Whether SLP is maintainable or not?

The present SLP is being filled u/a 136 of the constitution of India against the impugned order passed by the Honable HC is maintainable. . Arguments are twofold. Firstly, the grounds for appeal,Secondly violative the F.R under article 25 and 26 of the constitution Article 136 of the Indian Constitution states that: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. 1.1 The grounds for appeal In Durga Shankar V. Raghu Raj4, the Court has observed: The powers given by Art.136 of the Constitution however are in the nature of special or residuary powers which are exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law, in case where the needs of justice demand interference by the Supreme Court of the land. The article itself is worded in the widest terms possible. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals, by granting of special leave, against any kind of judgment or order made by court or tribunal in any cause or matter and the powers could be exercised in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws. The Constitution for the best of reasons did not choose to fetter or circumscribe the powers exercisable under this article in any way. Art.136 (1) empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal in its discretion. The Supreme Courts approach has been conditioned by two main considerations, viz. therefore, be used in exceptional circumstances; and,

But in Penu Balakrishna Ayer v. Ariya M. Ramaswami Ayer5 , the Court observed that having regard to the wide scope of the powers conferred on this under Article 136, it is not possible and indeed, it would not be expedient, to lay down any general rule which would govern all cases. The question as to whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.136 should be exercised or not, and if yes, on what terms and conditions, is matter which this Court has to decide on the facts of each case. .

In the case of Pritam singh v State AIR1950 SC SC explained law the discretionary power u/a 136 will be used.since the power is exceptional and very wide .It must be used in sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.,and as for as possible a more or less :uniform stand should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matter which can up come before it under this art. In another case D. C Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR1955 SC 55 Court observed that it being an exceptional and overriding power it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special extraordinary situation.Beyond that is not possible to fetterthe exercise ofthis powerby any set formula or rule. The court has stated in this view in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 2587 Court held that it is not the policy of this court to entertain special leave petition and grant leave u/a 136 of the constitution save in those cases. Where substancial question of law of generalor public importance is involved or there is a manifest injustice resulting from impugned order or judgement.The court further held that it is a sweeping power exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice.The SC has characterised its power under art.136 an untrammelled reservoir of power in capable of being confined to definitional bounds the discretion conferred on the SC being subjected to only one limitation that is the wisdom and good sence of justice of the judge. Secondly, in this context that India is a pluralistic society and a country of religion. Religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious group are essential parts of secularism.Secularism of India doesnot mean irreligion. Art. 25(1) of the constitution gurantees to every person is not only to the citizen of India freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess .practise and propagate religion. In S R Bommai v UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918 A nine judge bench of the SC observed that the religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious group and protection of their life and property and all the places of their worships are an essential part of secularism enshrined in our constitution. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy observed that while the citizen of a country free to profess practise and propagate such religion .faith.or belief as they choose .So far as the state is concerned that is from the point of view of state or any other authoritythe religious faith or belief of a person immaterial to it and all are equal and all are entitled to be treated equally In the landmark judgement in the case of PMA Metropolitian v mMoran Mar MarthomaAIRV 1995SC 2001 SC observed that the religion is the beliefs which binds spirituals nature of men to super natural being.it includes worships,faith,beliliefs and devoation etc and exted to rituals .Religion right is the right of a person beliving in a particular faith to practise it. Preach it.and profess it. Court also held that the guarantee under the constitution of India not only protects the freedom of religious openion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of religion.Religious practises are reflective of matter concerning religion and if religion is to be venerate,then the practises annexed there to are equally respectable and haveto be complied with.

In the present case the order passed by the Honable HC is an error apparent on the face of record where by HC while taking consideration various facts and circumstances his passed illegal and erroneous. Order there by causing great hardship to the petitioner is exercising constitutional right and then he approached this Honable court to protect the right mentioned u/a 25and 26 of constitution. Relying on these arguments, it is submitted that the present special leave petition is maintainable.

ISSUE 2-Whether the discriminatry action taken by the society and other authority to the petitioner the basis of religion is valid or not? In the present case it is humbly submitted before Honble this court is that petitioner belongs to the Christians community and according to 2001 census of India recorded 24,080,016 Christians in the country which represent 2.34 pecentage of the population and the population of the Pentecoastal Chritians in India in only about 50000 in a whole country ,it meanse it is too less in comparision to others. The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, the Greek name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For Christians, this event commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ, as described in the second chapter of the Book of Acts . The main purposes of this religion beliving that they living in the end times these evengelicals expected God to spiritually renew the Christian church there by bring to pass restoration of spiritual gift and the evengelization of the word.The central belif of pentecoastalism is that through the death burial and resurrection of Jejus Christ can be forgiven and humanity reconciled with God.The majority of the pentecoastal believe that a moment a person is is born again and oher main puposes of this commentary of the experience to grant power for Christian service.and other puposes also include power for sprituals welfare power for overflow and power for ability and more important features is also prayer for toung and serve the others. It is evident from the facts is clear that the church belongs to the Christians community that has a minority position in the country. The majority like Hindu is allow to ring the bell,blow the conch and many others rituals that violate the noise issue but given protection u/a 25 and 26 as a F.R.So this type of discretion is totally on the basis of minority position on this country. In the case of Worter Karamlki v state of Meghalaya AIR 2010 Gau 51 Court held that denial of such right and disposing them for cremation ground amounted the abridgement of their F.R to freedom of religion.Religion is a matter of faith and it is a duty of the court to enforce and protect religious right of the petitioner.

Thats why Art.14 of the constitution also gives guaranteed equality before law and equal protection of law. Equality before laws means thats amongs equal the law should be equality administered that like should be treated a like. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person to another. The facts of the case is clear on that point is the intention of the SVRWA is malicious and to discriminate it on the basis of religion. Secondly u/a 15 of the constitution stated that bars the states from dicremenating against any citizen of India on the ground of any of religion,race.caste.sex.place of birth, or any of tham and also article 15(2)prohibits subjection of a citizen to ny disability ,liability,restriction or condition on ground only of religion caste, sex place, of birth. The contention arise also in the in the present case is that u/a 19 of the constitution guaranteed the freedom of speech an expressionthat include that include religious of teaching and appropriate made of discrimination. On the other hand art 21.specifically given the right to life and personal liberty.Liberty includes liberty of giving and taught religious ceremonies rituals and principles. Like wise this articlealso stated that the burdon is never on the petitioner to prove that the procedure prescribed by law which deprives himof his life or personal liberty is unjust,unfair, or unreasonable. Using the musical instruments is under the doctrine of teaching pentecoastal christens and it is an essential part and case of pentecoastal Christians practise. In this regard in the case of LT Swaminathan v.Commissioner of Police AIR 1954SC Court held that only doctrine of teaching of that particular religion will be protected by court. Dargah Committee,Ajmer v.Hussain Ali AIR 1961 SC1402 Court overruled the judgement in the case of L.T Swaminathan and court further held that court has a power to protest any part of the practise. Another in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhut v. Commissioner Calcutta(1984)4SCC522 Court observed that the,only doctrine of teaching of religious will be and cort further held that protected.act done in a pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observance ,ceremonies and modes worships which are integral part of religion. The essentials part of religion and religious practise has to be decided by the court.with reference to a doctrine of particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the community as part of religion., In Stainislarm Rev v. UOI AIR1983 SC 131 Court view in context is that the freedom of conscience would be meaningless unless it were supplemented by the freedom of unhappend spiritual convention inward and action Matter of contact with the state only when they become articulate while freedom of practise means his right to give his expression in forms of private and public worships.

ER J Swami v. State of T.N AIR 1972 SC 1586 It would thus include the freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are integral part of religion Gulam Abbas v State of UP AIR 1981SC 2198 Court held that right to perform a religious practise may be acquaried also by custom and this is also held that the protection of art. 25 with respect to all religious rights and practise ,ceremonies of function which being customary performed by the member of the petition community and not according to the version of the petitioner to the person. Govindrodji Maharaj Tilakayat Shri v.State of Rajasthan AIR 1963SC1638 The question before court is that whether again religion practise is a intergalpart of a religion or not?The test always would be whether it is regarded as such by the commentary folling the religion or not. Ivor Hayden v state of AP 1984 CR LJ. 116 The Court held that playing the radio loudally at a particularly time did non constitute public nuisance because it was too trival for being pervative in a court of law. So in the present case