TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...1
2. List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………..2
3. Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………...3
4. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………4
5. Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………..5
6. Statement of Issues ……………………………………………………………………6
7. Summary of Arguments……………………………………………………………….7
8. Arguments Advanced …………………………………………………………………8
9. Prayer….……………………………………………………………………………..12

Page 1 of 12
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR : All India Reporter

2. ART. : Article
3. Ors : Others
4. SC : Supreme Court
5. SCC : Supreme Court Cases
6. Sd/- : Signed
7. Vs : Versus
8. & : And
9. PIL : Public Interest Litigation
10. Vol. : Volume
11. Govt. : Government
12. UOI : Union of India

Page 2 of 12
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Kesavananda Bharati vs Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1461.............................................9

2. Minerva Mills vs Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789……………………………………9

3. Waman Rao vs Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271……………………………………….9

4. Raghunath Rao vs Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1267…………………………………..9

LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

3. Lexis nexis

BOOKS

1. Shukla V.N, Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.
2. Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th edition 2018, Lexis Nexis.
3. Basu D D, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th edition 2007, Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.

Page 3 of 12
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hyndia has the jurisdiction in this matter under

Article 32 of the constitution of Hyndia which reads as follows:

“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.”

Page 4 of 12
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. By complying the Art.368 procedure, Parliament enacted Constitution (111th

Amendment) Act, 2019 to amend Art.3 & 4. After Amendment Art.3 & 4 consists of
the following phrases:
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing
States: Parliament may by law,
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State;
Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but
in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory Explanation II The power
conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or
Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or
Union territory.
2. Art. 4 Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and
the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters.
4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the law passed under
Art.2 and 3 providing for the amendment of the First and Fourth Schedules and
supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions shall be in accordance with
Art.368 (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature
or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law).
3. Later, Constitution (112th Amendment) Act, 2019 has been passed by following Art.368
procedure to divide State of Uttar Pradesh into four different States viz., North Uttar
Pradesh, East Uttar Pradesh, West Uttar Pradesh, South Uttar Pradesh. The 112th
Amendment Act, 2019 amended Schedule I & IV and all other related Constitutional
Provisions.
4. Mr.A, a public-spirited person filed a PIL challenging the Constitutional validity of the
111th & 112th Constitutional amendments.

Page 5 of 12
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I :

WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II :

WHETHER THE 111TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID OR NOT?

1. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF PROVISO OF ART. 3 IS AGAINST THE

PRINCIPLES OF BASIC STRUCTURE?
2. WHETHER THE ART.4 AFTER 111TH AMNEDMENT IS AGAINST THE
PRINCIPLES OF BASIC STRUCTURE OR NOT?

ISSUE III :

WHETHER THE 112TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID OR NOT?

Page 6 of 12
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue I

Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed against Union of Hyndia is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that present PIL is maintainable
against the Union of Hyndia. It is further submitted that there has been gross violation of the
basic structure doctrine; the PIL is maintainable, under Art. 32 of the constitution1.

Issue II

Whether the 111th constitutional amendment is constitutionally valid or not?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
Constitution (111th Amendment) Act, 2019 to amend the Art. 3 & 4 is constitutionally invalid
as it goes against the principles of “Federalism” which is a part of the basic structure doctrine
of the constitution.

Issue III

Whether the 112th constitutional amendment is constitutionally valid or not?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the 112th
constitutional amendment is constitutionally invalid since the reorganization of states is made
in accordance with Article 3 & 4(after 111th amendment) which goes against the basic structure
doctrine of the Hyndian constitution.

1
Constitution of Hyndia, Pari Materia to Constitution of India ,1950 (Hereinafter referred as Constitution)
Page 7 of 12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1:

Whether the Public Interest Litigation is filed against Union of Hyndia is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that present PIL is maintainable
against the Union of Hyndia. It is further submitted that there has been gross violation of the
basic structure doctrine; the PIL is maintainable, under Art. 32 of the constitution2.

Issue 2:

Whether the 111th amendment is constitutionally valid or not?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Constitution (111th
Amendment) Act, 2019 to amend the Art. 3 & 4(2) is constitutionally invalid as it goes
against the principles of “Federalism” which is a part of the basic structure doctrine of the
constitution.

1. Whether the removal of proviso Art. 3 is against the principles of the basic
structure?
a. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the
removal of proviso of Art. 3 is unconstitutional and goes against the basic
structure of the constitution.
b. Hyndia is an embodiment of the ‘holding together’ model of federalism. Our
constitution was not a result of states coming together. It was only a result of
Independence from the British and the formation of a Constituent Assembly by
the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The Hyndian model of Federalism has been
described by Prof. Wheare as ‘quasi-federal’.
c. The earlier proviso of Art.3 which has been removed by the 111th Amendment
said that if the Bill affects the area, name or boundaries of a State then before
recommending its consideration to the Parliament, the President has to refer the
same to the State Legislature concerned for expressing its views on it within such
time as he may fix it. The purpose of the provision was to give an opportunity to

2
Constitution of Hyndia, Pari Materia to Constitution of India ,1950
Page 8 of 12
 the State Legislature concerned to express its views on the proposals contained in
the Bill. This preserved the idea of federalism present in the basic structure
doctrine.
d. The present amendment which removes the proviso of Art. 3 transgresses its limit
and impairs and alters the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
This amendment converts Hyndia into a unitary nation and destroys the idea of
federalism.
e. In Kesavananda Bharati vs. UOI3, some of the features regarded by the Court as
fundamental and non-amendable are:
i. Supremacy of the Constitution;
ii. Republican and democratic form of government;
iii. Secular character of the constitution;
iv. Separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary
v. Federal character of the Constitution
f. In Minerva Mills vs. UOI4, the scope and extent of the doctrine and basic structure
was again considered by the Supreme Court. The Court again reiterated the
doctrine that under Article 368, Parliament cannot so amend the Constitution as to
damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroy its basic
structure.
g. The proposition that Parliament cannot, under Article 368, so amend the
constitution as to destroy its basic features was again reiterated and applied by the
Supreme Court in Waman Rao v UOI5 and Raghunath Rao v UOI6.
h. The Courts are entrusted with the important constitutional responsibilities of
upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. The amendment of the Constitution
is only for the purpose of making the Constitution more “perfect, effective and
meaningful.” An amendment should not result in “abrogation or destruction of its
basic structure or loss of its original identity and character and render the
Constitution unworkable.

3
Kesavananda Bharati vs. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

4
Minerva Mills vs. UOI, AIR 1980 SC 1789.

5
Waman Rao v UOI, AIR 1981 SC 271.

6
Raghunath Rao v UOI, AIR 1993 SC 1267.
Page 9 of 12
 i. An amendment like 111th Amendment which transgresses its limit and impairs
and alters the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution, renders the
amendment unconstitutional.

2. Whether the Art. 4 after 111th amendment is against the principles of the basic
structure or not?
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the
amendment made in Art. 4 after 111th Amendment is unconstitutional and goes
against the basic structure of the constitution:
a) Because it harms the federal structure of the constitution in a way that it gives the
unitary power to the union with regard to the laws made under articles 2 and 3 to
provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and
supplemental incidental and consequential matters.
b) After the current amendment, the laws made under the Article 2 and 3 to provide
for the amendment of the First and Fourth Schedule of the Hyndian Constitution
and supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions
as to representations in Parliament and in the Legislature or legislatures of the
state or state affected by such law) would be regarded as amendment of the
constitution under Article 368.
c) Now, the Article 368(2)(d) provides that for any amendment related to
representation of States in Parliament, the amendment after getting passed by both
the house of Parliament also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less
than one-half of the states, before the bill making provision for such amendment is
presented to the president for assent.
d) This means that now not only the Parliament has decision making power of
making new laws under Article 2 and 3 of the Constitution but also the other State
Legislatures are equal participants in making new law under Article 2 and 3 of the
Constitution when read with the Article 368 of Hyndian Constitution. This
directly harms the federal structure of the Constitution in a way that federalism
not only defines the relation between union and state but it also defines the
relation between two states in a union. Their areas of operation and functioning
cross and intersect in several respects thus creating a variety of governmental
relations not only between the Centre and the regions but also between the regions

Page 10 of 12
 inter se. The existing state which is going through the reorganization under Article
4 rests with no power to decide upon its fate.
e) It is often observed that the formation of a new state from the existing state or the
alteration of its boundaries happens on the demand of the people of a particular
community living in particular part of the existing state, For example: Telengana.
It is not done on the demand of the people living in other states. The Article 3 of
the Constitution also before amendment provides that the President is bound to
seek the opinions and views of the people of the existing state before giving his
assent to any amendment related to reorganization of state but the current
amendment mandates that the Legislatures of not less than one- half of the states
should give its assent to the bill making amendment under Article 4 of the
Constitution. The direct consequence of this would be that there can be situations
where the union along with the other state legislatures can make law for a
particular existing state without the approval of their state legislature.

f) The other side of the coin shows that there can be circumstances when the union
and particular existing state want to make some new laws under Article 4 of the
Constitution but couldn’t make it because the bill seeking amendment of the
existing state does not succeed in getting ratification by the legislature of half of
the state. This also harms the federal structure of the Constitution.

Issue 3:

Whether the 112th constitutional amendment is constitutionally valid or not?

The Constitution (112th Amendment) Act, 2019 has been passed by following Art.368
procedure to divide State of Uttar Pradesh into four different States viz., North Uttar Pradesh,
East Uttar Pradesh, West Uttar Pradesh, South Uttar Pradesh. The 112th Amendment Act,
2019 amended Schedule I & IV and all other related Constitutional Provisions.

a) Article 3 enables Parliament to effect by law reorganisation inter se of the

territories of the States constituting the Hyndian Union. The 111th Amendment
made certain changes in Art. 3 which alters the basic structure or essential
features of the Constitution. The validity of the reorganization of States made
under Article 3 therefore holds no water and the 112th constitutional amendment
can therefore be rendered constitutionally invalid.

Page 11 of 12
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise
declaring:
1. That Article 3 & 4 of the Constitution of Hyndia is violating the basic structure and
preamble of the Constitution of Hyndia, thus is unconstitutional;
2. Restrain the Union of Hyndia from initiating any action in pursuance of Article 3 of
the Constitution of Hyndia for bifurcation of State of Uttar Pradesh and formation of
new States without enacting any law or even issuing any executive instructions
prescribing criterion, modalities and guidelines for exercising power under Article 3
of the Constitution of Hyndia or alternatively direct the Union of Hyndia to consider
for making any legislation or issuing executive instructions prescribing guidelines,
modalities for exercising power under Article 3 of the Constitution of Hyndia.

AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Page 12 of 12