TC– 04

3 RD Dr. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARD

In the Matter of:

Gamora Mufti ………………………………………………………….……Petitioner

V.
Union of Asgard……………………………………………………………Respondent
And
Thanos Abdullah ………………………………….……………………….…Petitioner
V.
Union ofAsgard………………………………….………………………….Respondent
And
Sakaar State Vision NGO ……………………….……………………….…Petitioner
V.
Union ofAsgard………………………………….………………………….Respondent

WRIT PETITION NOS._____/2020&WRIT PETITION NOS._____/2020

CLUBBED WITH
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NOS._____/2020

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART. 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD
___________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARD

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT TC-04

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATION...................................................................................................................03

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..04

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION.....................................................................................09

STATEMENT OF
FACTS.....................................................................................................10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS............................................................................................13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................15

1. THAT THE PETITIONS ARE NOT

MAINTAINABLE………………………………………..15
1.1. That the writ petitions are not maintainable under
Article32……….………………..15
1.2. That the petitioners have no locus standi to approch the
court……………………….15
1.3. That the alternative relief has not been
exhausted……………………………………16
2. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS
VALID…………………………………………………...16
2.1. President’s rule in Vormir differs from that of others
………………………………..17
2.2. Duty of the Union to protect states
…………………………………………………18
2.3. Rationality behind the imposition of President’s rule under Article
356…………….19

Page 1 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

3. THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION ( APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER,

2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID
……………………………………………………20
3.1. President have power to apply the provision of constitution of Asgard on state of
Vormir through modification by order within article 370 (1)
(d)…………………….21
3.2. Article 370 is a temporary
Provision…………………………………………………24
4. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND
THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR
IS
VALID…………………………………………………………………………………….25
4.1.The imposition of sec. 144 does not violate article 19 and 21 of citizens.
……………26
4.1.1. The government’s action of curtailing internet and mobile services is
valid….28
4.2.The house arrest of prominent political leaders is within provision of article
22……..29
5. THAT THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES
OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR IS VALID
……………………………………………………...31
5.1.VormirReorganisation Act is Constitutional………………………………..………..31
5.2.For the sake of Social Interest the legal status of State of Vormir
changed……………32

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….35

Page 2 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ : Paragraph

AIR : All India Reporter

Art. : Article

All ER : All England Law Report

Bom : Bombay

Const. : Constitution

Cl :Clause

Cal: Calcutta

CWN : Calcutta Weekly Report

DLT : Delhi Law Times

Edn. : Edition

HC : High Court

Hon'ble : Honourable

IT : Information Technology

i.e: That is

LR : Law Reporter

OLR : Orissa Law Review

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

P&H : Punjab and Haryana

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SLP : Special Leave Petition

SCR : Supreme Court Reporter

UP : Uttar Pradesh

Page 3 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

UN: United Nation

UNGA : United Nation General Assembly

URL : Uniform Resource Locator

US : United State

V. : Versus

VS. : Versus

W.P.: Writ Petition

Page 4 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES1.

[A.] CASES

1. A.L.Gopalan V. State of madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C.

27………………………..………30
2. Administrator–General of Bengal V. Premlalmaullick, (1895) I.L.R 22 Cal.
788…………………………………………………………………….………...……22
3. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1532…...15
4. Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2002 S.C.
1124……….…………….15
5. Bennett coleman& co. V. Union of india, AIR 1973 SC
106…………………………26
6. BBC Enterprises v. Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd. (1990) 2 All ER
118……………….…..23
7. Charles Robert leader V. George F. Diffey, (1888) 13
A.C…………………………..24
8. Corporation of culcutta V. Liberty cinema, A.I.R 1965 S.C
110……………………..25
9. CST vs. Mangalsenshyamlal, A.I.R 1975 S.C.
1106……………………….…………21
10. Delhi airtech services pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 57……………….30
11. DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and Another, WP. (C)
No. 441 of 2015………………………………………………………………………15
12. Dyson holding ltd. V. Cox (1976) Q.B.
503…………………...……………………..22
13. Election Commission, India vs Saka VenkataSubba Rao union Of India A.I.R. 1953
S.C. 210………………………………………………………………………………15
14. GurudevdattaVksssMaryadit and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, [2001] 2
S.C.R.
654………………………………………...…………………………………..23
15. Haji Esmail v. Competent Officer, A.I.R. 1967 S.C.
1244………………….………..15
16. K. M. Nanawati V. Bombay, (1961) 1 S.C.R. 497……………………..…………….24

Page 5 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

17. Khazan Chand Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir A.I.R. 1984 S.C.
762…..……..20
18. Madras V. Gannon dunkerley& co. (madras) ltd., (1959) S.C.R. 379……………….
.21
19. Menka Gandhi v. UOI, A.I.R. 1978 S.C.
597………………………..……………….27
20. M. Pentiah V. Veeramallappamuddala, A.I.R 1961 S.C
1107……………..…………22
21. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 (5) SCC 1……26
22. Northern terri tory V. Collins, (2008) 83 A.L.J.R.
1………………………………….22
23. Punjab bevregespvt. Ltd. V. Suresh chand, A.I.R. 1978 S.C
995…………………….22
24. Ramjilalmodi v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1957 S.C.
620………………………………….27
25. Puranlallakhan pal V. President of india, A.I.R 1961 S.C.
1519……………………..21
26. R.B. rajbhar v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1975 S.C.
623…………………………….……30
27. R V. Halliday, 1917 AC
260………………………………………………………….29
28. Romeshthapper v. State of madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C.
124……………………...…….27
29. RomilaThapar vs Union Of
India………....…………………………………………..28
30. Sampat Prakash v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1969) 2 SCR
365…………..….29
31. S.K. Sinha v. Patna University A.I.R. 1965 Pat. 253………..……………………….16
32. SmtUjjam Bai v State of U.P. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1621……………………………….15
33. State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. A.I.R. 2001 S.C.
1560………16
34. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361
(India)…………………..18

Page 6 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

35. State Of Maharashtra vs Captain BuddhikotaSubha

Rao……………………………..31
36. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1241: (1964) 1 S.C.R. 371
(India)......................................................………………………….………………....31
37. T.P. MoideenKoya vs Government Of Kerala And Ors……….…………………….30
38. Torture in Israel v. Israel 38 I.L.M. 1471
(1999)……………………………………..25
39. Whitney V. I.R.C, (1926) A.C
37…………………………...………………………..22

[B.] STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India……………………………………………….15,16,17,18,19

2. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir…………………………………………….30
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973…………………………………….………..22
4. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,
1978……………………………………24
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ……………………………………………..……….26
6. The Public Safety Act,1953…………………………………………………………..28

[C] CONSTITUTION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950……………………………….………..15,16,17,18,19

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, 1957………………………….………30

[D] REPORTS &ARTICLE

1. Justice Sarkaria Commission Report………………………………….…………….18

[E] BOOKS

1. D.D Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 23rd Ed., 2018, LexisNexis,
Haryana………………………………………………………………………………28
2. D.D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Ed., 2012, LexisNexis
ButterworthsWadhawa,
Nagpur……………………………………………………………………22

Page 7 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

3. Dr.J.N. Pandey, Constitution Law of India, 44th Ed., 2007. Central Law Agency,
Allahabad …………………………………………………………….………………19
4. H.M Sreevai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th Ed., 1993, N.M. Thripati Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay…………………………………………………………………………...20.21
5. Justice A.S. Anand, The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir its development and
comments, 8th Ed., 2017, Universal law publication,
delhi………………………..22.23
6. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional law, 5th Ed., 2003 rep.2005, Wadhwa& Co.
Nagpur………………………………………………………………………………..19
7. P.M Bakshi , The Constitution of India, 4th Ed., 2000, Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt.Ltd., Delhi………………………………………………………………………..23
8. R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal procedure including probation and juvenile justice, 6th Ed.,
2017, EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., Lucknow……………………………………………24
9. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, 10th Ed., 2003 rep.2007, Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow……………………………………………………………………………...26
10. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, (21st Ed., Central Law Agency, 2016 )………………21

[F] WEBSITES

1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
3. http://www.scconline.com
4. http://www.judis.nic.in
5. http://www.lexis-nexis.com/universe
6. http://www.heinonline.com
7. http://indiankanoon.org
8. https://www.livelaw.in
9. HTTP://WWW.SCOBSERVER.IN

10. https://thewire.in/law.

[G] MISCELLANEOUS

1. Black’s Law Dictionary (Brain A. Garner Ed., West Group 7th Ed. 1999)
2. The Human Right Act, 1998(U.K)
3. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

Page 8 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

Page 9 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court is competent to hear to the petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Asgard.
As the matter involves determining the extent of fundamental rights provided under Part III
of the Constitution of Asgard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asgard constituted a
constitution bench to hear the matter which has all the jurisdiction to hear it.

Page 10 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Asgard is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic that follows federalism where by
power is shared between Union and States. The Constitution of Asgard came into existence
when colonial Asgard was divided into Union of Asgard and Republic of Titan. There were
two prominent religions in the Colonial Asgard, Marvelism and Gothism. The partition took
place on the prevalence of these religions in the two countries. Marvelism was a majority
religion in Asgard and Gothism in Titan. After partition most of the princely states became
either a part of Asgard or Titan, however a handful remained sovereign. Among the princely
states which preferred to be independent was the State of Vormir which shared borders with
the Asgard and Titan. The ruler of the princely state of Vormir was a Marvel while maximum
population of the state followed Gothism therefore the ruler exercised its right to self -
determination and decided to remain sovereign. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed
and the part of the state of Vormir which was captured by Titan was declared to be belonging
to the Union of Asgard. Both Asgard and Vormir also formed a treaty that they will solve
their disputes mutually over Vormir. The accession of Vormir led to inclusion of Article 370
in Part XXI of the Constitution of Asgard under the heading ‘Temporary, Transitional and
Special Provisions’. According to this article, except for defence, foreign affairs, and
communications it restricted the Parliament’s legislative powers in respect of Vormir. For
extending a central law on subjects included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA), mere
“consultation” with the state government was needed. But for extending it to other matters,
“concurrence” of the state government was mandatory. Thus, the state's residents live under a
separate set of laws. In 1952 Vormir leaders discussed their relationship with the Asgard
which led to a comprehensive Sakaar Agreement. The agreement extended Asgardian
citizenship to the 'State subjects' of Vormir. In the light of agreement 'Article 35A' was added
to the Constitution of Asgard by the Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 1954. It
extended several provisions of the Asgardian constitution to Vormir and under the Article all
identified residents are issued a permanent resident certificate, which entitles them to special
benefits related to employment, scholarships, ownership and settlement. Ever since the Odin
Janata Party (OJP), a prominent political party in Asgard came to power at the Centre in
2014, scraping of Special Status of Vormir was one of the goals in their manifesto. In 2016
the party formed a coalition government with Vormir’s Democratic Party (VDP) in the State
of Vormir. During this time there were many calls by the party ideologues to scrap the
Articles 370 and 35A.

Page 11 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

On 23 July 2018, Howard Singh the OJP Leader in Vormir withdrew its support to the ruling
VDP. He also held a conference on same day and pointed that Gamora Mufti has links with
terrorists and is corrupt in her practices. She has hollowed Vormir’s positive aspirations and
continuing a government with her party is not possible anymore. VDP lost majority in the
State and Gamora Mufti’s supporters who consider her as the “Daughter of Vormir” broke
into a mass rebellion. ThanosAbdullah leader of opposition party, Vormir National
Conference (VNC) held a conference on the morning of 30 July that he will support VDP to
again form government. On the same day by afternoon the Governor of Vormir send a report
to the President for imposition of President’s Rule in the State under Article 356 of the
Constitution of Asgard. He cited breakdown of constitutional machinery and law and order as
reasons for the same. The Odin Janata party who had been opposing the special status for
Vormir for a long time soon proposed the Constitutional (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019
to repeal the Articles and called for bifurcation of the state into two union territories that is;
Wakanda (centrally administered) and Vormir (with its legislative assembly) by introducing
the VormirReorganisation Bill, 2019. Prominent Vormir leaders, including former Chief
Minister Gamora Mufti and opposition leader, Thanos Abdullah were placed under house
arrest after imposition of President’s Rule. Internet and mobile services were curtailed, and
Section 144 of Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 was imposed. Government’s move was
criticised as the Reorganization bill breached the 1954 Presidential Order as no consent or
concurrence of the Legislature or the State Government was taken at any point. Further the
state was locked down by imposing Sec. 144. The sudden abrogation and its procedure
invited more than a dozen petitions. The pleas have been filed by a variety of persons,
including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats and politicians. The petitions have alleged that the
Article 370 amendment could not have been done without the concurrence of a duly elected
Constituent Assembly in Vormir. Gamora Mufti approached the Court against her house
detention. Thanos Abdullah filed writ petition against the imposition of President’s Rule in
the state without giving chance for floor test. The decision to substitute the "Governor" as the
authority to recommend and ratify proposals to change the legal status of the State, according
to the petitioners, is "illegal and unconstitutional." A plea was also made by a Sakaar State
Vision NGO, it flagged the issue of freedom of the press being violated and imposition of
Section 144 they pointed out that essential services including ambulances, police and fire
services are also not accessible due to the curfew situation and communication blockade.
Apex Court clubbed all the petition.

Page 12 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. THAT THE PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32.

2. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS VALID
3. THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION ( APPLICATION TO VORMIR)
ORDER, 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID

4. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE

AND THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE
OF VORMIR IS VALID

5. THAT THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION

TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR IS VALID.

Page 13 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] THAT THE PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32.

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the sole object
of Article 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Whatever other remedies may be open to a person aggrieved, he has no right to complain
under Article 32 where no “fundamental right’ has been infringed, and infringement of
fundamental rights cannot be founded on remote or speculative ground.

[2] THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ASGARDIS VALID

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the instant
case the imposition of President’s rule is valid under Article 356 of the Constitution of
Asgard. Since there is a situation in which government of the State of Vormir cannot be
carried according to the provisions of the constitution.

[3] THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER, 2019

IN THE STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
enforcement of Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State of Vormir is
valid because state has power to make any law and this order does not violates any
provisions of part third of the Constitution of Asgard.

[4] THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND THE
HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the imposition
os Section 144 of Criminal code of procedure and the house arrest of prominent political
leaders of the state of Vormir is valid because decision was taken depending on the facts,
circumstances, requirements of an area and restrictions were put.

Page 14 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

[5] THAT THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES
OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR IS VALID.

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
VormirReorganisation Act is absolutely essential for the law and order, sovereignty and
security of the country of Asgard. With a view to containing the poor situation in Vormir, it is
very important to bring about a change in the administrative system.

Page 15 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT:-

[1] THAT THE PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32

[¶1] The counsel humbly submits that the sole object of Article 32 is the enforcement of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.1 Whatever other remedies may be open to
a person aggrieved, he has no right to complain under Article 32 where no “fundamental’
right has been infringed2, and infringement of fundamental rights cannot be founded on
remote or speculative ground3. It follows that no question other than relating to a fundamental
right will be determined in a proceeding under Article 32,4 including interlocutory relief.5

[1.1] That the writ petition are not maintainable under Art. 32

[¶2] It is humbly submitted that no action lies in the Supreme Court under Article 32 unless
there is an infringement of a fundamental right6. A petitioners will not be entitled to relief
under this Article, unless he establishes that his fundamental right has been violated or
imminently threatened.7 Art. 32 confers “extra ordinary” jurisdiction,8 the same must be used
wisely, sparingly and shall be brought into use under circumstances where there is no
alternate efficacious remedy is available.9 Therefor the writ petition are not maintaible under
Art. 32 of Constitution of Asgard.

[1.2] That the petitioner has no Locus Standi to approach the Hon’ble court.

[¶3] It is humbly submitted that there was neither any infringement of fundamental right nor
where such infringement imminent. A person acting Bona Fide and having sufficient interest
in the proceeding of the public interest litigation will alone have a Locus Standi and can
approach the court under Art. 32 to wipe out the violation of Fundamental rights and genuine
infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gains or private profits or political

1
Art. 32 the Constitution of India.
2
RathinBandyopadhyay, Human Rights Of The Non-Citizen: Law And Reality 256 (1st ed. 2007), see
Also Haji Esmail v. Competent Officer, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1244.
3
Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2002 S.C. 1124.
4
DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and Another, WP. (C) No. 441 of 2015.
5
Dr. S.K. AwasthiKataria, Law relating to protection of Human Rights, (4th ed. 2001)
6
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1532.
7
SmtUjjam Bai v State of U.P. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1621.
8
Election Commission, India vs Saka VenkataSubba Rao union Of India A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 210.
9
State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1560.

Page 16 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

motives of any oblique consideration. When a person acquires a Locus Standi, he has to have
a personal or individual right which was violated or threatened to be violated.

[1.3] That the alternative relief has not been exhausted.

[¶4] The Court shall not issue a writ in favour of a person who has an adequate alternative
remedy. It is contended that Art 32 should be invoked as a last resort; after all other
alternative remedies have been exhausted. These alternative remedies should provide an
equivalent relief to the infringement of the Fundamental Right of the petitioner.

[¶5] The alternative remedy is equal and efficacious. The alternative remedy should be
equally convenient, beneficial and effective. It should secure necessary relief and should not
be onerous or burdensome. In S.K. Sinha v. Patna University10, the petition under Article 32
was denied on the ground that there existed an equal and efficacious remedy under the
University Act.

[¶6] Having submitted that, it is important to view the idea of 'alternative remedies' in
practical light. The Supreme Court has a significantly large backlog of cases. In light of that,
it is humbly submitted that the cases be filtered at the level of State Judiciary. Also, in most
situations the State Judiciary is in a better position to address the issues of infringement of
Fundamental Rights than the Supreme Court. Filing a case in the High Court is also less
expensive in terms of overall costs. The Supreme Court can reject a petition on the grounds
that there exists an alternative remedy and will not grant relief. Only where the petition raises
important questions of the interpretation of statutory provisions or rules which it is in the
public interest to decide speedily, where there is a failure of justice due to a misreading of the
provisions of an Act.

[¶7] The Counsels finally submits that, this Hon’ble full bench has all the powers to refuse to
hear the petitions on grounds of non-maintainability as there is no violation of fundamental
rights and also the alternative remedies has not been exhausted.

[2] THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ASGARDIS VALID

10
A.I.R. 1965 Pat. 253.

Page 17 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

[¶8] It is humbly submitted that the power under Article 356 (1) is an emergency power.
Emergency is a situation, which calls for the immediate remedial action.11 Article 356
confers powers to the President to discharge the obligation imposed upon him by Article 355.
And is a measure to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The President’s power
under this article is conditional on the satisfaction of the President as contemplated under this
Article.In the instant case the imposition of President’s rule is valid under Article 356 of the
Constitution of Asgard. Since there is a situation in which government of the State of Vormir
cannot be carried according tothe provisions of the constitution.

[2.1]President’s rule in Vormir differs from that of others

[¶9] It is contended that on account of Vormir’s special status, it has a slightly different
mechanism in place when it comes to the Governor’s rule and President’s rule. Here the
failure of governmental function results in Governor’s rule under Section 92 of the
constitution of Vormir. The Governor later obtains the consent of the President of India. It is
only when the Governor’s rule is not revoked for six months that the President’s rule is
imposed in the state under Article 356.12

[¶10] In the case of State of Vormir as according to the section 9213 of state’s constitution
with the consent of the President of Asgard in case of failure of constitutional machinery,
Governor’s rule is imposed for 6 months. Assembly is either dissolved or suspended during
the Governor’s rule. If the constitutional machinery is not restored before the expiry of the
said 6 months period, the provision of Article 356 is applied to the State of Vormir and
thereby President’s rule is imposed that is the state is under the direct central rule.14

[¶11] In the instant case Governor’s rule in Vormir was imposed and state assembly was kept
suspended animation after the state plunged into the political crisis when Gamora Mufti led
coalition government was reduced to minority following the withdrawal of support from the
OJP.15 Since, under section 92, constitution of Vormir there is no further continuation of the
existing Governor’s rule after 6 months. Thus, on the recommendation of governor by

11
2 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2166 (14th Edn., Reprint 2012).
12
The Constitution of India.
13
The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956-1957.
14
The Wire Staff, How President’s rule in Jammu & Kashmir differs from that in other States, THE WIRE (Jan.
26, 2020, 2:00 PM), https://thewire.in/law.
15
¶ 11, PAGE 4, STATEMENT OF FACT, 3 RD Dr. R.U.SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2020.

Page 18 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

sending report to the President of Asgard and having regard to the prevailing situation in the
state, President issued the proclamation promulgating President’s rule in Vormir.16

[2.2] Duty of the Union to protect states

[¶12] Article 355, the Constitution of Asgard imposes two obligations on the Union at the
centre- (1) to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance and, (2) to
ensure that the government of every State is working in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.17

[¶13] As it is the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on
in accordance of the provisions of the Constitution. Article 356 empowers the Union
government to take over the executive and legislative powers of a State in a situation in
which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution. As Art. 355 is one to which Art. 356 was intended as a supplement.18 In
Kanwaljit Singh v. Union of India,19it was obsersed that failure of constitutional machinery
has been deemed to be an emergent situation with respect to which Arts. 355, 356 and 357
provide for dealing with the situation.

[¶14] Moreover, it was observed in the case State of Rajasthan v. Union of India20, it was
observed that the expression ‘in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution’, in Art.
356 is therefore to be interpreted in the light of the other two serious situations which precede
this expression, namely, ‘external aggression’ and ‘internal disturbance’. As in the words of
KrishnaswamiAyyar: “The primary thing concerning the nation and the Union Government is
‘to maintain constitution…..it is the duty of the Union Government to protect the States
against external aggression, internal disturbance and domestic chaos and to see that the
Constitution is worked in proper manner both in the States and in the Union….. .21in the
instant case there is a mass rebellion by the supporter of the Gamora Mufti and rebellion was
continued and there was continuous stone pelting and attack on the Army personnel after
when VDP lost its majority.22 So, there is serious chaos all around and the state government

16
Ibid.
17
V.N.Shukla, Constitution of India 1038 (12 th ed. reprinted, 2015).
18
2 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2168 (14th Edn., Reprint 2012).
19
MANU/PH/ 2212/1991: 10.09.1990-PHHC (India).
20
A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361 (India).
21
IX C.A.D. 150.
22
¶ 11, PAGE 4, STATEMENT OF FACT, 3RD Dr. R.U.SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2020.

Page 19 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

failed in restoring the majority on the floor of the state legislative assembly with a
characteristic of stable government. And the President is also satisfied on the Governor’s
report of the failure of constitutional machinery in the State of Vormir so, the President has
imposed the promulgation of impugned proclamation.

[2.3]Rationality behind the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356

[¶15] President’s Rule could be imposed when State Legislature is unable to elect a leader as
Chief Minister or, Collapse of a Coalition due to disagreements, parting ways within the
members or, Serious breakdown of law and order or, Elections postponed due to ineludible
reasons or, Loss of majority in the state assembly or, Shoot up of insurgency or rebellion.23 In
the instant case, there is a collapse of coalition due to disagreement between the OJP and
V.D.P. And there is a serious breakdown of law and order by the mass rebellion by the
political supporters of Gamora Mufti.24

[¶16] In the instant case there is impossibility of forming a stable government by the coming
together of political parties with opposing political ideologies including some which have
been demanding dissolution of the Assembly. Whereas from the experience of the past few
years, with a fractured mandate in the Assembly, it is not possible to form a stable
government comprising of like-minded parties as they had different political ideologies. The
coming together of such parties in a grouping is nothing but an attempt to gain power rather
than to form a responsive government. Since, the element of responsible government is very
important for governing any state within the spirit of the Democracy and Democracy is the
basic structure with the Constitution.25

[¶17] There is also chance of extensive horse trading and possible exchange of money in
order to secure the support of legislators belonging to widely diverging political ideologies
just to be able to form a government. Such activities are not healthy for democracy and vitiate
the political process. In the instant case before Governor’s rule under section 92, Constitution
of Vormir when governor invite VDP to prove majority on the floor of the Assembly,
Gamora Mufti failed to do so but after the Governor’s rule almost 6 months later, VNC
wanted to form the government with her although they know that their coalition would not
prove majority on the floor of the Assembly so it shows that their ideologies are different at

23
Editorial Note, (Jan 3, 2020), https://www.iastoppers.com.
24
Ibid.
25
KeshvanandBharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225: A.I.R 1973 S.C. 1461 (India).

Page 20 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

one time in same situation they are opposing to each other while at another instance they
having the greed to formulate the government without same ideology.Hence, there is a
serious doubt about the longevity of such arrangement where there are competing claims of
majority.26

[¶18] There is scenario of fragile security in the state of Vormir where there is a requirement
to have a stable and supportive environment for security forces which are engaged in
extensive anti-militancy operations and are gradually gaining control over the security
situation. Hence, in the given situation the imposition of President’s Rule is valid

[3] THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER,

2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID

[¶19] Article 370 limits the provision of Asgardconstitution to the state of Vorrmir. Under
article 370 (1)(d), constitutional provision could be applied to the state from time to time, as
modified by the president through a presidential order, and upon the concurrence of state
government. Here, clause 3 of article 370 authorize the president to pass an order removing
and modifying parts of article. The proviso stated that:

[¶20] Provided that the recommendation of the constituent assembly of the state referred to in
clause (2) shall be necessary before the president issues such a notification.

[¶21] The scope of article 370(1) (d) is much wider provision; the president has been given
power to modify the article by the order. The presidential order given for amendment was
much within the provision of the article. The article do not explicitly mention what will be
done after constituent assembly ceases to exist.

[¶22] The provision of article 370 (3) proviso “ provided that the recommendation of the
constituent assembly of the state referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the
president issue such a notification.”

[¶23] Article 370(1)(c) says that the State of Vormir is one of the States which from the
Union of India and by virtue of sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of that Article so far as the
provisions of the Constitution, other than those of Articles 1 and 370, are concerned, the
President of Asgard has the power, with the concurrence of the Government of the State of

26
The Wire Staff, Plan for Grand Coalition in J&K prompts Governor to dissolve Assembly, THE WIRE (Jan.
28, 2020, 4:26 PM), https://thewire.in/law.

Page 21 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

Vormir, to issue an order specifying which of them shall apply to that State and whether such
provisions shall apply in their entirety or subject to such exceptions and modifications as may
be specified in that order.27 Dicey observed that “The twelve unamendable constitution (of
France) have each lasted on an average for less than 10 years, and have frequently perished
by violence.” 28
the presumption in favour of amendability of the constitution on the ground
that an unammendable constitution would perish in violence, cannot be applied to a
constitution with a wide but not unlimited amending power.29 In Gannon dunkerly case, it
was contended that the words of the constitution conferring legislative power must be so
construed as to make as to make it flexible and elastic in order that the power may be
exercised in respect of matter which might be unknown at the time law was enacted but might
come into existence with the march of time.30 The plain and ordinary meaning of the word
may be qualified by the circumstances with reference to which the words are used, so that the
intention is better effectuated by giving to the word a different meaning from that which they
normally bear.31

[3.1] President have power to apply the provision of Constitution of Asgard on state of
Vormir through modification by order within article 370 (1) (d).

[¶24] The term ‘constituent assembly’ is making whole provision of article 370 (3) non –
functional. As the constituent assembly of state of Vormir ceased functioning in 1957. The
only way to repeal Article 370 would be by the President through a notification but not
without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of State of Vormir. The Constituent
Assembly, of course, disbanded in 1956 and almost all members are presumably dead. Before
dissolution, the Constituent Assembly neither recommended abolishing Article 370 neither,
did they advocate for it to be permanent.32 The president brought the ordinance through the
article 367 as the 370 (1) (d) permits president for modification. The power to ‘modify’

27
Khazan Chand Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 762.
28
Dicey, LAW OF CONSTITUTION, 10TH ED., Pg. 129
29
H.M. SEERVAI, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, vol. 3, 4 th ed., universal law publication, pg no 3142,
para 2
30
Madras V. Gannon dunkerley& co. (madras) ltd., (1959) S.C.R. 379
31
H.M. SEERVAI, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, vol. 1, 4 th ed., universal law publication, pg no 185,
para 2.31
32
Govts rational behind removal of special status (Jan. 28, 11:04 PM)
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/full-text-of-document-on-govts-rationale-behind-removal-of-special-
status-to-jk/article28821368.ece

Page 22 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

includes the power to enlarge or add to an existing provision, or to abrogate it, if necessary. It
is co- extensive with the power to amend and is not confined to the minor alteration only.33

Ut res magisvaleat quam pereat - The principle of interpretation ut res magisvaleat quam
pereat means that law should be made functional and workable. Lest the intention of the
legislature may go in vain or be left to evaporate into thin air.34 The provision will never lead
to its implementation which the amendment as the objective of this provision cannot be
fulfilled. The courts strongly lean against construction which reduces the statute to a
futility.35 The constitutionality of statute starts with the presumption in favour of
constitutionality and prefers a construction which keeps the statute within the competence of
the legislature.36 A statute is designed to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by a
court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end
unattainable.37 As the constituent assembly ceases to exist so the whole provision if 370 (3) is
non – functional.

[¶25] exvesribusactus-The principle of interetation ex vesribusactus means to construe

onepart of a statute by another part of the same statute, for that best expresseth meaning of
the maker.38 So, the controversial provision (article 370) must be read in the context of statute
as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be construed in the historical context of the
situation which led to its enactment.39To put the words in their context it is therefore
necessary to say something about historical background.40Lord halsbury said that, “you must
look at the whole instrument in as much as there may be inaccuracy and inconsistency; you
must, if you can, ascertain what is the meaning of the instrument taken as a whole in order to
give effect, if it is possible to do so, to the intention of the framer.”41 The legislature whilst
enacting one clause in plain term might introduce into some extent qualifies its effect.42

[¶26] The power of president under article 370 (1) to amend article 370 (3) through
presidential order is used. Article 367 provides various guidelines about how the constitution

33
Puranlallakhan pal V. President of india, A.I.R 1961 S.C. 1519
34
CST vs. Mangalsenshyamlal, A.I.R 1975 S.C. 1106
35
M. Pentiah V. Veeramallappamuddala, A.I.R 1961 S.C 1107
36
Corporation of culcutta V. Liberty cinema, A.I.R 1965 S.C 110
37
Whitney V. I.R.C, (1926) A.C 37
38
Punjab bevregespvt. Ltd. V. Suresh chand, A.I.R. 1978 S.C 995
39
Northern terri tory V. Collins, (2008) 83 A.L.J.R. 1
40
Northern terri tory V. Collins, (2008) 83 A.L.J.R. 1
41
Charles Robert leader V. George F. Diffey, (1888) 13 A.C.
42
Administrator – General of Bengal V. Premlalmaullick, (1895) I.L.R 22 Cal. 788

Page 23 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

may be interpreted. This order adds sub-clause 4. Article 370, via orders, has been modified
so many times, it can be expelled from the Constitution as well without taking ‘concurrence’
of the now-defunct Constituent Assembly. The Constitution has been recognised as a living
document, after all43. The substantial and material change in the circumstances must lead to
modification of statute.

[¶27] Reducing the legislation futility shall be avoided and in a case where the intention of
the Legislature cannot be given effect to, the Courts would accept the bolder construction for
the purpose of bringing about an effective result. The Courts, when rule of purposive
construction is gaining momentum, should be very reluctant to hold that the Parliament has
achieved nothing by the language it used when it is tolerably plain what it seeks to achieve. 44

[¶28] "Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that
the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and
construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some
absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest
to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their
ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are
clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning,
irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the
intention of the law-giver. The courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be
made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound
principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if
they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of
the statute..."45

[¶29] In Dyson holding ltd. V. Cox46, raised a related question as to what happens when a
word used in a statute, changes its meaning by the passage of time. The question for decision
was the word ‘family’ in the expression ‘member of family’. The judges held that whatever
may have been the position in1950 the meaning of the word ‘family’ had clearly changed.

43
JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, REVISED BY JUSTICE A.K.
PATNAIK, lexisnexis, 14thed, pg. No. 130, para 2
44
BBC Enterprises v. Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd. (1990) 2 All ER 118
45
GurudevdattaVksssMaryadit and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 654
46
(1976) Q.B. 503

Page 24 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

[3.2] Article 370 is a temporary Provision

[¶30] It is humbly submitted that well established rule of interpretation requires that the
meaning and intention of the framer of constitution be it parliament or a constituent assembly
must be asserted from the language of the constitution itself.47 N. Gopalaswamyayyanger
(member of constituent assembly in Jammu and Kashmir) saw it as, article 370 is a temporary
and interim arrangement with respect of state of Jammu and Kashmir. The order, passed in
1954 by the President, was due to fulfilling Article 370 (1) (d). Article 370 was supposed to
be temporary; the first word of the Article is temporary. It is still under Part XXI which is
titled “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions“.48 Our humble submission is that,
over the years the existing regime under article 370 of constitution, and the
exceptions/modifications carried out to other provisions of constitution of India by
presidential order issued under article 370 (1) (d), were impeding, rather than enabling or
facilitating, the full integration of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of
the country which was neither in the national interest nor in the interest of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir. Headings are gradually winning recognition as a kind of preamble to the
enactments which they precede limiting or explaining there operation49.

[¶31] Referring to Chapter 21 of the Constitution that deals with temporary, transitional and
special provisions in relation to certain states, the Centre said the special provisions from
Article 371A to Article 371J contain specific provisions for certain states such as
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim,
Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka.

[¶32] We also submit that, It was also decided that it would be essential that the entirety of
the provisions of the Constitution of Asgard be made applicable to the erstwhile State of
Vormir, so that the said State and its people may enjoy the full protection of all of the
provisions of the Asgard Constitution as well as all civil/penal welfare legislations are made

47
H.M. SHEERVAI, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Vol. 1, 4 th ed., universal law publication, pg. 172,
para 2.2, reprinted in 2013
48
Govts rational behind removal of special status (Jan. 28, 2020, 11:04 PM)
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/full-text-of-document-on-govts-rationale-behind-removal-of-special-
status-to-jk/article28821368.ece
49
K. M. Nanawati V. Bombay, (1961) 1 S.C.R. 497

Page 25 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

applicable. It said these constitutional decisions were effectuated strictly in accordance with
the requirements of the Constitution of Asgard.

[¶33] "However, the entirety of the Constitution of India is applicable to all of these states.
On the other hand, in case of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, in the first instance, on
the Constitution of India coming into force, only Article 1 and Article 370 applied to that
State. All other provisions of the Constitution were to be made applicable to the then State of
Jammu and Kashmir by the President of India, with such exceptions and modifications as
considered necessary,"

[¶34] The abrogation of Article 35A of the Constitution which "enabled the then State to
make laws giving special rights and privileges to permanent residents, while imposing
restrictions upon others" is justified.

[¶35] One of the most important step that could be taken to address the constitutional issue is
to restore the distinction between offenders who threatens national security and criminals. it
is essential for the future of individual rights.50 Supreme Court of Israel concerning the
legality of the general security service’s interrogation methods in PUBLIC COMMMITTEE
AGINST TORTURE IN ISRAEL V. ISRAEL51, relating to the question of whether torture
during interrogation of an alleged terrorist is permissible. In that case, the court held that such
acts were unconstitutional, and could not be justified in lights of the freedom and liberty
afforded to citizens of Israel.

[4] THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND THE
HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR IS
VALID[

[¶36] It is humbly submitted that the first and foremost duty of the State is to ensure security
and protect the citizens their lives, limbs and property. He further submitted that the facts
relied on by the Petitioners and the Interveners were incorrect, as they did not have the
correct information about the factual position on the ground in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. Depending on the facts, circumstances and requirements of an area, restrictions
were put in place which is now being relaxed gradually. the orders passed by the Magistrates

50
Future of foreign intelligence privacy and surveillance in a digital age, laura K. Donohue, oxford university
press,2016, pg 150
51
38 I.L.M. 1471 (1999)

Page 26 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

under Section 144, Cr.P.C., in their respective jurisdictional areas, the learned Solicitor
General submitted that they were best placed to know the situation on the ground, and then
took their respective decisions accordingly orders passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C. can be
preventive in nature, in order to prevent danger to public safety. The Magistrate can pass the
order even on the basis of personal knowledge, and the same is supposed to be a speedy
mechanism. The orders passed must be considered keeping in mind the history and the
background of the State. it was impossible to segregate, and control, the troublemakers from
the ordinary citizens. the Court does not sit in appeal of the decision to impose restrictions
under Section 144, Cr.P.C. and has limited jurisdiction to interfere, particularly when there
are no allegations of mala fide made against the officers and when the question involved is of
national security. The level of restriction required is best left to the officers who are on the
ground with the requisite information and knowledge, and the same is not to be replaced by
the opinion of the Courts. Normalcy is returning in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and that
the present petitions are not maintainable.

[4.1] The imposition of sec. 144 does not violate article 19 and 21 of citizens.

[¶37] The imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C done by state does not violate the fundamental
rights granted under article 19 (1). The right granted under this article is subject to reasonable
restriction as per article 19 (2) to 19 (6). The provisions shall not prevent state from making
any law, the reasonable restriction on exercise of right in the interest of the sovereignty and
integrity of Asgard, security of state, public order, decency or morality. There were enough
facts in the knowledge of the Magistrate to pass the orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. There
was sufficient speculation on the ground to suggest that there might be a move to abrogate
Article 370 of the Constitution, and they were aware of the situation on the ground.
Provocative speeches and messages were being transmitted. This information is all available
in the public domain. Every act done by the government or by its officers must, if it is to
operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by some legislative authority. 52
Whatever one chooses or an unrestricted or unbridled licences that gives immunity for every
possible use of language and does not prevent punishment for those who abuses this
freedom.53The background of terrorism in the State of Vormir needs to be taken into account.
This Court while deciding the aforementioned case, has taken cognizance of the problem of

52
Bennett coleman& co. V. Union of india, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 106.
53
AIR 1950S.C. 124.

Page 27 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

terrorism in the State before.54Cross border terrorism and internal militancy, it would have
been foolish to have not taken any preventive measures in the circumstances. The necessity
of the orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. are apparent from the background facts and
circumstances, when there can be huge violence if the Government did not take these kinds of
measures. It is legitimate for parliament under this clause to restrict the right of free speech if
it preaches secession of any part of territory of Asgard from the union.55 All utterances
intended or calculated to have endangered the security of country may properly be restrained
in the interests of the security of the state.56Serious and aggravated forms of public disorder
are within the expression of “security of state”. The expression does not refer to ordinary
breaches of public order which do not involve any danger to the state itself.57The expression
public order is synomynous with public peace, safety and tranquility.58the state may in the
interest of public order prohibit expulsion of hecklers from meeting and assembelies, and
punish utterances of tending to incite breach of the peace or roit and use of threatening
words.59Not only has such utterance as are directly intended to incite disorder fallen within
the expression.60
[¶38] It is humbly submitted that, section 144 of crpc does not violate the article
21.Chandrachud J. Said that the procedure in article 21 “has to be fair, just and reasonable,
not fanciful, oppressive and arbitrary.”61No person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by valid law. 62 It is in this context, while
the nation is facing such adversity, an abrasive statement with imminent threat may be
restricted, if the same impinges upon sovereignty and integrity of Asgard.63The preventive
measure on the reasonable ground is taken by state which does not infringes fundamental
rights of the people of Vormir. The reasonableness of a penal law coming under article 21
can be examined with reference to art. 19, only if the expression ‘move freely throughout the
territory of India’ in art. 19(1)(d) compromise with personal liberty sought under article

54
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 (5) S.C.C. 1.
55
Mahendra pal singh, V.N. Shukla’s constitution of india, eastern book publication, 12 thed, pg 145, para 1
56
idib
57
Romeshthapper v. State of madras, A.I.R. 1950S.C. 124
58
idib
59
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional law, 5th Ed., 2003 rep.2005, Wadhwa& Co. Nagpur
60
Ramjilalmodi v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1957S.C. 620.
61
Menka Gandhi v. UOI, A.I.R. 1978S.C. 597.
62
(1980) 2 S.C.C. 684
63
AnuradhaBhasin case W.P(Civil) 1031 of 2019

Page 28 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

21.64An order under sec. 144 Cr.P.C. could not invoke article 21 and if art. 21 is applicable,
its requirement had been satisfied because the code has been enacted by the competent
legislature and the rule of natural justice could not be imported to the test of reasonableness
of such a law.65
[4.1.1] The government’s action of curtailing internet and mobile services is valid.

[¶39] Internet was never restricted in the Vormir and Wakanda regions. Further, he submitted
that social media, which allowed people to send messages and communicate with a number
of people at the same time, could be used as a means to incite violence. The purpose of the
limited and restricted use of internet is to ensure that the situation on the ground wouldnot be
aggravated by targeted messages from outside the country. Further, the internet allows for the
transmission of false news or fake images, which are then used to spreadViolence. The dark
web allows individuals to purchase weapons and illegal substances easily. It is not possible to
ban only certain websites/parts of the Internet while allowing access to other parts. Such a
measure was earlier attempted in 2017, but it was not successful. The substantive law
concerning the right to internet and the restrictions that can be imposed on the same, we need
to turn our attention to the procedural aspect. The procedural mechanism contemplated for
restrictions on the Internet, is twofold: first is contractual, relating to the contract signed
between Internet Service Providers and the Government, and the second is statutory, under
the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the
Telegraph Act. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read withThe
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information
by Public) Rules, 2009 allows blocking of access to information. This Court, in the
ShreyaSinghalcase (supra), upheld the constitutional validity of thisSection and the Rules
made thereunder. Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujarat, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 191
of 2015, “9. Under Section 144 of the Code,Directions may be issued to certain persons who
may be the source for extending theFacility of internet access. Under the circumstances, we
do not find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the resort to only Section
69A was available and exercise of power under Section 144 of the Code was unavailable, can
be accepted.” the circumstances in which the suspension orders may be passed. Section 5(2),
Telegraph Act is as follows:

64
D.d. basu, shorter constitution of india, 14 thed reprint 2012, lexisnexis, vol.1, pg no 390, para 5
65
D.D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India,391 para 2, 14th Ed., 2012, LexisNexis ButterworthsWadhawa,
Nagpur

Page 29 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

[¶40] “Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and toOrder
interception of messages. the above two pronouncements of this Court, what emerges is that
the prerequisite for an order to be passed under this subsection, and therefore the Suspension
Rules, is the occurrence of a “public emergency” or for it to be “in the interest of public
safety”. Although the phrase “public emergency” has not been defined under the Telegraph
Act, it has been clarified that the meaning of the phrase can be inferred from its usage in
conjunction with the phrase “in the interest of public safety” following it. The
HukamChandShyam Lal case (supra) further clarifies that the scope of “public emergency”
relates to the situations contemplated under the subsection pertaining to “sovereignty and
integrity of Asgard,The security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states orpublic
order or for preventing incitement to the commission of anoffence”.

[4.2] The house arrest of prominent political leaders is within provision of article 22.

[¶41] The former chief ministers of the state — gamora mufti and opposition leader thanos
Abdullah has been house arrested because there was threat to public order of the state when
the Centre moved to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 and split
the state into two Union Territories. They are arrested under the jammu and Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978 following instructions from the Union. The Act has two sections ‘public
order’ and ‘threat to security of the state’. As per its provision, any person can be detained
without trial for 3-6 months under public order and for two years for being a threat to national
security.66The detention of the petitioner was continued without making a reference to the
Advisory Board inasmuch as Article 35(c)of the Constitution had given protection to any law
relating to preventive detention in Jammu & Kashmir against invalidity on the ground of
infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution
initially for a period of five years, which was then extended to ten years and fifteen years.67

SECTION 8 DETENTION OF CERTAIN PERSON-

(1) The government may-

Farooq
66
Abdullah detention order, (Jan.30, 2020, 2:06
PM)https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ex-cm-farooq-abdullah-detained-under-
stringentpsa/articleshow/71148578.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cp
pst
67
Sampat Prakash v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1969) 2 S.C.R. 365.

Page 30 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

(a) If satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to –
(i) The security of the state or maintenance of public order,

[¶42] This act was enacted authorising preventive detention under article 22. 68 The
constitution itself authorises the legislature to make laws providing for “preventive detention”
for the reason connected with the security of a state, maintenance of public order.69
Preventive detention means detention of a person without trial.70the existence of article 22 on
the constitution will be beneficial, rather than prejudicial, to the cause of liberty, because the
validity of such state laws can be challenged on the ground of contravention of the safegaurds
laid down in article 22.71 Lord finley said in a case, “it is not punative but precautionary
measure.”72 The object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done
something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing
it.73patanjalishatri J. Said “ the sinister-looking feature, so strangely out of place in a
democratic constitution which invests personal liberty with the sacrosanctity with a
fundamental right and so incompatible with the promises of its preamble is doubtless
deseigned to prevent the abuse of freedom by antisocial and subversive which might imperil
the national security of the infant republic.”74 So, the law of preventive detention is
authorised by our constitution presumably because it was foreseen by the constitution makers
that there may arise occasion in the life of nation when the need to prevent citizens from
acting in the ways which unlawfully subverts or disrupts the basis of an established order
may outweigh the claims of personal liberty.75 the detention order passed against the
petitioner was valid and proper having regard to the provisions of COFEPOSA
and Article 22(5)) of the Constitution and this Court having upheld the validity of
the detention order and also the continued detention of the petitioner, the present petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by him is not maintainable.76

68
D.D. BASU, introduction to the constitution of india, 131, para 3, lexisnexis, 23 rd ed.
69
7th schedule, list III, entry 9
70
Durha Das Basu,.pg 129, para 3.
71
Delhi airtech services pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 57.
72
R V. Halliday, 1917 AC 260
73
V.nshukla, pg 236, para 1
74
A.L.Gopalan V. State of madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27.
75
R.B. rajbhar v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 623.
76
T.P. MoideenKoya vs Government Of Kerala And Ors

Page 31 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

[¶43] The term house arrest is not defined under Cr.PC. It is defined as the confinement of a
person who has been accused or convicted of a crime to his or her home, usu. by attaching an
electronically monitored bracelet to the person.77

[¶44] The Supreme Court has itself directed for house arrest because They are found to be
providing strategic inputs in furtherance of the objective of armed rebellion as per the
strategic document of the banned terrorist organisation namely Communist Party of India
(Maoist).” Interim directions to place the five individuals under house arrest were issued.78In
another case, the learned Judge felt that by permitting him to be kept in
virtual house arrest the State's grievance that he meets visitors including media men and gives
inter- views at the G.T. Hospital open ward will not survive. He was also of the view that
having regard to his spinal disorder it was necessary that he had proper facilities for yogic
exercises under expert guidance.79

[5] THAT THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES
OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR IS VALID

[¶45] It is humbly submitted that the VormirReorganisation Act, 20s19 is absolutely essential
for the law and order, sovereignty and security of the country of Asgard. With a view to
containing the poor situation in Vormir, it is very important to bring about a change in the
administrative system. It is not illegal to bring alteration. Any provision of the Constitution
can be altered in accordance with the essential requirements in the country.80 Now, Vormir
and Wakanda being a Union Territory, the Central Government can formulate strategies on
the border activities with well formulated policies without any restrain and which is
necessary for the native people there. With legal and social perspective the reorganization of
the State of Vormir into Union Territories of Wakanda and Vormir is valid.

[5.1] VormirReorganisation Act is Constitutional

[¶46] It is contended that there is no constitutional guarantee of continuing existence of a

State that existed at the commencement of the Constitution or came into existence later.81
And under the constitution of Asgard, Article 370(1)(c) explicitly lists the two constitutional

77
Black’s law dictionary, 9th ed., pg. No. 807
78RomilaThapar vs Union Of India, W.P 260 of 2018
79
State Of Maharashtra vs Captain BuddhikotaSubha Rao. A.I.R 1989 S.C. 2292.
80
Shri Amar Singh, Synopsis of Debate, RAJYA SABHA (Jan. 12, 2020, 11:25AM), rssynop@sansad.nic.in.
81
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1241: (1964) 1 S.C.R. 371 (India).

Page 32 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

articles that will apply to Jammu and Kashmir that are Article 1 which enumeratesAsgard’s
constituent divisions and Article 370 itself. Article 370(1)(d) explains how other
constitutional provisions may discretionarily be applied to the state as modified by the
president of India through an order, along with the “concurrence” of the “Government of the
State.” In this way, Article 370(1)(d) has been used to “incorporate” other provisions of the
Constitution of Asgard to the State of Vormir.82

Moreover, in the instant case important situation to stimulate 370(1)(d) for the application of
other constitutional provisions to Jammu and Kashmir, there is presently no “Government of
the State” in Vormir to “concur” with the president.83 In July 2018, the majority coalition
ruling the state split up, and the state’s legislature was dissolved. Since then, after the
Governor’s Rule the state has been under the direct rule of the President of Asgard.84

[¶47] As according to the Art. 1,Constitution of Asgard, Vormir is part of territory of Asgard.
It would be possible for the Parliament of Asgard to increase or decrease the area of Vormir,
to alter its name or boundaries in the manner provided in Arts. 3-4 only if the Legislature of
the Vormir consents,85 but in the instant case in the State of Vormir there is dissolution of
State Legislative Assembly86 and failure of constitutional machinery thereby imposition of
President’s Rule under Art. 356. Since according to Art. 356, President can suspend that part
in respect the operation of any provisions of Constitution relating to any authority in the
State.87 In the instant case there is a suspension of Proviso to Art. 3 and it is valid under Art.
356 as in a very landmark Case whose situation is somehow similar to the instant case
Manohar Lal v. Union,88 the petitioner contended that the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1962,
was invalid because the Bill which was subsequently enacted into the impugned Act had not
been referred to the State legislature as required by the Proviso to Art. 3. In rejecting the
contention the court held that the President had issued a proclamation under Art. 356(1)(c)
had suspended the operation of the proviso to Art. 3 in so far as it referred to sending the Bill
to the State Legislature for its opinion and also suspended Art. 174(1) and 2(a). The

82
LayaMaheshwari, How the Indian Government changed the Legal Status of Jammu and Kashmir, NEW
YORK TIMES (Jan. 20, 2020, 1:06 PM), https://www.lawfareblog.com.
83
Ibid.
84
¶ 11, PAGE 4, STATEMENT OF FACT, 3RD Dr. R.U.SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2020.
85
1 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 25 (12th Edn., Reprinted 2012).
86
Ibid.
87
Editorial Notes, The reorganization of J&K under the cover of President’s Rule, IAS TOPPERS (Jan. 22,
2020, 10:50 PM) https://www.iastoppers.com.
88
(‘70) A.Del. 178: A.I.R. 1970 Delhi 178.

Page 33 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

impugned law was validly enacted because the exercise of power under Art. 356 prevailed
over the requirement of the relevant part of the proviso to Art. 3.89

[5.2]For the sake of Social Interest the legal status of State of Vormir changed

[¶48] Sometimes the social changes are necessary so as to overcome the problems prevalent
due to the formal legal practices such as in the case of Triple Talaq and in strict sense, the
concern of the law is with the social interest of the people. Since according to Jhering, the
real force which moves man to action is interest. To him action without interest is absurdity.90
As in this case, from the social perspective the VormirReorganisation Act establishes equality
among all Indian citizens that is enshrined in our Constitution.91 This historic move also
extends the policies of union to all marginalized strata of society in Vormir and Wakanda.
This great move will pave the way for much needed economic growth of the union territories
of Vormir and Wakanda.92 With the reorganization ofVormir and Wakanda, especially
Wakanda emerging as a separate Union Territory, the opportunities for economic growth and
human development would be opened up for the poor people of Wakanda. So, the move
towards the reorganization of the State of Vormir into the union territories is for the sake of
social interest.

[¶49] As over the past decades, the State of Vormir is used for political opportunism. 93 It is
used for the purpose of fulfilling personal political requirements. Even though from 2000-
2016, 10% of all Central funds despite having 1% population still there is very less economic
growth94 and funds were not directly invested for the welfare of the people of the State of
Vormir. So, to concentrate the funds over the economic and social welfare of the State, the
legal status of the State of Vormir is changed into the union territories of Wakanda and
Vormir as funds from the centre will be directly invested in these union territories.

[¶50] Moreover, the region of Wakanda has great geostrategic importance over the past.
Yet,it had received step-motherly treatment from the State legislators in terms of required
funds as most of their members belong to the region of Vormir, despite occupying some 60%

89
1 H.M.SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 313 (4 thEdn., Reprinted 2013).
90
Herbert D. Laube, The Jurisprudence of Interests, CORNELL LAW REVIEW (Jan. 22, 2020, 11:00 PM),
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu.
91
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
92
Narendra Jadhav, Synopsis of Debate, RAJYA SABHA (Jan. 12, 2020, 11:25AM), rssynop@sansad.nic.in.
93
Ibid.
94
Full text of document on govt.’s rational behind removal of special status to J&K, THE HINDU (Jan. 6, 2020,
3:36 PM), https://www.thehindu.com.

Page 34 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

of the State’s geographical area. And in this region 90% of the population are tribes who
having limited means of livelihood, poor roads, impossible telecom and internet connectivity,
undeveloped markets for their produce and low employment opportunities.95 Hence, to
overcome these problems, the VormirReorganisation Act is come forward so, that by the
direct control of the central government there will be allocation of funds and the welfare
schemes to be implemented effectively, exclusively for the people of these union territory.

Raghav Chandra, Ladakh will greatly benefit from government’s decision to make it into a union territory,
95

THE ECONOMIC TIMES (Jan. 25, 2020, 2:16 PM), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-

nation.

Page 35 of 37
RESPONDENT TC-04

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the writs are not maintainable.

2. That the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of
Asgard is valid.
3. That the enforcement of Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State
of Vormir is valid.
4. That the imposition of Section 144 of Criminal Code of Procedure and the House
Arrest of prominent political leaders of the State of Vormir is valid.
5. That the reoorganisation of the State of Vormir into Union Territories of Wakanda
and Vormirisss valid.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH HUMBLY PRAYED

TC- 04

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

Page 36 of 37