6th Mahamana Malviya National Moot Court Competition

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart

At New Delhi

Writ Petition (Civil) No. ______/2018

(Filed under Article 147, 32, 131A of the Constitution of Aryavart ,

1950)

Shweta Chandra & others Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others Respondent

Written Submission on behalf of the Petitioner,

MMC-24,

Counsel for the Petitioner.

1
 Table of Content

LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………….…..…3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………….….4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………......5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………….……6

ISSUES PRESENTED………………………………………………...…8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………..….…9

ARGUMENT ADVANCED……………………………………………11

1. Whether instant petition is maintainable or not?...................11-13

2. Whether the bill passed in the session is a money bill or
not?.........................................................................................13-16
3. Whether the speaker decision was constitutional or
not?.........................................................................................16-18

PRAYER…………………………………………………………….….19

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATION

ACC. According

AERAT Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal

AJP Aryavart Janta Party

AMD Amendment

ART. Article

CAT Cyber Appellate Tribunal

CAB Constitutional Amendment Bill

Const. Constitutional

DEF. Definition

EPFAT Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

GOVT. Government

IT Industrial Tribunal

NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

TDSAT Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal

PEPSU Patiala & East Punjab State Union

SCC Supreme Court Cases

CJI Chief Justice of India

ICR Industrial Cases Report

SLR Stand for Law Review

i.e. That is

PIL Public Interest Litigation

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred at

Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghu raj Singh, 1954 AIR52014

Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India 10

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zichallu, 1993 AIR 412, 1992 SCC 651. 16

Dr. Kashinath G. Jalami & another v. Speaker,1993 AIR 1873,1 16

Srinivas Theater v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 1992 AIR 999, 1992 SCR (2) 164 16

Lachman Singh v. IG of Police PEPSU, 1965 AIR, PEPSU 19 17

PurnilalLakhanpath v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 163. 11,17

Kesavananad Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. 10

Power Measurement v. U.P. Power Ltd. & others, 2003 (2) AWC164 2B 10

Atyant Pichada Barg Chhatra Sangh v. Jharakhand Vaishya Federation, AIR 2006 SC
1640 10

OM Prakash v. State, AIR 1955, All 275 10

Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. Union of India, 1991 AIR537, 1990 SCR, Sup. (1) 625 10

Aletemesh, Rein, SC, v. Union of India & others, 1988AIR, SC1768. 11

Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 1993, SCC 634. 17

D.K Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, 1993 SCR (3) 930, 1993 SCC (3) 259. 17

Books

Constitution of India ,1950.

Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, Misc. Law Refrencer, Hind publishing. (2nd edition, 2011)

Dr. J.N.Pandey,Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency (53rd edition, 2016).
1
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India & others.

-Kihoto the Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1993 AIR 412, 1992 SCC 651.
-Dr. Kashinath G. Jalami & another v. Speaker & OR’s, 1993 AIR 1873, 1993 SCR (2) 820.

4
Dr. J.J.R. Upadhyaya, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency. (11th edition 2017)

Dr. Kailash Rai, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Publication. (11th edition
2015)

Durga Das Basu, Administrative Law, Kamal Law House. (6th edition 2010)

Webliography

Financialexpress.com, Jairam Ramesh’s Plea.

Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, 15th edition.

The Hindu, Jairam Ramesh.

The Times of India, Issue of Aadhaar.

The Times of India, SC to examine whether speaker decision can be scrutinized.

Legal Report India, googleweblight.com

Democracy: is it working in India,Aneshwar.

Rajyasabha.nic.in, Legislative Procedure in Lok Sabha.

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart under
Art. 32, 131A,147 of the Constitution of Aryavart,1950.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aryavart is a sovereign republic. All laws of Aryavart are pari materia

to the law of India, hence the procedure and functions of executive,
legislature, judiciary are same as that of India,
2. Elections were held in 2014 and Aryavart Janta Party emerged victorious, it
had a majority in the lower house but the upper house had a majority of
member from regional parties.
3. The Hon’ble speaker of parliament of Aryavart, exercising his discretionary
powers certified a finance bill as a money bill, a money bill in which
amendments to various acts which included merger of various tribunals acts
like CAT & AERAT with TDSAT, CAT with NCLAT, and EPFAT with IT.
4. When the bill was tabled for approval, at that time many members of AJP
were absent. When it was put to vote it came to a tie. Many members
requested to adjourn the proceedings and held a vote but the speaker denied
that request and decided to use his casting vote in the favor of passing the bill.
The bill received the assent of the president and was consequently notified in
the official gazette.

Procedural Background
5. The provision of the finance act (AMD)2017 were challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart by one Mr. DevendraSingh, a member of
upper house of the parliament representing one of the regional parties. He
contended that this was a colorable exercise of legislation since legislation was
done on matters not enumerated under Art110(1), in guise of money bill and
that the speaker acted arbitrarily and in a malafide fashion which could be
seen as violation of spirit of constitution.
6. Mrs. Shweta Chandra a lawyer, also filed a PIL before the Hon’ble SC of
argument of setting aside the impugned provision of the finance act. She
contended that said AMD would compromise the independent nature of
tribunals due to more executive control and involvement in

7
7. Prescribing qualification, appointment and removal of the chair person and
member of merged tribunal.
8. She also contended that the act is against the fundamental idea of speedy
disposal of cases for which the tribunal were constituted. She also brought
forth a question as how an act which was at earlier instance amended by a way
of ordinary bill be now amended a money bill in complete disregard of
legislative precedent.
9. Both the cases were clubbed together and listed for hearing before a division
bench. During the initial hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the court
that a division bench had already decided on a similar matter in which the
court expressed its inability to interfere with the discretion of speaker of
legislative assembly. However, the existing bench was of the opinion that the
issues raised by the petitioner in this case were not adequately addressed by
the earlier division bench judgment and hence required reconsideration by a
larger bench.
10. Acting upon the request of the Hon’ble division bench, the CJI has formed a
constitutional bench and the case is now listed for hearing.

8
 ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the instant petition in maintainable or not?

2. Whether the bill passed in the session is a money bill or not?

3. Whether the speaker’s decision was constitutional or not?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. The council for the petitioners most humbly submits to this Hon’ble court that
the petition filed is maintainable because the amendments to the finance act
violate the constitution. It goes against the principles enshrined in the
Constitution. The speaker acted in an unconstitutional manner while deciding
the fate of the impugned bill in question, hence the act, so passed, is also
unconstitutional.

2. The council for the petitioners most humbly submits to this Hon’ble court that
amendments to the finance act were wrongly classified as money bill. The
merger of tribunals as per the provisions of the amendments to the finance act,
do not lie under the purview of money bill but Constitution Amendment Bill
as it is the modification of provisions/articles of the Constitution.

3. The council for the petitioners most humbly submits to this Hon’ble court that
the speaker’s decision was unconstitutional and it goes against the spirit of the
Constitution of Aryavart. The speaker exercised his authority without taking
into consideration the grounds which were essential to be considered before
arriving at that decision or taking that decision.

10
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

1. The counsel most humbly submits to the Hon’ble court that the petition is
maintainable because it violates the Art.14 of the Const. of Aryavart. 2 As the
speaker of the parliament used his power arbitrarily, and often members of the
parliament do not hesitate to take negligent and malafide decision as they
know they are protected under Art 105(2). We can see the abuse of power by
members of parliament in the case ofJairam Ramesh v. Union of India.
2. The counsel further submits to the court that in case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi
v. Union of India.3It was said that if a decision is taken without any principle
or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis of a
decision is taken in acc. with the rule of law. In this context we can argue that
the speaker’s decision is unconstitutional as it violates the rule of law upon
which the Constitution is based.4
4. The petitioner further submits that the petition is maintainable as it violates
the spirit of the Preamble of Aryavart. The Preamble of Aryavart is the basic
structure of the Constitution of Aryavart as it was observed in the
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala&Anr. 5The act , violates the spirit of
the democracy as it is enshrined in the preamble of the Const. of Aryavart that
every citizen shall have justice and the said act delays justice to the litigants
who have pending cases before the tribunals hence the court may conclude
that this amounts to injustice .
5. Rule of law is violated because in a system governed by rule of law,
discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities must be confined within
clearly defined limits. Rule of law suggests that decision should be made by

2
Constitution of India 1950.
Power Measurement Ltd v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & others. 2003(2) AWC 1642 b
Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh v. Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation. AIR 2006 SC 1640
Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1955 All 275
3
1991 AIR 537, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625
4
Legal Report India, googleweblight.com
5

11
 the app. of known principles and rules and, in general, such decision should be
predictable and the citizen should know where he is6.
6. The petitioner further submits to the court that from the above argument, the
decision taken by the speaker is violation of rule of law as he violated the rules
of procedure laid down by the Constitution because the amendments come
under CAB, not money bill.
7. The counsel submits to the court that in case of AletemeshReinAdvocate,
SC of India v. UOI & others ,1988 AIR, SC 1768.7The court observed that in a
system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred by upon executive
authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. In the
aforementioned case, the petitioner submits that if the speaker would have
seen his limits he wouldn’t have passed a CAB as a money bill.
8. The counsel most humbly further submits to the court that the petition is
maintainable because the said bill was a CAB, and the speaker deemed that
bill to be a money bill. 8 A money bill is a bill whichis deemed to be a money
bill if it contain only provision dealing with all or any of the following matters
related to9 sub clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and the bill which is passed
is not a money bill as it do not lie in the provision of Art.110(1) 10 where
definition of money bill is defined.
9. The counsel further submit to the court that petition is maintainable because
the merger of the tribunal is directly related to the part XIV-A11of the Const. of
Aryavart. The said merger of tribunal lies in the Art.323A (1)12.
10. The counsel further submits to the court that, matter related to the
amendments in the constitution goes under the bill of CAB13, and in the case
the bill is related to the merger of tribunals which will lie in the tribunals part
of the constitution and the said changes in the part XIV-A would lead to the
constitutional amendment.
11. The counsel further submits that the petition is maintainable because the
speaker decision was malafaide as he did not consider the grounds of the bill
6
Democracy: is it working in India, Aneshwara
7
AIR,1988, SC 1768.
8
Times of India, Issue on Aadhaar
9
Constitution of India 1950 (64).
10
Ibid-8 (64).
11
Ibid-8(195).
12
Ibid-8(1950).
13

12
 on which he should have decided whether it’s a money bill or not, Purnilal
Lakhanpat v. UOI, AIR 1968 SC, AIR. “In order to be malafide the motive need
not to be dishonest. If the order is made for a purpose or on a ground other
than what is mentioned as the basis of the order, then it is malafide.” In our
case the court may observe that the speaker clearly violated the basis of the
order which should have been considered to pass the order.
12. The counsel most humbly submits to the court that the petition is
maintainable because the merger of the tribunals will do injustice as it will
delay the process of justice and create confusion and chaos to the litigants who
have pending cases before the tribunals.

II) Whether the bill passed in the session was a money bill or not?
1 .It is submitted to Hon’ble court that the following bill which is passed in the
session was neither a money bill, nor finance or an ordinary bill, the bill which is
passed in the session is was a Constitutional Amendment Bill as it fulfills the
provision of the Art.36814 of the Constitution of Aryavart and would lies in the
same.

Art.368 of the Constitution of Aryavart.

2. The counsel most humbly submits to the court that, in this art. it is clearly
enshrined that “parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way
of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this constitution in accordance
with the procedure laid down in this article”15.
Acc. to this article if we see that the merger of the tribunals will affect the XIVA
part of the Constitution of Aryavart where the tribunals are enshrined, and the
merger will lead to the amendment in the part XIV-A as this part of constitution
deals with the tribunals.
4. The counsel most humbly submit to the court that, as it is given in the clause 2
of the Art. 368that the bill has to be passed in any of the house and has to be
passed through by a majority of the both houses and not less than two-third of
the member present and voting, and if it is a money bill it will not be needed
the majority of the vote of Rajya Sabha which is the violation of the CAB.

14
Constitution of India 1950(232)
15
Ibid-14 (232)

13
Art.110 of the Constitution of Aryavart

4. Definition of money bill is given in this art. & it clearly says that: “a bill shall
be deemed to be a money bill if it contains only provision dealing with all or any
of the following matters” enshrined in the sub clauses. The bill which is passed is
related to the merger of tribunals which is not related to the Art. 110(1) where the
definition of money bill is given and it doesn’t fall under the provision of this art.
so it can’t be said that it is a money bill. Merger of tribunals lies under the part
XIVA so it can’t be the part of money bill.
5. The counsel most humbly submits to court that, Art. 110(2) says that “A Bill
shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the
imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for
the demand or payment of fees for licenses or fees for services rendered, or by
reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes” 16 the said
tribunal imposes the fines, penalties or gives compensation the demand for the
payment of fees for license is also related to the tribunals so the said bill by virtue
of this Art., does not lie in a money bill.
Finance Bill17
6. The counsel most humbly submits to the court that, as per Article 110 of the
Constitution, a Finance Bill is a Money Bill. To be presented immediately after
Budget and the Finance Bill is a secret legislation introduced every year in Lok
Sabha at the same time to give effect to the taxation proposals brought forward by
the government.18 The Finance Bill find as it is mention in Rule 219 of the Rules
of Procedure of Lok Sabha.19
Finance bills can be further divided into three categories: finance bill category I,
finance bill category II and money bill. Categories I and II of the Finance Bill
generally contain provisions related to taxation and expenditure or provisions
related to any other matter.20 The Lok Sabha speaker has the power to decide

16
Constitution of India 1950(64)
17
Finance Act
18
Rajyasabha.nic.in
19
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Fifteenth Edition,
20
Financialexpress.com, The bills.

14
 whether the bill is a Finance Bill or Money Bill. 21Acc.to this merger of tribunal’s
lies nowhere in this bill as it is related to the taxation and expenditure and the
work of the tribunals is not related to such matters.
Ordinary bill
8 .An ordinary bill, i.e., a bill other than the money bill, finance bill, may originate
either house of the parliament and then only it can be sent for the Presidents
consent22.
A bill which is not a money bill, financial bill, or constitutional amendment bill, is
known as ordinary bill.23
Acc. to this Def. the merger of tribunal doesn’t lie in here because the merger of
tribunal is a part of the A. Const. the amendments of Art 323A24 which comes
under the bill of CAB A. Const. Art.368.
9. The petitioner most humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the merger
of the tribunal doesn’t lie in the money bill because it doesn’t come under the
provision of money bill as mentioned in the A. Const. Art.110 (1) and (2).
10 .The petitioner most humbly submit to the court that the Def. of tribunals is
mentioned in the “Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, 1954 AIR 520,
1955 SCR 287”25 The expression tribunal as used in Art. 13626 of Const. of
Aryavart, it includes within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies , provided they are
constituted by the state and are invested with judicial as distinguished from
administrative or executive function.27
The petitioner most humbly submits that, in the light of aforementioned case the
court may observe that function of tribunal is related with the judicial,
administrative, and executive functions, it has nothing to do with the taxation, exp.
or revenues, it’s clear that merger of tribunals doesn’t lie in the money bill as
argument presented above.

21
Art.110(3)
22

23
Thehinduexpree.com
24
Constitution of India 1950(196)
25
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, 1954 AIR 520, 1955 SCR 287
26
Ibid 24 (78)
27
Durga Das Basu, Administrative Law, Kamal Law House. (312)

15
 Art.110 (1) and (2) of the Const. of Aryavart28.
11. The counsel most humbly submits that, it is mentioned in the Art. 110 (1) that,
A bill shall have deemed to be a money bill if it contains only provision dealing
with all or any of the following matters in sub clause a,b,c,d,e,f,g.
The merger of tribunal doesn’t lie in any of the sub clauses of the Art.110 (1) so
the court may observe that the said bill is not a money bill.
12. The counsel most humbly submits that, as mentioned in the Art. 110(2) of the
Const. of Aryavart that, A bill shall not be deemed to be a money bill by reason
only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for
the demand or payment of fees for licenses or fees for services rendered, or by
reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.
Acc. to this clause of art. we understand that if a bill contain matter related to
imposition of penalties or payment of fees than it c 29ant be included in the Art.
110, as the tribunals is related to matter of imposing, penalties, fees, license so it
can’t be a part of the money bill as it is said in above points.
Part XIV-A30
13.The petitioner most humbly submits that, the merger of tribunal directly lies in
this part as mention in the Art.323A (2)(a) as it is given, provide for establishment
of an administrative tribunal provide for the est. of an administrative tribunal for
the union and a separate administrative tribunal for each state or for two or more
state.31
The counsel submits that the merger of tribunals will fall under this art. as it is
mentioned here that est. of administrative tribunal lie in here in the art. of this
clause so it is not going to be the part of money bill, as it is the part of the CAB
and the said a AMD is going to be in the part XIV-A

III) Whether the speaker decision was constitutional or not?

1. The petitioner most humbly submits to this Hon’ble court that speaker decision was
malafide in the sense that he decided a CAB as money bill and which was further
passed by the house and it got the assent of the president. It was a malafide decision
28
Ibid 24 (64)
29

30
Constitution of India 1950(195)
31
Dr. Kailash Rai, Constitutional Law of India, CLP.

16
as the bill nowhere fulfills the provision of the A.Const. Art.110(1) and speaker stated
it as the money bill, hence this act was unconstitutional.

2.The petitioner submits that the speaker decision was in a malafide fashion and we
are challenging his decision in the court as previously the decision of the speaker has
been challenged in the following cases

-Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India & others.

-Kihoto the Hollohan v. Zachillhu , 1993 AIR 412, 1992 SCC 651.
-Dr Kashinath G. Jalami&another v.Speaker &OR’s., 1993 AIR 1873, 1993 SCR
(2) 820.32
3.The petitioner submits to the court that; the courts are empowered to examine the
validity of the decision taken by the member of the parliament. If the courts can’t see
the validity of the decisions taken by the member then it may be seen as an arbitrary
actwhich is unconstitutional and harmful for democracy as constitution is the
foundation upon which our democracy rest,33 as the democracy is the base of the
Const. of Aryavart as mentioned in the preamble of the Const. of Aryavart.

3. The petitioner submits to the court that the Art. 105(2)& 122 also violates the spirit
of preamble, the Const. of Aryavart. Justice as we cannot challenge the member of the
parliament in courts, asit gives the arbitrary power to the speaker or members and in
the eye of law no one is above or beyond the watchful eyes of judiciary.

4.The council submits to the court that, in Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
1992 AIR 999, 1992 SCR (2) 164, 34the court held that there shall be no privileged
person or class and that none shall be above the law. By this means there is no person
above the law35 , if a citizen of Aryavart has done or taken any decision in a malafide
manner he is answerable to the court of Aryavart.

32
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India & others.

Kihoto the Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1993 AIR 412, 1992 SCC 651.

Dr Kashinath G. Jalami & another v. Speaker & OR’s, 1993 AIR 1873, 1993 SCR (2) 820.

33
The Hindu Times
34
Srinivasa Theatre v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 1992 AIR 999, 1992 SCR (2) 164,
35
www.legalbites.com

17
5. The counsel submits to the court that in, Lachman Singh v. IG of Police PEPSU,
1965 AIR, PEPSU 1936.The court held that said that even though no dishonest motive
can be imputed, the order may be malafide if it is bad for want of necessary care and
caution or is passed for some purpose other than the one for which it could have been
made.

Aforementioned case is related to this case as the speaker didn’t take the necessary
care and caution and make a CAB a money bill. As it was CAB is submitted by the
bench in the above arguments. The same thing was conveyed in Purnilal Lokpal v.
Union of Aryavart, 1968 AIR

6. The counsel submits to the court that, in Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India,, it was
contended that the finality of such a decision was confined to only that particular
institution and did not exceed to courts. The decision of the speaker is only final
regarding to institution and not for a court review.37

7.The council further submits to court that, the court held that the action or decision,
even administrative in nature which involve civil consequences, must be just fair,
reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
The court made it clear that the rules of procedure are required to withstand the test of
Art. 14.38 Thus public authorities & govt. are bound to act reasonably and fairly 39. The
state action or decision must be in consonance with Art.14.40

36

37
www.legalbites.com
38
Constitution of India 1950 (10)
39
Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 3 SCC 634.
40
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries.

18
 PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare
that;

1. The instant petition is maintainable

2. The bill passed in the session was not a money bill but a
constitutional amendment bill.;
3. The speakers decision was in a malafide manner and can be
seen as the violation of the constitution.;

and pass any order or judgment that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

MMC-24,

Counsel for the Petitioner.

19