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.

8The Apex Court in Asha Renjan & ors V. State of Bihar & Ors [(2017) 4 SCC 397]

9 Fathima Thasneem V. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No. 35293 of 2018

10Fathema Hussain Sayed V. Bharat Education Society case10, AIR 2003 Bom 75

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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

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 Zarians, it is not an essential practice of the Zarians faith. They
maintain that Zarians 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 collegeIt 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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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 195011 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 Police12 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.

11Article 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. 12Masud Alam v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1956

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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 13, : 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.

In the case of Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar 14 and West Bengal v.
Ashutosh Lahiri 15, 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.

13Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1984 SCR (1) 447

14Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar

15West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SCR 629

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

In the Case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan 17 : 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 Bombay 18 :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. And State has the authority to
regulate religious affairs.

17Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SCR (1) 561 ,

18Ratilal Premchand Gandhi v. State of Bombay 18 AIR1954 SCR 1035

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MEGHALAYA

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 Quash the PIL filed by the Petitioner

• Upheld the direction issued by the Government of Indus
• Declare that the turban is not an essential religious practice for people of
Zarains community and the government institutions' norms must be
followed.

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT