In The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of The Union of Jaiindia: Team Code

Team Code.
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNION OF JAIINDIA

(Writ and Original Jurisdiction)
Writ Petition No. 1234/2010
HIS HOLLINESS DAVRA VAHEHAHA AND ORS

PETITIONERS
v.
STATE OF MAHADESHA AND ORS
RESPONDENTS
And other Connected Petitions
The Case Concerning the Fundamental Right Violation under Article 25 and 26 And the
Centre State Difference Regarding Legislative Competence over Use of Absinth
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 131

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JAIINDIA
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS (UMCS) 2010

University Moot Court Selection, 2010
Table of contents
1. Index of Authorities
I. Books Referred……………………………………………………………............3
II. Articles and Journals…………………………………………….........................4
III. Cases Referred…………………………………………………………………….5
IV. Websites and URLs………………………………………………….....…………7
2. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………..8
3. Statement of Facts………………………………………………..9
4. Issues Raised………………………………………………….....11
5. Summary of Arguments……………..…………………………12
6. Arguments Advanced…………………………………………..14
7. Prayer for Relief………………….......…………………………23
Index of Authorities
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 2

I. Books Referred
S.No. Name of the Book Cited at page no
1. Adams Jad, Hideous Absinth: a history of the devil in a bottle, 15
(I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2004)53
2. Alarid Leanne Fiftal, Cromwell Paul F., V. Del Carmen Rolando, 19

Community-Based Corrections (Thomsan Learning Inc, 2008)
310
3. Basu, D.D. Constitutional Law of India (Lexis-Nexis 18, 19

Butterworths, Wadhwa and Nagpur, New Delhi 2008) 3465
4. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edition, 1979) 1003 19
5. Brans Edward H.P.,Liability for damage to public natural 20

resources: standing damage and damage assessment (Kluwer
Law International, 2001) 55
6. Dela haye, Marie-Claude, L’Absinthe, historie de la Fee verte 15

Paris (1983) 79
7. Dr. Richard Rappolt, Absinthe: History in a Bottle (Clinical 14

Toxicology Conrad III, Barnaby Chronicle Books, San Francisco
1988)71
8. Godbey, Rev. W.B. Absinthe and the Drink Demon (God's 15

Revivalist Office, Cincinnati) 190
9. Jain, M.PIndian Constitutional Law. (5th edition Wadhwa and 17

Nagpur, New Delhi 2009) 1200
10. Kashyap, Subhash C. Constitutional Law in India (Universal 17, 18

Law Publishing Company, New Delhi 2008)
11. L.M.Singvi Constitution of India (Vol. 2, 2nd Edition) 1287 18
12. Lanier, Doris. Absinthe, the Cocaine of the 19th Century: A 15

History of the Hallucinogenic Drug and its Effect on Artists,
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1995) 256
13. Lenson, David. On Drugs (University of Minnesota Press, 15
Minneapolis 1995)
14. Mauro R. Muñoz, Delilah Gonzales- Muñoz , Philippine 20

Governance and Constitution (Goodwill Trading Co.Inc.2002) 9
15. O’Halloran Kerry, Lowndes Myles Mcgrower, Simon kalra W., 19

Charity law and social policy: national and international
perspectives on the functions of the Law relating to charities,
(Springer Science plus Business Media, 2008)
16. Ogalthorpe Gostin Larry , Ogalthorpe Gostin Lawrence Public 20

Health Law: power, duty, restraint (University of California
Press, 2000)52
17. Paul Daniel Ellner, The biomedical Scientist as expert witness, 21

(Library of Congress. Cataluoging-in-publication data,
Washington, 2006) 267.
 State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook, (Section of Antitrust

18. 19
Law . 2nd edition, American Bar Association 2008) 16.
 Swaigen John, How to fight for what's right: the citizen’s guide
19. 21
to public interest law (James Lorimer & Company, 1981) 15
II. Articles and Journals
1. Arnold, Wilfred Niels., ‘Absinthe’(June 1989) Scientific 14

American, 112-117
2. G.B. Curtis, ‘The Checkered Career of Parens Patriae : The State 20
as Parent or Tyrant?’ (1976) 25 Depaul L. rev. 895: Note, State
Protection of its Economy and Enviorment : Parens Patriae
Suits for Damages (1970) 6 colum J.L. & Soc. Prob. 428
3. Ishita Sehgal, ‘Friend of the Court-Amicus Curie’ published at 22
Legal Service India.
4. Jason C. Blokhuis, ‘Parens Patriae: A corporative legal study of 20

Sovereign Authority and Public Education Policy in the Province
of Ontario and the State of New York’ (DPhil thesis, University
of Rochester, New York 2009)
5. Perumal Piravi M., ‘Amicus Curie- Meaning and Role,’ Lawyers 22
Club India.
6.  Prestwich PE, ‘Temperance in France: a curious case of Absinth’ 15
7. Shelton Dinah, ‘The Participation of Nongovernmental 22

Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings’
8.  (1994) Vol. 88, American Journal of International Law 22

9. Weinstock, Robert A., ‘The Lorax State: Parens Patriae and the 20
Provision of Public Goods,’ June, 1999 Columbia Law review
III. Cases Referred
Supreme Court Cases Cited at

1. Ali Akbar v. Dt. Munsiff, Pudukkottai, AIR 2004 SC 2081 17
2. Bihar Distillery v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1209 16
3. CBI v. Dawood Ibhrahim Kasker & Others(2000) 10 SCC 438 21
4. Commr. H.R.E. v. Lakshmindra (1954) SCR 1005 (1022, 1024, 18

1025)
5. Charan Lal Sahu Etc v Union of India & Ors AIR 1990 SC 1480 19
6. Cooverjee B. Bharucha v Excise Commr. and the Chief Commr., 16

Ajmer1954 SCR 873;
7. Durgah Committee v. Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 1402 19
8. Evupa Sudhakar & anr v Govt of A.P. & Ors W.P. (Cri) 284of 22
2005
9. Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR1963 SC 1638 18
10. Govt. of Haryana and Ors v Haryana Brewery Ltd. and Anr 16
1997)5SCC758
11. Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 9 21
12. Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369, 39 18
13. Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors. v State of Karnataka and Ors. 16
1995 SCC574
14. M. Veerbhadra Rao v. Tek chand AIR 1985 SC 28 22
15. M.P.Gopalakrishna & Anr. v. State of Kerela ,AIR 2005 SC 17

2053,
16. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board AIR 2002 SC 18
3538
17. Nagendra Nath Bora v The Commr of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 16
1240
18. Naresh Kumar v Kala Wati & Other. SC Cri Appeal No. 578 of 21
2002.
19. Nashirwar v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 360 16

20. Kapila Hingorani & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr (2003) 6 SCC 21
1
21. P. Krishan Wariya v state of Kerala and Ors AIR 1981SC 1863 15
22. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 21

AIR 2003 SC 189
23. Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 17
1962 SC 853.
24. Shankara Narayana v State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1571 17
25. Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and Ors v 15

State of Kerala and Ors AIR 1981 SC 1863
26. State of A.P. v Mcdowell & Co AIR 1996 SC 1627 14, 16
27. State of Assam v A.N. Kidwai 1957 SCR 295 16
28. State of Bihar and Ors v Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan 15

private Ltd and Ors AIR 2005 SC 932.
29. State of Maharastra & Ors. v. Asha Arun Gawali & Anr.[2004] 22
RD-SC 328
30. State of W.B. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, AIR 1995 SC 464 18
31. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Othrs v State of U.P. and Ors 16
AIR 1997 SC
High Court Cases

1. Nutan Kumar & Others v. IInd Additional District Judge & 21
Others 1994 All LJ 999
2. Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 MP 115 (paras. 15-18) 18
Foreign Cases
1. Alfred. L. Snapp, 458 U.S. 607 (1982) 20
2. Cf. Abington School Dr. v. Schempp, (1963) 374 US 203 19
3. Georgia v. Tennessee Cooper Co. 206 U.S. 297 (1907) 20
4. Grand Rapids v. Consumers' Power Co., 185 N.W. 852, 854, 22

216 Mich. 409, 415 (1921)
5. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal, 301 F. Supp, 982. 20
6. Shallow v. Shallow [1979] 2 ALL ER 483 22

7. People v. Mullins. 50 Cal. App. 3d61 (1979) 19
8. R v Gyngal [1893]2 QB232at 239. 19
9. Town v. State, 377 So.2d (Fla. 1979) 19
Websites and URLs

1.  http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l282-Amicus- 22
Curiae.html (last visited Aug 14, 2010)
2. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/AMICUS-CURIAE- 22
MEANING-AND-ROLE-M-PIRAVI-PERUMAL-664.asp (last
visited Aug 15, 2010)
Statement of Jurisdiction
The Respondents submit to the Writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court invoked under
Article 32 concerning violation of Fundamental Right under Article 25 and 26 and at the same
time submit to the Original Jurisdiction under Article 131 concerning dispute between Union of
Jailindia and State of Mahadesha.

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

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo 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 Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.
Article131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.—Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original
jurisdiction in any dispute—
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States,
if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends:
Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty,
agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, having been entered
into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.
Statement of Facts
Background
 The order of the Hibuscus worshipped at eclipses and special interplanetary positions. The
Hibuscians were quickly identified with the Goddess Aryanai and later with the prototype of Kali
as their views were not antithetic to Hinduism. Hibiscus (flower) is especially sacred to Kali and
this was adopted as the symbol of their order around 100 B.C.
 The Hibiscus was made of Gold and and grounded Rubies on one hand and diamonds on the
other to indicate the two colours of Hibuscus. In the centre it held the Miza Miza, a diamond
which had a tint of slight redish colour. It was consecrated at the great temple of the Two Rivers

(Indus and Jhelum) in 50 A.D at the second Conclave of the Ehanaai, following the first one
around 1. B.C. where the clergy of Hibuscians met.
 To save the religion from diminishing, the head priest of the Ehanaai, Sohhkriti, left Jailindia
during third conclave in 200 A.D along with 100 senior members of the Ehanaai with him
leaving the second senior most of the priests the Mazhoori as the custodian of the faith till he
returned. The practice remained secretive and self contained fearing corruption. As per the
Hibuscian law only the Sohhkriti could choose the Sohhkriti and the Mazhoori the Mazhoori.
 In order to carry the authorization of the order of the Hibuscus, the Sohhkriti broke off the White
petals and plucked the diamond of the flower, as consecration of the Hibiscus was one of the five
essential duties the Hibuscians had to perform in their lifetimes. The Hibuscian delegation landed
in Egypt around 202 A.D and set to work with missionary zeal there and soon missions were sent
to Rome, Judea and even the newly developed Roman settlements in Britain.
 When in 220 A.D. the Sohhkriti believed that the order had spread, he decided to go back to
JaiIndia but suddenly passed away with no instructions about his successor.
 The Ehanaai on receiving the message, decided the next Sohhkriti as per existing Hibuscian law.
The message of the new election was sent to the Egyptian mission, but the messenger died on the
way and no message reached them.
 Two years later when the last Sohhkriti’s final belongings were being sent to JaiIndia, a will was
discovered. In his last will he had recognized his senior most disciple of the delegation which
had accompanied him to Egypt as the successor to the office of the Sohhkriti.
 The named heir apparent took the will and reached the Temple of the Two Rivers around the end
of 223 AD and the political turmoil led to split in the Ehnaai and so the religion split in two
orders with them. The named Sohhkriti went back to Egypt with a large number of followers. As
the white petals remained with them they were called the White Hibuscus and they established
the Western Temple of the Two Rivers at the confluence of the White Nile and the Blue Nile.
The sect at JaiIndia came to be known as the Red Hibuscus.
Bone of Contention
 Each of them developed their own traditions. The Red Hibuscus explored mysticism through
meditation and Kirtans. They consecrated and bathed the Holy Hibuscus every day with water of
river Indus. In the meantime the White Hibuscus absorbed the practice of using Absinth, as it
was supposed to be medicinal. They also believed it helped them produce visions of God, and
Aryanai, the Green Goddess. They also used it to bathe the White petals on special interplanetary
positions and on certain eclipses and continued this practise in France until it was made illegal in
1910 and thereafter shifted to Netherland.
 In 2003 France made Absinth legal again and the White Sohhkriti came back to JaiIndia after
almost 1800 years.200 members of the White Ehanaai migrated to JaiIndia in 2004. In 2009 all
of them applied for JaiIndian citizenship and received it on 01.05.2010. In the meantime the
process of fusion began between two White and Red Sohhkritis and flower was fused along with
adoption of Sohhkriti and Mazhoori.
 Three months before the ceremony a special interplanetary position took place and both of the
Sohhkriti wished to bathe the flower. White Sohhkriti brought Absinth to the sanctum sanctorum
of the temple. The Red Sohhkriti objected as to the use of a hallucinogen and narcotic, as it

would desecrate the holy artifact, but on the contrary, the White Sohhkriti said it was an essential
practice of the White Sohhkriti.
Legislative Measures
 The State of Mahadesha, a State in the JaiIndian Union, where the temple of the Two Rivers was
located and the maximum number of JaiIndian Hibuscians resident, brought a law forbidding the
use of allowing Absinth to be used or passed through it. It banned the consumption, use, import,
passage of absinth by a Government order.
 Later an Act was passed by the JaiIndian Parliament on 01.01.2010 which received Presidential
signatures on 10.01.2010, which invoked the doctrine of Parens Patriea to finally take a decision
in order to ensure the peaceful unification of the two orders and on special occasions allowed
Absinth to be used. For this purpose it assumed the custody of the Holy Hibiscus.
Procedure
 A series of Petitions were filed by the members of both the order between 11.02.2010-
15.04.2010. including the lead petition by Davra Vahehaha. The White Hibuscians and the
Union of JaiIndia ended up on one side and the Red Hibuscians and State of Mahadesha on the
other.
 This Court admitted the clubbed Petitions. In the meantime it also appointed Suta Hamoso, a
Senior Counsel belonging to the Red Hibuscian as Amicus Curae in the case. The Counsel for
the White Ehanaai filed an affidavit opposing the same. All the questions are now to be decided
by the Hon’ble Court.
 Hence the present submissions.
Issues Raised
1. Whether there is infringement of right to freedom of religion of White Hibuscians, vide

Article 25 & 26 of the constitution of JaiIndia?
2. Whether the application Doctrine of Parens Patriae by the Union of JaiIndia is
justified?
3. Whether the appointment of Amicus Curiae is justified?

Summary of Arguments
1. Whether there is infringement of right to freedom of religion of White Hibuscians,

vide Article 25 & 26 of the constitution of JaiIndia?
 Whether the Government order is valid and within the legislative competence of
State?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that State Government has exclusive power to
make any regulation in respect of “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 List II of the Seventh
Schedule and since the use of Absinth by the Petitioners is for consumption, the state
Government is the only regulating authority with no interference from parliament whatsoever.
Moreover Absinth herein is a subject under State List vide Entry 8 and is not subjected to Entry
52 of List I.

 Whether the grant of Citizenship to Petitioners is valid under the Indian Citizenship
Act 1955?
It is submitted that the grant of citizenship to Petitioners is not justified under Indian
Citizenship Act 1955 reason being, minimum 12 years of stay for a complete foreigner to acquire
citizenship by Naturalisation but here citizenship has been granted in only five years of stay.
 Whether White Hibuscians possess right to freedom of religion?
It is submitted that under constitutional scheme every person has a fundamental right not merely
to entertain the religious belief of his choice but also to exhibit this belief and ideas in manner
which does not infringe the religious right and personal freedom of others.
Furthermore, , the State has reserved unto itself the power to make laws providing for social
reform and social welfare even though they might interfere with religious practices.
 Whether the use of Absinthe an integral and essential religious practice?
The ‘practice’ in question must be an essential, mandatory as distinguished from optional
religious practices. Essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is
founded. An essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious
belief. Article 25 and 26 only protects religious practices that form an essential and integral part
of a religion.
2. Whether the application Doctrine of Parens Patriae by the Union of JaiIndia,

justified?
 It is humbly submitted that Parens patria is a Latin term for the doctrine that “the state is
parent” and therefore serves as guardian of the people under legal disability. The emphasis has to
be paid on the word “legal disability”.
 In Lousiana v. Texas, the court emphasized that for a state to obtain relief as the affected
interests must be related to obligations of its sovereign to its citizens, and the wrong must affect
“the public at large” rather than private individuals.
 It is argued that the court may properly deny standing if a suit involves only a few injured
individuals because those individuals could bring their own law suit and state is thus, only a
nominal party.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Suta Hamoso has been appointed
Amicus Curiae in the present case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of JaiIndia. 1 The very fact that
1
See Facts on record.
he, being a learned senior counsel of the Supreme Court, has been appointed by the apex court,
makes it a ground strong enough not to be challenged by anyone i.e. un-objectionable
 The court allows the permission to the amicus curiae to “call to the attention of courts,
points of law or facts that would appear to have been overlooked”2 or to make submissions to
court, “either in written or oral form concerning any matter that he thinks should be considered
by court in reaching its findings.”
 The court may also appoint someone who, without having any interest in the action,
provides information on the point of law or fact for the benefit of the judge.
Arguments Advanced
1. Whether there is infringement of Right to Freedom of Religion of White Hibuscians,

vide Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of JaiIndia?
1.1. Whether the Government order is valid and within the legislative competence of State?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the impugned Government Order is
valid and Central act will not have any force. It is again submitted that to legislate and to give
order regulating the use of Absinth is within the four corners of Entry 83 of List II read with
Entry 64 List II which inter alia refers to public health.5 Moreover, Article 47of Constitution has
2
Swaigen John, How to fight for what's right: the citizen’s guide to public interest law, James Lorimer & Company,
1981 at page 15
3
Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of
intoxicating liquors.
4
Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries
5
See State of A.P. v Mcdowell & Co AIR 1996 SC 1627
direct bearing on the Government Order, which states that the State shall regard the improvement
of public health as primary duty and endeavour to bring out the prohibition of consumption of
intoxicating drinks & drugs which are injurious to health.
It is submitted before this Court that as the matter herein revolves around the alcoholic
liquor “Absinth”, thus it needs a little insight as to its constituents and effects. The chemical
composition of Absinth and the amount of alcohol in it has to be construed in the sense in which
it was used by the White Hibiscians in France. The Central Act allowed them the use of Absinth
and which definitely be interpreted as the use as White Hibisciuns want.
The most harmful ingredient in absinthe is ethanol.6 The drink's high alcohol content is such
because it is the only way to keep absinthe's oil constituents in solution. 7The peculiar features of
this highly alcoholic drink can be stated in the terms of French Author Doris Lanier that “a
product of an age of uncertainty, absinthe seduced many of the gifted people and many of the
period's greatest talents were among its victims. Already emotionally unstable, or isolated
because their talents, these people turned to absinthe: it appealed to their imagination, eased
their loneliness, and comforted them in their despair. It may be that, even without absinthe, they
would have destroyed themselves, but it is difficult to overlook the fact that one of the side effects
of indulgence in absinthe is a preoccupation with death.” 8 Further, Absinthe is very strong
liquor, typically about 140 proof or 70% alcohol by volume9 and it is hallucinogen and that it
drove people insane and even to their death in France. 10 Absinthe was an industrial alcohol as it
is and is incapable of being consumed by a normal human being. 11The Absinth is considered as a
beverage which is dangerous to health and was a root to all social evils in France.12
The claim of Petitioners to use Absinth is in the guise of medical purpose but when this
Court will look in to the history of the use of absinth by petitioners, it will find that petitioners
will definitely use it as narcotic and hallucinogenic substance to create the visions of Goddess
Aryani and other recreational activities.13 So Absinth is capable of being used as an alcoholic
beverage which is intoxicant owing to its high alcohol content and its diversion to human
consumption can be regulated by State laws enacted with reference to Entries 6 and 8 of List
II14.Furthermore, Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 seeks to regulate the
manufacture of medicinal preparations for the bona fide use and to prevent the misuse of
rectified spirit for human consumption. Moreover, the enumeration of “intoxicating liquor” in
6
Dr. Richard Rappolt, Absinthe: History in a Bottle (Clinical Toxicology Conrad III, Barnaby Chronicle Books, San
Francisco 1988)71
7
Arnold, Wilfred Niels. "Absinthe." Scientific American (June 1989), 112-117.
8
Lanier, Doris. Absinthe, the Cocaine of the 19th Century: A History of the Hallucinogenic Drug and its Effect
on Artists,(, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson NC 1995) 256
9
Report 35 of Food and Drug Administration, U.S.A.
10
Godbey, Rev. W.B. Absinthe and the Drink Demon (God's Revivalist Office, Cincinnati) 190; Lenson, David.
On Drugs (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1995)
11
Prestwich PE, Temperance in France: a curious case of Absinth
12
Dela haye, Marie-Claude, L’Absinthe, historie de la Fee verte Paris (1983) 79; Adams Jad, Hideous Absinth: a
history of the devil in a bottle, (I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2004)53
13
See .
14
See State of Bihar and Ors v Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan private Ltd and Ors AIR 2005 SC 932.
Entry 8 List II confers exclusive power to the State to legislate in respect of medicinal and toilet
preparations containing alcohol.15
Arguendo, the claim of Petitioners that the use of Absinth is for Medicinal use and it does
not lie within the jurisdiction of State, falls short of merit because as they claim it to use as
Medicine within the meaning of “medicinal preparations”16 under Medicinal & Toilet
Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 thereby bringing the Absinth within the category “drug”.
It is a matter of common knowledge that such preparations are always likely to be misused as a
substitute for alcoholic beverages17 and, therefore, the restriction imposed18 by the State is
justified within the meaning of Entry 8 List II. The same is the contention here. Respondent
being the Welfare State and deriving power from Article 47 of Constitution, fear and reasonably
believe that looking in to the historical past of the Petitioners and how they used Absinth i.e.
consuming to get visions of Goddess Aryani, Petitioners use it for their intake along with other
purposes. And since the legislative power conferred upon the States by the Constitution should
include all incidental and ancillary powers attached to it19, it has power to regulate the use of
Absinth diverting to purposes other than medicinal use while regulating medicinal preparations
containing the alcohol. So the Respondents are of the view that in pith and substance it is a law
relating to intoxicating liquor providing for regulatory measure and squarely falls under Entry 8,
List II of Seventh Schedule.
The Petitioners further contend that under the Entry 52 of List I the Parliament has
enacted the Industries [Development and Regulation] Act, 1951 and Item 26 of Schedule I of that
Act reads as "Fermentation Industries - [1] Alcohol, [2] Other products of Fermentation and
Distillery". Read with Section 2 of the IDR Act, the said Entry would mean that the alcohol
industry dealing in potable or non-potable alcohol is a controlled industry within the meaning of
the said Act and thus the parliament vide this Act and further by amendment in 1956 20has taken
over the control of State’s exclusive power to legislate under Entry 8 of List II. In response to the
above contention the Respondent will like to submit that the aspect in the List I Entry 52 is
industry while that in Entry 8 of List II is intoxicating liquor. Entry 8 List II is therefore to be
read in its own terms. Furthermore, the pith and substance of the IDR Act is to provide the
Central Government with the means of implementing their industrial policy 21. Hence the IDR
Act confers on the Central Government power to make rules for the registration of existing
undertakings and for regulating the production and development of the industries mentioned in
the Schedule.22 The Act does not in any way denude the power of the State Governments to make
laws regulating and prohibiting the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and
15
See P. Krishan Wariya v state of Kerala and Ors AIR 1981SC 1863
16
Section 2(g). 'medicinal preparation' includes all drugs which are a remedy or prescription prepared for internal
or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the treatment, mitigation
or prevention of disease in human beings or animals;
17
See Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors AIR 1981 SC 1863
18
held to be valid in ibid
19
See Govt. of Haryana and Ors v Haryana Brewery Ltd. and Anr 1997)5SCC758; Bihar Distillery v Union of
India AIR 1997 SC 1209
20
Insertion of Alcohol under Entry 26 of the First Schedule IDR Act 1951.
21
Resolution of 6th April, 1948
22
See Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors. v State of Karnataka and Ors. 1995 SCC574
sale of intoxicating liquors meant for human consumption and levying excise on them under
Entries 8 and 51 of List II. If there is any incidental encroachment by the relevant State Acts on
the area occupied by the IDR Act, that will not invalidate the State Act. 23 This Court24 held that
once the impugned enactment falls within the four corners of Entry 8 read with Entry 6, no
Central law made with respect to any Entry in List I or with reference to any Entry in List III can
affect the validity of such State enactment. Moreover, the argument of occupied field in such a
case is totally out of place. Any incidental trenching does not amount to encroaching upon the
field reserved for Parliament25 i.e. State order under Entry 8 List II incidentally trenching Entry
52 List I.
It is further submitted that the regulatory power given to state is absolute vide Entry 8
list II and State has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to
intoxicants- its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. 26And the Central Act
constitutes the colorable exercise of power as the doctrine against colorable legislation has
nothing to do with the motive of the legislation; it is in essence a question of vires or power of
the legislature to enact the law in question. 27Therefore even the motive of the Parliament cannot
be considered while enacting the law which comes under State List.
1.2. Whether the grant of Citizenship to Petitioners is valid under the Indian Citizenship
Act 1955?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the grant of Citizenship by the Government
of JaiIndia is against the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act 1955.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Petitioners came to India from Netherland in
2004 and after 5 years of stay, they applied for JaiIndian Citizenship and got the same in
01.05.2010. As White Hibiscians were foreigner they cannot get the citizenship within the period
of 5 years stay. Neither of the provision of Indian Citizenship Act gives citizenship within this
period. They being complete foreigner has the option of availing only through Naturalization, but
the requirement is the twelve years of must stay 28 which Petitioners have not followed. Thereby
it is submitted that the Central Government being pro-White Hibiscians favored the petitioners
and granted citizenship by going against the law.
1.3. Whether White Hibuscians possess right to freedom of religion?
Article 25 of the Constitution of JaiIndia guarantees that every person in JaiIndia shall
have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate
23
See Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Othrs v State of U.P. and Ors AIR 1997 SC
24
See State of A.P. v Mcdowell & Co AIR 1996 SC 1627
25
See ibid
26
See Cooverjee B. Bharucha v Excise Commr. and the Chief Commr., Ajmer1954 SCR 873; State of Assam v A.N.
Kidwai 1957 SCR 295 ; Nagendra Nath Bora v The Commr of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 ; Nashirwar v State
of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 360
27
See Shankara Narayana v State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1571
28
Schedule III Qualifications for Naturalisation; (d) that during the twelve years immediately preceding the said
period of twelve months, he has either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India, or partly
the one and partly the other, for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than nine years.
religion, subject to public order, health and morality 29. Similarly Art 26(b) guarantees to every
religious denomination or any section thereof, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion,
subject to public order, morality and health. 30Under constitutional scheme every person has a
fundamental right not merely to entertain the religious belief of his choice but also to exhibit this
belief and ideas in manner which does not infringe the religious right and personal freedom of
others.31But the practice of White Hibuscians is a clear case of infringement of religious right of
Red Hibuscians. Since freedom under article 25 belongs to every person, the freedom of one
cannot encroach upon similar freedom belonging to other person.32 Furthermore, , the State has
reserved unto itself the power to make laws providing for social reform and social welfare even
though they might interfere with religious practices33.
White Hibuscians use Absinthe which is hallucinogenic 34 and detrimental to public
health, morality and public order. Though the freedom of conscience and religious belief are
absolute, the right to act in exercise of man’s freedom of conscience and freedom of religion
cannot override public interests and morals of the society and in that view it is competent for the
State to suppress such religious activity which is prejudicial to public interest. 35 And the same
has been done by the State by banning the use of Absinth in the State. Use of Absinth in the
sanctum sanctorum of the temple is an indecent act and against public policy. It is found in the
case of N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswom Board36it was held that no usage which is found
to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of law of land or opposed to public policy or
social decency can be accepted or upheld. Article 18 (3) of International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) also describes the limitations on the freedom of religion 37. Since no
fundamental right can be absolute in a modern state, freedom of religion cannot be absolute.38
1.4. Whether the use of Absinthe an integral and essential religious practice?
Article 25 and 26 only protects religious practices that form an essential and integral part of
a religion.39 Religious practice which is not an integral part of the practices of the religion is not
protected under Article 25. The ‘practice’ in question must be an essential, 40 mandatory as
distinguished from optional41 religious practices. Essential part of a religion means the core
beliefs upon which a religion is founded. An essential practice means those practices that are
fundamental to follow a religious belief. Hence, the practice of White Hibuscians cannot be said
to be an essential practice as it is not fundamental to follow any religious belief. The test to
29
Jain, M.P.,Indian Constitutional Law. (5th edition Wadhwa and Nagpur, New Delhi 2009) 1200
30
Kashyap, Subhash C. Constitutional Law in India (Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi 2008).
31
See Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853.
32
See A. Ali Akbar v. Dt. Munsiff, Pudukkottai, AIR 2004 SC 2081.
33
See M.P.Gopalakrishna & Anr. v. State of Kerela ,AIR 2005 SC 2053,
34
See Facts on Record
35
L.M.Singvi Constitution of India (Vol. 2, 2nd Edition) 1287
36
AIR 2002 SC 3538
37
See Article 18(3), ICCPR
38
See Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR1963 SC 1638.
39
See Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369, 391.
40
See Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 MP 115 (paras. 15-18)
41
See State of W.B. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, AIR 1995 SC 464
determine whether a part or practice is essential to a religion is to find out whether the nature of
the religion will be changed without part or practice. 42 If taking away of that part or practice
could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such
part could be treated as an essential or integral part.43The ban on Absinth does not change the
character of the religion or its belief and thereby it does not form an essential practice of the
religion. Though it is generally acknowledged that this question is to be determined by a
religious denomination itself, 44it has at the same time been laid down that the determination of
such denomination is not final.45 Moreover, the question-whether a religious practice is an
essential part of a religion is an objective question to be determined by the court: the view of the
religious denomination itself is not final.46Furthermore, it may be expected that no sensible state,
in the name of social reform, would affect the very essence of any religion.47The legislation
would only touch questionable practices, dogmas and the like which stand in the way of social
progress of the country as a whole.48 Whether there exists a relation between drugs and religion?
Use of Absinthe is purely unethical. It is an immoral practice in the garb of religion. In a
similar case, members of the Ethiopian Zion Church and visiting non-members assemble daily at
petitioner’s[in that case] to worship and use cannabis in accordance with their religious belief.
The trial court granted temporary injunction as health and safety was threatened by the cannabis
use.49 Also in the case of People v. Mullins, 50 defendant was found guilty of violating former
health and safety code section 11530(now 11358) by trial court, because he used marijuana in
worship. He contended that it is essential and exclusive to his rituals. But the court of appeal
affirmed the judgment of trial court against him
2. Whether the application Doctrine of Parens Patriae by the Union of JaiIndia is justified?
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary 51, it means literally ‘parent of the country’ and
refers to role of the state as a sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. 52 Parens
patria is a Latin term for the doctrine that “the state is parent” and therefore serves as guardian of
the people under legal disability.53 The emphasis has to be paid on the word “legal disability”.
42
Basu, D.D. Constitutional Law of India (Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa and Nagpur, New Delhi 2008) 3465
43
See Ibid 3465
44
See Commr. H.R.E. v. Lakshmindra (1954) SCR 1005 (1022, 1024, 1025)
45
See Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638
46
See Durgah Committee v. Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 1402
47
VII CAD 781.
48
See Cf. Abington School Dr. v. Schempp, (1963) 374 US 203.
49
See Town v. State, 377 So.2d (Fla. 1979)
50
See People v. Mullins. 50 Cal. App. 3d61 (1979)
51
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edition, 1979) 1003
52
See Charan Lal Sahu Etc v Union of India & Ors AIR 1990 SC 1480
53
Alarid Leanne Fiftal, Cromwell Paul F., V. Del Carmen Rolando, Community-Based Corrections (Thomsan
Learning Inc, 2008) 310.
Earlier the Court of Chancery had a general right delegated by the crown as , for the benefit of
such who are incapable to protect themselves.54 This makes it very clear that for invoking the
Doctrine of the person must be legally disable or incapable, unlike the White Hibuscians. In
Lousiana v. Texas,55 the court emphasized that for a state to obtain relief as the affected interests
must be related to obligations of its sovereign to its citizens, and the wrong must affect “the
public at large” rather than private individuals.56 But there is not much in the present case to
prove that there has been any wrong done to anyone. Arguendo, any wrong done at all, is not
affecting the public at large. It is reiterated that under this doctrine of which in Latin means
parent/ guardian of the country, the state has power of guardianship only over persons who are
unable to take of themselves or protect themselves; such as infants, lunatics or minors. 57 The
doctrine in the present case has been invoked for all competent White Hibuscians. It should be
remembered that if children were competent to safeguard their own interests i.e. they were
legally competent, even in that case the concept of would be unintelligible.58 It is humbly
submitted that the court may properly deny standing if a suit involves only a few injured
individuals because those individuals could bring their own law suit and thus only a nominal
party.59 In the case at hand, the White Hibuscians have brought the petitions on their own,
therefore the standing of the Union of JaiIndia is not justiciable.
The power is traditionally invoked in two conditions: to make decisions on behalf of
individuals who are incapable of doing so for themselves 60 and to assert the state’s general
interest and standing in the Communal health, comfort and welfare. 61 On the contrary, the
Doctrine has been here invoked to give freedom to the White Hibuscians to use Absinth, which
is against communal health and welfare .the doctrine has been expanded, however, to allow
states to seek redress for the injuries to its quasi-sovereign interests. 62 Quasi sovereign interests
are the interest that the state has in “well being of its citizens.” 63 In order to maintain a action, in
relation to quasi-sovereign interests, a state must meet certain requirements. 64 It must show that it
54
O’Halloran Kerry, Lowndes Myles Mcgrower, Simon kalra W., Charity law and social policy: national and
international perspectives on the functions of the Law relating to charities, (Springer Science plus Business
Media, 2008)
55
176 U.S. 1 (1900)
56
State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook, (Section of Antitrust Law . 2nd edition, American Bar Association 2008)
16.
57
Mauro R. Muñoz, Delilah Gonzales- Muñoz , Philippine Governance and Constitution (Goodwill Trading
Co.Inc.2002) 9
58
Jason C. Blokhuis , Parens Patriae: A Comparative Legal Study of Sovereign Authority and Public Education
Policy in the Province of Ontario and the State of New York , University of Rochester, New York 2009
59
Weinstock, Robert A.,The Lorax State: and the Provision of Public Goods, Columbia Law review June, 1999, 99
Colum.
60
Ogalthorpe Gostin Larry , Ogalthorpe Gostin Lawrence Public Health Law: power, duty, restraint (University of
California Press, 2000)52
61
ibid
62
Brans Edward H.P.,Liability for damage to public natural resources: standing damage and damage assessment
(Kluwer Law International, 2001) 55
63
G.B. Curtis, “The Checkered Career of : The State as Parent or Tyrant?” (1976) 25 Depaul L. rev. 895: Note,
‘State Protection of its Economy and Enviorment : Suits for Damages’ (1970) 6 colum J.L. & Soc. Prob. 428.
64
Ibid, pp 413-418.
has an interest of its own, separate and distinct from the interest of particular parties. 65 It is also
required that a substantial portion of the state’s inhabitants is adversely affected by the acts of the
defendants.66 It is to be noted here that in the present case, neither the union of JaiIndia has an
interest of its own, nor the substantial portion of the state’ inhabitants adversely affected, so as to
invoke the impugned Doctrine. The standing is inappropriate when a state potentially serve as a
“nominal party” litigating to advance the interests of an individual 67. It is contended here that the
union of JaiIndia is nominal party as it lacks appropriate interest in the case of the White
Hibuscians and thereby the invocation of the doctrine of Parens Patriae is clearly inappropriate.
At last it is summed up that the application of Doctrine by the Union of JaiIndia is not based on
any strong ground which thereby renders it irrelevant in the present context.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Suta Hamoso has been appointed
Amicus Curiae in the present case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of JaiIndia. 68 The very fact that
he, being a learned senior counsel of the Supreme Court, has been appointed by the apex court,
makes it a ground strong enough not to be challenged by anyone i.e. un-objectionable. Amicus
curiae is a person who does not work for either side but calls the attentions of the court to a
question of law by submitting a brief. 69Suta Hamoso has also been appointed for this purpose.
The court allows the permission to the amicus curiae to “call to the attention of courts, points of
law or facts that would appear to have been overlooked” 70 or to make submissions to court,
“either in written or oral form concerning any matter that he thinks should be considered by court
in reaching its findings.” The intention of the court in appointing an Amicus curiae can clearly be
collected from the above lines. It can now be based that Suta Hamoso is appointed for he is a
learned senior counsel of the court and not because he is Red Hibuscian. It is absurd to make a
supposition regarding the step of the Hon’ble apex court to be bias.
It is further contended that the filing of an affidavit to check the appointment of Suta
Hamoso as Amicus Curiae by the Hon’ble apex court, is an absurd step of White Hibuscians.
The petitioners are admitting to the jurisdiction of this court by bringing the petition before it and
at the same time they are suspicious about the character of the Hon’ble Court, as they file an
affidavit71 questioning the appointment of Suta Hamoso as Amicus Curiae, for they believe that
he might be bias towards Red Hibuscians. Hence it is proved that the petitioners lack faith on the
65
Georgia v. Tennessee Cooper Co. 206 U.S. 297 (1907); Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal, 301 F. Supp, 982.
66
Alfred. L. Snapp, 458 U.S. 607 (1982).
67
Weinstock, Robert A.,The Lorax State: and the Provision of Public Goods, Columbia Law review June,
1999, 99 Colum at page 10
68
69
Paul Daniel Ellner, The biomedical Scientist as expert witness, (Library of Congress. Cataluoging-in-publication
data, Washington, 2006) 267.
70
Swaigen John, How to fight for what's right: the citizen’s guide to public interest law (James Lorimer & Company,
1981) 15
71
apex court. But it must also be borne in mind that Amicus Curiae(appointed by court) has not to
always act as a neutral person. he might also be appointed by the court to appear from a
particular side like in the cases of Naresh Kumar v. Kala Wati & Others;72 State through CBI v.
Dawood Ibhrahim Kasker & Others;73 Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of
India;74 Nutan Kumar & Others v. IInd Additional District Judge & Others. 75Also in this Court76
an advocate was appointed to appear from the side of the petitioners. In Kapila Hingorani &
Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr.77 Amicus Curiae was appointed to appear from the side of the state
of Bihar and Union of India. Similar appointment was done in the case of M. Veerbhadra Rao v.
Tek chand78
The court may also appoint someone who, without having any interest in the action,
provides information on the point of law or fact for the benefit of the judge. 79When the case
involves an important question of law court may appoint Amicus Curiae. The attitude of most
courts is that "in cases involving questions of important public interest, leave is generally granted
to file a brief as amicus curiae."80 Mr Soli Sorabjee, Ex-Attorney General of India and a learned
advocate of Supreme Court of india, was appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case of Erupu
Sudhakar & Another. v. Govt. Of A.P. & Ors.81 as it involved an important question of law
relating to the remission of punishment. In India, the courts have time and again welcomed the
idea of permitting amicus curiae to associate themselves with proceedings, generally involving
public interest. By doing so, the court is guided not only by the academic perspective required
for the particular case, but also enables the court to have an understanding which would allow
them to do justice in its entirety. 82Suggestions of Amicus Curiae were demanded in the case
PUCL v. State of Tamil Nadu & others.83 In one case84 In view of the sensitive nature of the
matter a learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curie and his assistance was appreciated by
the High Court. It is to be remembered that courts usually permit an amicus to participate on the
basis of a general interest, including the desire to prevent a collusive suit, to protect
unrepresented persons or the public interest, or to point out error to the court. 85 All courts
probably have the inherent power to request anyone to assist their deliberations. 86 Even in the
72
Cri Appeal no.578 of 2002.
73
(2000) 10 SCC 438
74
AIR 2003 SC 189
75
1994 All LJ 999
76
See Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 9
77
(2003) 6 SCC 1
78
AIR 1985 SC 28
79
Shallow v. Shallow [1979] 2 ALL ER 483
80
Grand Rapids v. Consumers' Power Co., 185 N.W. 852, 854, 216 Mich. 409, 415 (1921).
81
Writ Petition (crl.) 284-285 of 2005
82
See Ishita Sehgal, Friend of the Court-Amicus Curie, published at Legal Service India. at
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l282-Amicus-Curiae.html (last visited Aug 14, 2010)
83
Pucl v. State of Tamil Nadu, Writ petition (civil) 3922of 1985
84
State of Maharastra & Ors. v. Asha Arun Gawali & Anr.[2004] RD-SC 328
85
Shelton Dinah, The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings,
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 88, 1994
86
See ibid.
international sphere, the role of amicus curiae has been well under consideration by inter-
governmental bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO).87
It is further argued that the Amicus plays a limited role; it provides specific information to
the Court almost exclusively through written submissions, and neither controls developments in
the case nor has the rights and duties of parties. 88 In the light of the above points it is made loud
that the appointment of amicus by the apex court has never been objected. And filing of affidavit
is an absurd step of the petitioners.
Prayer For relief
Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and
declare that:
1) The Respondent has Fundamental Right under Article 25 and 26 to practice their religion
and the Essential Practice of the Respondent should not be compromised with the
desecration of the Holy Hibiscus with the use of Absinth.
2) Act passed by the Centre is beyond the competence of the Parliament and should be
invalidated.
3) The Government Order is justified as it has exercised its power within four corners of its
exclusive jurisdiction.
4) Application of doctrine of Parens Patriae is not justified in the case of White Hibuscians.
5) Appointment of Amicus Curie is for the Hon’ble Court to decide and Petitioners have no
say in it.
Any other appropriate order, which your lordships deemed just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case, even the same has not been specifically prayed for, but which is
necessary to secure ends of justice may kindly also be passed. For this the Respondents shall
ever pay.
87
Perumal Piravi M., Amicus Curie- Meaning and Role, Lawyers Club India, at
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/AMICUS-CURIAE-MEANING-AND-ROLE-M-PIRAVI-PERUMAL-
664.asp (last visited Aug 15, 2010)
88
See Supra note 55.
/s/
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Submitted on behalf of the Respondents

In The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of The Union of Jaiindia: Team Code

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of The Union of Jaiindia: Team Code

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code.

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNION OF JAIINDIA

Writ Petition No. 1234/2010

HIS HOLLINESS DAVRA VAHEHAHA AND ORS

And other Connected Petitions

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 131

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT

UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS (UMCS) 2010

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 2

2. Alarid Leanne Fiftal, Cromwell Paul F., V. Del Carmen Rolando, 19

3. Basu, D.D. Constitutional Law of India (Lexis-Nexis 18, 19

5. Brans Edward H.P.,Liability for damage to public natural 20

6. Dela haye, Marie-Claude, L’Absinthe, historie de la Fee verte 15

7. Dr. Richard Rappolt, Absinthe: History in a Bottle (Clinical 14

8. Godbey, Rev. W.B. Absinthe and the Drink Demon (God's 15

9. Jain, M.PIndian Constitutional Law. (5th edition Wadhwa and 17

10. Kashyap, Subhash C. Constitutional Law in India (Universal 17, 18

11. L.M.Singvi Constitution of India (Vol. 2, 2nd Edition) 1287 18

12. Lanier, Doris. Absinthe, the Cocaine of the 19th Century: A 15

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 3

Governance and Constitution (Goodwill Trading Co.Inc.2002) 9

15. O’Halloran Kerry, Lowndes Myles Mcgrower, Simon kalra W., 19

16. Ogalthorpe Gostin Larry , Ogalthorpe Gostin Lawrence Public 20

17. Paul Daniel Ellner, The biomedical Scientist as expert witness, 21

 State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook, (Section of Antitrust

II. Articles and Journals

1. Arnold, Wilfred Niels., ‘Absinthe’(June 1989) Scientific 14

4. Jason C. Blokhuis, ‘Parens Patriae: A corporative legal study of 20

6.  Prestwich PE, ‘Temperance in France: a curious case of Absinth’ 15

7. Shelton Dinah, ‘The Participation of Nongovernmental 22

8.  (1994) Vol. 88, American Journal of International Law 22

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 4

III. Cases Referred

Supreme Court Cases Cited at

2. Bihar Distillery v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1209 16

3. CBI v. Dawood Ibhrahim Kasker & Others(2000) 10 SCC 438 21

4. Commr. H.R.E. v. Lakshmindra (1954) SCR 1005 (1022, 1024, 18

6. Cooverjee B. Bharucha v Excise Commr. and the Chief Commr., 16

12. Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369, 39 18

15. M.P.Gopalakrishna & Anr. v. State of Kerela ,AIR 2005 SC 17

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 5

22. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 21

25. Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur and Ors v 15

26. State of A.P. v Mcdowell & Co AIR 1996 SC 1627 14, 16

27. State of Assam v A.N. Kidwai 1957 SCR 295 16

28. State of Bihar and Ors v Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan 15

High Court Cases

2. Cf. Abington School Dr. v. Schempp, (1963) 374 US 203 19

3. Georgia v. Tennessee Cooper Co. 206 U.S. 297 (1907) 20

4. Grand Rapids v. Consumers' Power Co., 185 N.W. 852, 854, 22

6. Shallow v. Shallow [1979] 2 ALL ER 483 22

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 6

7. People v. Mullins. 50 Cal. App. 3d61 (1979) 19

8. R v Gyngal [1893]2 QB232at 239. 19

9. Town v. State, 377 So.2d (Fla. 1979) 19

Websites and URLs

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 7

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

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 8

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 9

1. Whether there is infringement of right to freedom of religion of White Hibuscians, vide

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 10