IV INTRA

IV INTRA BATACH
BATCH MOOTMOOT COURT
COURT COMPETITION – 2018
COMPETITION- 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Type a quote

from the
document or
the summary of
an interesting
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIApoint. You can
position the text
box anywhere in
the document.
Use the Text
Box Tools tab to
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION_/2018 change the
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION – 2018 formatting of
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA the pull quote
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIAtext box.]

GAKI And Others……………………………………………PETITIONER

V.

State &
GAKI of Vindhya Pradesh……………………………………..RESPONDENT
others…………………………………………………………………..……PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH………………………………………..RESPONDENT

X
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES………………………….…….……………………………4

WEB RESOURCES…………………….………………………………4

CASE LAWS……………………….…………………………………..5

LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………. 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………….………………………7

STATEMENT OF FACT……………………………….………………….8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………….11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..........................................................................13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable.

1.1 No exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice had been done.
1.2 Interference from pure question of fact is itself a fact
1.2.1 No Substantial question of law is involved

1.3 That the Petitioner has not exhausted alternate remedy available to him.

2. Whether there is a violation of fundamental right.

2.1 No Violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
2.1.1 Right to marry under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
2.1.2 Subject to reasonable restriction under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
2.2 No Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2.3 No Violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
2.3.1 Root Difference between ‘social’ and ‘religious’ activity.
3. Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State Policy.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………….22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

1 The Constitution of India, 1950

2 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

WEB RESOURCES

1. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)

2. www.indiankanoon.org (INDIAN KANOON)

3. www.thehindu.com (THE HINDU)

4. www.lawctopus.com (LAWCTOPUS)

6 www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)

7. http://www.nishithdesai.com

8. www.bluebook.com (BLUEBOOK)

CASE LAWS

CASE NAME CITATION

Council of Scientific and Induatrial Research v. (1989) AIR 4 SCC 653.
K. G. S. Bhatt

Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) AIR 2 SCC 666

Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century AIR 1962 SC 1314
Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd.
CIT v. Maganlal Changanlal (Ltd). (1997) AIR 11 SCC 557.

CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd AIR 1986 SC 1849

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT AIR 1971 SC 720

M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of AIR 1962 SC 1314.
Income Tax

British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. AIR 1964 SC 1451.

Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of
Customs

Onkarlal v. State of Rajasthan (1985) AIR 4 SCC 4014.

Lata Singh v. State of UP AIR 2006

Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 128

Tilkyat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v State of AIR 1963 SC 1638
Rajashtan
AS Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1765, 1792: (1996) 9
SCC 548
Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) AIR 8 SCC 369
Fazru v. State of Haryana AIR 1998 P&H 133
S.R .Bommai v. UOI AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) SCC 1
Kesavanda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC
225 : (1974) 1 SCC (JI.) 3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Hon’ble Honourable

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

UOI Union of India

AIR All India Reports

ICMA Indian Christian Marriage Act

Art. Article

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SLP Special Leave Petition

S. Section

¶ Para

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner herein, Under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, this Hon’ble Court has
been vested, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal
in the territory of India. In this case, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned
orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Vindhya Pradesh.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Vindhya Pradesh amended the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions
of Services) Rules, 1961. It was published in the Vindhya Pradesh Gazette on 10th March, 2000
with the Governor’s assent.

The amendment added sub-rule 5 & 6 to sub-rule 4 into Rule 6 in effect which totally disqualify
the candidate from the state civil services either, it is an administrative services of any grade i.e.
I,II,III& IV and from judicial services in the State of Vindhya Pradesh.

The amended sub-rule 5 signifies the complete ban of getting married before the age of 18,
disqualifies the candidate to get the government job & amended sub-rule 6 is not very much clear
how it has to be applied. Also, there is no burden of proving that the child has conceived before
the amendment or after the amendment.

Public Interest Litigation was filed by a public spirited citizen, GAKI in the Hon’ble High Court,
challenging the vires of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961. The association of
various religionshad also filed a writ petition on 8th August, 2018 challenging the vires of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1961. The petitioner raised several challenges inter alia,
on the following grounds namely:

Sub rule 5 violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India which highlights Right to life and
personal liberty that includes right to marry. The amended provisions have taken away the
fundamental right of citizen’s right to marry. In the same manner, sub-rule 6 is also a violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India since, the reverse burden of proof is cast upon the
candidate to show that he/she is innocent, violating the general presumption of the candidate
being innocent until proven guilty. The amended provision also been challenged on the ground
of Article 14, inter alia, Equality before law. The amendment, i.e., the addition of sub-rule 5 also
violates the fundamental right to practice and propagate religion under Article 25 of the
Constitution.

The State of Vindhya Pradesh defended the vires of the said amendment on the following
grounds namely:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

Article 14 & 21 are not an absolute Fundamental Right & every Fundamental Right is subject to
reasonable restrictions.

Fundamental Right cannot read in isolation it but it has to be read with Directive Principles.

Reasonable restrictions have to be implemented through Directive Principles of State Policy

which should be upholding the interest of Public not an individual.

The High Court has brought within the ambit of the public policy for the development of the
State.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

Whether the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable?

ISSUE 2

Whether there is no violation of fundamental right?

ISSUE 3

Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State Policy?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted the Hon’ble Court that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and no
exceptional or special circumstances exist for the case to be maintainable. Also, there has been
no failure of justice and Special Leave Petition cannot be granted just because the decision of HC
might be suffering from some legal errors. Further, no substantial question of law is involved in
the present case and interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be
dismissed as per the test laid down under the case of Chunni Lal.

Moreover, the petitioner has not exhausted alternative remedies. In the present case no special
circumstances existed to forgo the statutory process of appeal. The petitioner had an option to
appeal to the concerned HC’s higher bench or apply for revision. In case of failure of above
remedies, the petitioner also had an option to pursue his case before the SC under Art. 132 which
provides for appellate jurisdiction of SC in appeals from HC in civil, criminal or other matters.

[2] Whether there is a violation of Fundamental Right?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes sub-rule 5 & 6 are
not in violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The
amended provision of Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services), 1961
are the provision set by the Vindhya Pradesh for the overall of development of the state as well
as it’s people by modifying certain part of it.

[3] Whether the Fundamental Right prevails over Directive Principle of State

Policy?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the Vindhya
Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes sub-rule 5 & sub-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

rule 6 which are the directives of state policy in reference of Art. 38 do not come in violation of
Art.14, Art.21 and Art.25.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[1]. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTANBLE

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, Special Leave Petition cannot be
granted, when substantial justice has been done by the HC of Vindhya Pradesh and no
exceptional or special circumstances exist for the case to be maintainable. Also, in the
present case there is no involvement of substantial question of law and interference is
based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.

[1.1] NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE.

2. It is humbly contended by the respondent that the petitioner must show the exceptional
circumstances exist and if there is no interference, it will result in substantial and grave
injustice and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision
appeal against, on merits. Only the court would exercise its overriding powers under Art.
136.1 Special Leave cannot be granted when there is no failure of justice or when
substantial justice is done, though decision might suffer from legal errors.2
3. In this present case, there is no exceptional and special circumstance shown by the
petitioner. The HC of Vindhya Pradesh has very judiciously decided by upholding the
validity of the amendment of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services ( General Condition of
Services) Rules, 1961.
4. Furthermore, it is not possible to define the limitations of discretionary jurisdiction vested
with SC under the Art. 136. But, being an exceptional and overriding power, 3 naturally it
has to be exercised sparingly with caution only in special and extraordinary situations.4

1
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 575 (16 th.,LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur 2011)
2
Council of Scientific and Induatrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 653.
3
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.
4
H.M. Seeravi, Constitutional Law of India, VOL. 1, 252 ( 4 th ed., Universal Law Publishing, Allahabad 2010).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 13

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

[1.2] INTERFENCE FROM PURE QUESTION OF FACT IS ITSELF A

FACT

5. It is contended by the respondent that the appeal doesn’t involve any substantial question
of law rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable. Generally
on finding of fact, no interference should be made.5 Even in cases where conclusions are
reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding of fact, no interference of SC
is called for.6 Futher, if the conclusion is based on some evidence on which subsequently
a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law is raised7
6. In this instant case, the petitioner contention is based on the question of fact about the
sub-rule 5 & 6 and not on the substantial question of fact.

[1.2.1] NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED

7. In Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 8, the test laid
down here, to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved is an open
question in the sense that there is no scope for the interference by the HC with finding
recorded when such finding could be treated to be finding of fact; 9 if the question has
been well –settled by the Highest Court and it is merely a question of applying the settled
principles in determination of the matter.10

[1.3] THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATE

REMEDIE AVALIABLE TO HIM

8. The doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies guides the practice and procedure of
the SC in the exercise of power conferred under Art. 136. As per the principle, all the

5
CIT v. Maganlal Changanlal (Ltd)., (1997) 11 SCC 557.
6
Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT, AIR 1971 SC 720.

7
CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1849.
8
AIR 1962 SC 1314.
9
M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1962 SC 1314.
10
AIR 1964 SC 1314.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

statutory remedies would have to be exhausted before approaching the SC, under its
special jurisdiction, unless the special circumstances can convince the court that it must
allow the appeal.11
9. The petitioner also had an option to resort to the jurisdiction of HC by appeal to the
Court’s higher bench or application for revision. The respondent humbly submit that
keeping in view the precedents laid down by the Apex Court,12 the petitioner’s sheer
failure to exhaust the available alternative remedies renders the current SLP non-
maintainable.

[2] THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

[2.1] NO VIOLATION OF ART.21

10. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 which
includes sub-rule 5 & sub-rule 6 that are not in violation of protection of life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India. The Fundamental Right is
not an absolute right and impose certain restriction and herein, the appeal of petitioner is
based on that restrictions which earlier rejected by the Hon’ble HC. Thus, the addition of
such amendment only put reasonable restriction and not violative of Art.21.

[2.1.2]RIGHT TO MARRY COMES UNDER ART. 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

11. The amended sub-rule 6 of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of
Services) Rules, 1961that disqualify the candidate by completely ban on getting married
before the age of 18. The part that comes under Art. 21 is the concept of right to marry.
But, the part of fundamental right i.e., right to marry is not an absolute right rather it is a
dynamic concept that changes and still different from past or historical time to present
and will be differ in future. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person

11
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR 1964 SC 1451.
12
Onkarlal v. State of Rajasthan (1985) 4 SCC 4014.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 15

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. 13 The judgment lay down
by the bench of SC, that if a person enters into the age of ‘major’ then he/she can marry.

[2.1.3] SUBJECT OF REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART. 21

12. Every fundamental right is combined with the term ‘reasonable restriction’ which is to be
determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the interest of general
public and not from the standpoint of the interest of the persons upon whom the
restriction are imposed or upon abstract consideration.14
13. In the light of reasonable restrictions on fundamental right in the present case, the ground
of reasonableness should be appropriate, not arbitrary and urgency must be on the
reducing the effect of an evil cause. The adoption of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
S. 2(a) and (d) clarify the age that, if a male has not completed twenty one year of age,
and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age, refers to as ‘child’ and the latter,
"Minor" means a person of either sex who is under eighteen years of age. The Child
Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 made to fight with the evil of social injustice that eating our
society and comprises the part of reasonable restriction as well.
14. So, hereby the respondent is before this Hon’ble SC to set forth the aforementioned
reasonable contention with rejecting the plea of the petitioner.

[2.1.3] RIGHT TO BURDEN OF PROOF

15. The said amendment by the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of
Services) Rules, 1961 under sub-rule 5 & sub-rule 6, state does not violate the right to
burden of proof. The amendment done by the state is for the welfare and benefit of the
people of Vindhya Pradesh to secure a social order for the promotion and welare of the
people.15
[2.2]NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14-“EQUALITY BEFORE LAW”
16.It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that there is a no violation of Art. 14 by
the amendments of the Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services

13
Lata Singh v. State of UP, AIR 2006
14
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128.
15
Art. 38 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

Rules), 1961. These amendments are upheld by the HC which are constitutional and do
not violate the Part III of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the people certain
fundamental rights and therefore, these amendment are in no contravention with the
fundamental rights that need to be address by the Hon’ble SC.
17. Art.14 runs as follows: “The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.” Also, Art. 14 provide positive
and not negative equality. Firstly, amended sub-rule 5 is not violative of Art.14 as it
prohibits child marriage which is also stated under "The Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act,2006"
18. The sub--rule 5 is not violative of Art.14 as it’s not based on arbitrary or vague ground
rather it’s based on intelligible differentia which fulfills the condition of reasonable
classification.
19. The SC has observed that in one of its famous cases that-
“This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can
marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such
inter-caste marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations
with the son or daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of
violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste marriage”.16
20. Here the SC has focused on majority of a person of marriage. The sub rule 5 is not in
violation of Art.14 as various other statues like "The Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act,2006", Universal Declaration of Human Right, Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention on Consent to Marriage,
Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriage, Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC), Inter-American Convention on Human Rights etc all prohibits child
marriage.
21. Now coming to sub rule 6 which is pregnancy clause is referred to order of MP
government which clearly specifies the date that is born before or after 26 January,2001.
22. Here in the order of 5 July 2006, it’s clearly specified that having a child before 26
January or after 26 January if delivery takes place and if candidate delivers a single child
or twin child then he will not be barred from writing exams or applying for govt. job.

16
Lata Singh v.State of UP, AIR 2996 SC 2522.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 17

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

23. Referring to previous decision of SC

The Hon’ble SC has upheld two child norms. The case was a writ position challenging
the constitutionality of a law that prohibits anyone with more than two living children
from holding certain public offices in the Panchayat raj local government system of the
state of Haryana. The SC gave the verdict that this clause is not violative of any
fundamental right as it’s not arbitrary.17
24. Various other states like Maharashtra, Assam are also adding this clause in their recent
recruitment rules.
25. Its cleared that both sub-rule 5 and 6 are not vague and arbitrary rather they impose
reasonable restriction which are for the interest of public at large and not for violating the
fundamental rights. Here its reasonable classification and not class legislation

[2.3]NO VIOLATION OF ART. 25

26. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes
sub-rule 5 is not in the violation of Art.25 Of the Part III of the Constitution of India i.e.,
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of Religion.
27. The amended sub rule 5 is complete ban of getting married before the age of 18 and
disqualifies the candidate to get the government job.
28. Freedom of religion is granted to all persons of India.18
29. As Article 25 of the Part III of the constitution of India states that:
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part,
all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the
State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity
which may be associated with religious practice;

17
Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057.
18
S.R .Bommai v. AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) SCC 1.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 18

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in
the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as
including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the
reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
30. As per the clause 1 of Article 15 states that the subject to public order , morality and
health this part shall provide freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion.
31. As it is the duty of the state to take proper care of health and maintain public order as
child marriage has an adverse effect on the health of women , there are several medical
and emotional trauma from which the children of small age face if they are married.

[2.3.1] ROOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘SOCIAL’ AND ‘RELIGIOUS’

ACTIVITY

32. Referring to this instant case, the SC observation in this connection,19 the test always be
based on the fact that whether the community that practice religion following or not. It is
the responsibility of the Court to find that the practice is essential or integral part of the
religion or not depend upon the evidence adduced before it as to the conscience of the
community and the tenets of the religion.
33. In regard to dealing with the present case to find that the practice is integral part of the
religion or not by the contention of the SC that while interpretation Art. 25 and Art. 26
strikes a careful balance between the freedom of the individual as a group in regard to
religion, matters of religion, religious beliefs, faith or worship, religious practice or
customs which are essential and integral part and those which are not essential and
integral and the need for the state to regulate or control in the interest of the community.20

19
Tilkyat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v State of Rajashtan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
20
AS Narayana v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765,1792: (1996) 9 SCC 548.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 19

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

34. The scope of Article 25 extends to such that it involves a separation between ‘relegious
activity’ on the one hand and ‘secular’ and ‘social’ activities on the other. In this instant
case, sub rule 5 comes under the latter and not the former one. Thus, the upholding
validity of the Vindhya Pradesh civil services ( general condition and services) Rules
1961 by the Hon’ble HC is in corrective sight in the eye of the law.
35. Under Art 25(1), freedom of Relegion is subject to ‘health’. Taking the present case in
the light of aforementioned statement as well as with the Harayana Legislature disqualify
persons having more than two children from contesting or holding an elective office is
not violative of the Constitution21 and the same is the subject matter to make law for
social welfare under Art. 25(2).22
36. There are several report and research by International and National organization which
proves the above statement.

[5]WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PREVAIL OVER DIRECTIVES

PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

[5.1] DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY IN FAVOUR OF

PUBLIC AT LARGE

37. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the amendment provision of the
Vindhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service), 1961 which includes
sub-rule 5 & sub-rule 6 which are the directives of state policy in reference of Art. 38
does not come in violation of Art.14, Art.21 and Art.25.

[5.1.2]HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

DIRECTIVES PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

38. The main aim of directives principles of state policy is to create social and economic
conditions under which citizens can lead a good life.

21
Javed v. State of Harayana (2003) 8 SCC 369.
22
Fazru v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 P&H 133.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 20

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

39. Here the purpose of state is not to violate the interest of the people rather it is to promote
welfare in form of elimination of malpractices like child marriage and control on
population growth.
40. Each fundamental right is adhered to some restrictions as well instead of prevailing
Fundamental right over Directive Principles of State Policy, the approach of harmonious
construction shall be used.
41. The SC in one of its landmark cases has said that "fundamental rights and directives
principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of
a Welfare State and they can be interpreted and applied together. They are supplementary
and complimentary to each other.23
42. As earlier we have discussed that there is no gross violation of any fundamental right the
directives principles of state should be implemented as given in the order.

23
Kesavanda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 : (1974) 1 SCC (JI.) 3.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 21

 IV INTRA BATACH MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed
that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold that:

1. The Special Leave Petition is not maintainable.

2. The amended sub-rule 5 & 6 not violate fundamental right and thus shall not be omitted.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interest of

Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Shall Forever Pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 22