COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Team Code: FY-01

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. ______/2019

MR. KALIKHO LAMA VS THE STATE OF MANTHANIR

(PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT)

AND

MINORITY COMMUNITIES VS REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

(PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT)

PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 AND 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER STATUTORY LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF

HINDUSTAN, 1950

HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4-6

 Table of Contents 4-5

 Books, Websites, Statutes 6

Statement of Jurisdiction 7
Statement of Facts 8-9

Issues raised 10
Summary Of Arguments 11

Arguments Advanced : 12-17

Issue 01: whether the PIL filed by Mr. Kalikho Lama valid and maintainable before the 12-15
hon’ble apex court of Hindustan?

 [1.1] The petitioner has the required locus standi to approach the hon’ble
supreme court:
 [1.2] This matter involves a substantial question of law and the fundamental
rights of the petitioner are violated.

Issue 02: Mandating a compulsory paper on Hindi language for all educational 16-17
institutions is a violation of the constitutional rights of the minority communities.

 [2.1] Mordija qualifies to be a minority educational institution

 [2.2] The establishment of educational institutions by minorities is valid:
 [2.3] State interference in the functioning of the minority institutions is a
violation of their rights:

Prayer 18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

& And
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Corp. Corporation
Current LJ Current Law Journal
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
Ors. Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Supp Supplementary
UP Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Versus

IN
DEX OF AUTHORITIES

3 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgaar Vs. Union Of India & Ors. AIR 1980.
2. Nihal Singh & ORS Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26.
3. N. Natarajan Vs. B. K. Subba Rao, (2003) 2 SCC 76 AIR 2003.
4. Subedar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 125 (128); (1970) 2 SCC 445.
5. Bharat Bank Vs. Employees Of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188 (193); 1950 SCR 459;
1950 LLJ.
6. Durgashankar Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
7. Union Carbide Vs. Union Of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584; AIR 1992 SC.
8. Mathai and Joby Vs. George and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 358; JT 2010 (3) SC 160; 2010 (2)
scale 172.
9. N. Suriykala Vs. Mohandoss And Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196.
10. Kunhayammed Vs. State Of Orissa , 2000 (6) SCC 359.
11. Chandra Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889.
12. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
13. Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1301.
14. Mohammad Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 Cr LJ 637 (649) SC: (2012) 12
SCALE 254.
15. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666: AIR 2002 SC 2036.
16. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 4 SCC 221, 237: AIR
2007 SC 1546.
17. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214, 244:
AIR 2004 SC 1815.
18. AIR 1954 SC 520.
19. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007
decided on December 9, 2016.
20. Barse v. Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762.
21. Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419.
22. Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari, AIR 1970 SC 137.
23. Kt. N. Ram Thenappa Chettiar v. N.S. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 915.
24. Santosh v. Mul Singh, AIR 1958 SC 321: 1958 SCR 1211.
25. Baldota Bros. v. Libra Mining Works, AIR 1961 SC 100.
26. Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477: 1964 (5) SCR 64.
27. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 856: 1967 (2) SCR 143.

28. Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314.
29. Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.

4 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

30. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Miheer H. Mafatlal, (2004) 12 SCC 356,
359: AIR 2004 SC 3933.
31. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542, at page 565: AIR 2008 SC
1614.
32. Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143: AIR 2005 SC 1299.
33. Smt. Shashi Jain v. Tarsem Lal (Dead), (2009) 6 SCC 40: AIR 2009 SC 2617.
34. Ghisalal v. Dhapubai, (2011) 2 SCC 298 (312); Monica Bedi v. State of A.P., (2011) 1
SCC 284 (299): (2011) 11 SCALE 629.
35. Surasaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364.
36. Vasudha Srivastava v. Kamla Chauhan, AIR 1992 SC 1454: (1992) 1 SCC 645.
37. Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co., Air 1986 SC 1748: (1986) 3 SCC 426.
38. Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
39. Banarasidas Vs. State O U P. AIR 1956.
40. Delhi Transport Corp. Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1990.

BOOKS:

1. Constitutional Law Of India, Dr. J.N. Pandey [2019 edition].

5 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

2. M P Jain Indian Constitutional Law [2018 edition].

3. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone Of A Nation, Austin Granville [ 1999 edition].

4. Constitution Of India, V. N. Shukla [2019 edition].

5. Introduction To The Constitution Of India, Dr. D. D. Basu [2011 edition].

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatrafast.com

3. http://www.findlaw.com

4. http://www.judis.nic.in

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com

STATUTES:

1. The Constitution of India, 1949.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindustan under article 136¹ of

the Indian Constitution Act, 1950 against the order of annulling the appointment of teachers of

Mordijas effective retrospectively since 15th may 2014 of the learned high court of Manthanir

under article 226² of the constitution of Hindustan and under article 32 against the order of the

govt. to mandate a compulsory paper of Hindi language in all the primary and secondary

educational institutions.

The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

1. Article 136: 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed Forces
2. Article 226-  Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise
jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any
proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of
such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the
application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so
furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may
be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of
Article 32

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

1) The Republic of Hindustan is a Union of States which has adopted its Constitution on 26th
November 1949. The Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, seeks to provide a
proper amalgamation of provisions which makes it a sui generis.

2) As, per the demography of the nation Bindu Community is the majority community.

3) In the south-west region of Hindustan, Manthanir province is located, Jeroba being a

minority community of Manthanir province.

4) Jeroba community: It is a minority community of Manthanir province whose language is

BIHU. BIHU is written in devnagiri script as it does not have a script of its own. Jeroba
community curtailed the modern educational system and established their own institution
called Mordija [under article 30(1)¹]. For administration of these institutions “Mordija
Education Board” was constructed.

5) Mordija Education Board: - This being an educational institution based on minority

community receives aids from the govt. as per the law of the nation. This board administers
the functioning of Mordijas throughout the state of Manthanir. This board is provided with
high-degree of autonomy in the matters of appointment and administration including the
authority to decide the syllabus.

6) 23rd September 2019 :- The govt. of Manthanir passed an order, wherein it mandated that
teachers of all government funded educational institutions or the institutions which receive
financial aids or grants, are to be appointed by the government and have to meet such criteria
of appointment as govt. from time to time decides for maintaining the standard of education.
It contained a clause which was made effective retrospectively from 15th May 2014, to annul
the appointment of teachers of Mordijas which were made without having regard for the
qualifications prescribed by the govt.

1. Article 30(1): Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions: (1) All the minorities, whether
based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

7) Mr. Kalikho Lama (Petitioner):- He was appointed on 20th October 2016 as a teacher of
Mordija filed a Writ Petition in the nature of PIL in the Hon’ble HC of Manthanir, claiming
egregious violation of fundamental rights of the minority community by providing 15th May
2014 as the cut-off date for giving the order retrospective effect is horrendous and blatant

8 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

violation of right to equality. The petitioner argued that giving retrospective effect to govt.
orders stipulating service rules is a disregard of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.

8) State of Manthanir (Respondent):- The Advocate General, while representing the State
contended that minority institutions cannot be given complete autonomy and the rights of
minorities ought not be secured at the cost of the quality of education. Mordijas being
government funded institutions; government has all the authority to regulate the
appointments to such institutions. Thus, govt. order enjoys a presumption of constitutionality
in its favor making the order valid. After hearing both the sides, the High Court reserved its
judgment.

9) Development of Hindi Language: - The Union govt. of Hindustan issued a slew of

directions under Article 351 of the Constitution mandating a compulsory paper on Hindi
language for all the primary and secondary educational institutions of the country so as to
promote and develop Hindi. This event witnessed a huge hullabaloo over the entire nation.

10) Epilogue: Several minority communities filed PILs alleging severe violation of their
autonomy and constitutional rights. The Hon’ble Court clubbed all the petitions and
transferred the PIL of Mr. Lama to itself and tagged it with all the clubbed matters as it
involved similar questions of law.

IS
SUES RAISED

9 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»« Issue 01 »«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«

WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY MR. KALIKHO LAMA VALID AND
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE APEX COURT OF HINDUSTAN?

»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»« Issue 02 »«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«

WHETHER MANDATING A COMPULSORY PAPER ON HINDI LANGUAGE
FOR ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY COMMUNITIES?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

10 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

ISSUE 01: WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY MR. KALIKHO LAMA VALID AND
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE APEX COURT OF HINDUSTAN?

It is the humble submission by the counsel for the petitioner that the PIL filed by the petitioner
under article 32 of the constitution of Hindustan, 1949 is maintainable because the right to file a
PIL being an inherent right of the petitioner, it cannot be denied by the appellate authority as the
matter involves a substantial question of law. The hon’ble apex court has full power to re-
appreciate the arguments and come to a conclusion independently. The hon’ble apex court can
interfere on substantial and compelling grounds because there is a grave injustice caused by the
judgement of the hon’ble high court of Manthanir. If the apex court declines to intervene, it will
result in gross injustice and that miscarriage of justice has already occurred, by the judgement of
the hon’ble high court of Manthanir.

ISSUE 02: MANDATING A COMPULSORY PAPER ON HINDI LANGUAGE FOR ALL

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE MINORITY COMMUNITIES.

It is most humbly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the slew of directions passed
by the Union Govt. of Hindustan under Art.351 of the Constitution mandating a compulsory
paper of Hindi language for all the primary and secondary educational institutions of the country
so as to promote and develop Hindi is a patent error of law as it is a violation of the
constitutional rights of the minority communities. As per the constitution the rights enshrined
gives the minority institutions full autonomy in running their institution and mandating a
compulsory paper of Hindi is simply and unnecessary control exercised by the govt. through
various rules and regulations and hampering their progress of quality education.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

11 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Issue 01: WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY MR. KALIKHO LAMA VALID AND
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE APEX COURT OF HINDUSTAN?

It is a humble submission by the counsel for the petitioner that the PIL filed should be allowed
and the PIL filed by the petitioner is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question
of law. If the apex court declines to intervene it will result in gross injustice and that,
miscarriage of justice has already occurred by the judgement of the high court. It is most
respectfully submitted that the powers under art.136 can be exercised against any kind of
judgement or order which has caused injustice to a party and to serve the need of justice, the
power under art.136 is unfettered.

[1.1] The petitioner has the required locus standi to approach the hon’ble supreme court:
i. The traditional rule is that the right to move to the Supreme Court is only available to
those whose rights covered under Part-III of the constitution are infringed. The petition
filed doesn’t violate any rules of public administartion¹. It is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindustan that the petitioner has locus standi to approach the
hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case. Article 136 of the constitution is couched to
the widest phraseology¹. The scope of this provision is very flexible. It is an
untrammelled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to definitional bounds and
the power of SC to grant special leave to appeal from the decision of any court is not
subject to a constitutional limitation², the matter lies within the complete discretion of the
SC³ and this court’s jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion, that is the wisdom and
good sense of justice of thejudges 4 .

1. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgaar Vs. Union Of India & Ors. AIR 1980.
2. Nihal Singh & ORS Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26.
3. N. Natarajan Vs. B. K. Subba Rao, (2003) 2 SCC 76 AIR 2003 ; Subedar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1971 SC
125 (128); (1970) 2 SCC 445.
4. Bharat Bank Vs. Employees Of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188 (193); 1950 SCR 459; 1950 LLJ 921; Durgashankar
Mehta Vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520; Union Carbide Vs. Union Of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584; AIR 1992 SC
248.
5. Mathai and Joby Vs. George and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 358; JT 2010 (3) SC 160; 2010 (2) scale 172; N. Suriykala Vs.
Mohandoss And Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196; Kunhayammed Vs. State Of Orissa , 2000 (6) SCC 359; Chandra Singh Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889.

ii. It is pertinent to note that the scope of art. 133 providing appeals to the SC in civil
matters is limited to whereas Art. 136 is very broad based & confers discretion on the
court to hear¿ any case of matter5. The article confers a discretionary power of widest
amplitude on the apex court to be exercised for satisfying the demand of justice 6. It is an

12 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

overriding power where under the court may generously step into impart justice and
remedy injustice 7. The power has been held to be plenary and limitless 8. The court should
use its wide jurisdiction whenever the conscience of the court pricks it or its heart bleeds
for imparting justice or undoing injustice 9 .

iii. The plentitude of power under Art. 136 of the Constitution has been authoritatively
observed by the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh &
Ors.¹º:
“The Article itself is worded in the widest terms possible. It vests in the Supreme Court a
plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals, by granting of
special leave, against any kind of judgment or order made by a Court or tribunal in any
cause or matter and the powers could be exercised in spite of the specific provisions for
appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws. The Constitution for the best of
reasons did not choose to fetter or circumscribe the powers exercisable under this Article
in any way.”

iv. The exercise of the said power by the Court cannot be curtailed by the original
constitutional provision or by statutory provision¹¹. Civil Appeals may be brought to the
Supreme Court under Art.136 when these are not covered by Art.133¹². Art. 136 of the
Constitution neither confer on anyone the right to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction of this
Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court’s Jurisdiction¹³. The exercise of the
power of this Court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it 14.

7 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

8 Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1301.
9 Mohammad Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 Cr LJ 637 (649) SC: (2012) 12 SCALE 254; N. Suriyakala
v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196: (2007) 3 JT 266; Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4
SCC 666: AIR 2002 SC 2036.
10 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 4 SCC 221, 237: AIR 2007 SC 1546.
11 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214, 244: AIR 2004 SC 1815.
12 AIR 1954 SC 520.
13 State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007 decided on December 9, 2016.
14 Barse v. Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762; Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419; Digvijay Singh v. Pratap
Kumari, AIR 1970 SC 137; Kt. N. Ram Thenappa Chettiar v. N.S. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 915.

[1.2] This matter involves a substantial question of law and the fundamental rights of the
petitioner are violated.

13 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

v. Under Art.136, the Supreme Court can hear appeal in a case involving substantial
question of law, the Supreme Court would intervene if there has been a resultant failure
of justice 15 .Whether a matter involves substantial question of law, depends whether it is
of general public importance, which directly or substantially affects the rights of the
parties, or it has already been decided by the highest court 16. It will therefore, depend on
the facts and circumstance of each case whether a substantial question of law is involved
in the case 17.
vi. If the court below acts without jurisdiction, or in violation of principles of natural
justice 18or without a proper appreciation of material on record or the submissions made 19
interference under Art.136 is warranted. The Court can, appreciate evidence on record to
avoid miscarriage of justice 20. Where findings are entered into without considering
relevant materials and without following legal procedure, interference of Supreme Court
is called for21. Though the Supreme Court is circumspect and vigilant in its exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136, it has a duty to interfere in grave miscarriage of justice. It
is an overriding power under which the Court may generously step in to impart justice
and remedy injustice 22.
vii. The impugned case involves substantial question of law as the High Court has acted
excess in jurisdiction and by such interference, the fundamental rights of the petitioner is
being violated and the decision of the High Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice,
thereby, warranting Supreme Court’s interference in the matter.

15 Santosh v. Mul Singh, AIR 1958 SC 321: 1958 SCR 1211; Baldota Bros. v. Libra Mining Works, AIR 1961 SC
100; Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477: 1964 (5) SCR 64; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR
1967 SC 856: 1967 (2) SCR 143.
16 Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
17 Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.
18 National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Miheer H. Mafatlal, (2004) 12 SCC 356, 359: AIR 2004 SC 3933;
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542, at page 565: AIR 2008 SC 1614.
19 Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143: AIR 2005 SC 1299
20 Smt. Shashi Jain v. Tarsem Lal (Dead), (2009) 6 SCC 40: AIR 2009 SC 2617; Ghisalal v. Dhapubai, (2011) 2
SCC 298 (312); Monica Bedi v. State of A.P., (2011) 1 SCC 284 (299): (2011) 11 SCALE 629; Barse v. Bombay,
AIR 1961 SC 1762: 1962 (2) SCR 195; Surasaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364; Banwari Lal v.
Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419; Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari, AIR 1970 SC 137; Kt. N. Ram Thenappa
Chettiar v. N.S. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 915; Vasudha Srivastava v. Kamla Chauhan, AIR 1992 SC
1454: (1992) 1 SCC 645; Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co., Air 1986 SC 1748: (1986) 3 SCC 426.
21 Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.

viii. Art. 14 of the constitution says:

14 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

“Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth²²”.

Annulling the appointment of the teachers without taking into consideration their
qualification effective retrospectively from 15th May 2014 is a violation of Art.14 as
“equality before law” was not taken into consideration.

ix. Art. 16²³ of the constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of

appointment in state services. It doesn’t, however, prevent the state from
prescribing the necessary qualifications and selective for recruitment for govt.
services. The qualifications prescribed may, besides mental excellence, include
physical fitness, sense of discipline, moral integrity, loyalty to state. The character
and the antecedents of the candidates may be taken into consideration for
appointments in govt. services24 . The clause provided in the order passed by the state
of Manthanir on 23rd September 2019, no necessary qualifications were provided on
the basis of which the teachers would be appointed and without providing the basis of
annulling if the appointment of the teachers is terminated it is a violation of article 16.

22.
Delhi Transport Corp. Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1990.

23.  Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment:

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the
State

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible
for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of
employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union
territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor
of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with
the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person
professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

24. Banarasi Das Vs. State Of UP, AIR 1956 SC 520.

15 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

ISSUE 02: MANDATING A COMPULSORY PAPER ON HINDI LANGUAGE FOR ALL

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE MINORITY COMMUNITIES.

[2.1] Mordija qualifies to be a minority educational institution:

As observed in the state of Manthanir, Jeroba is a minority community. Jeroba community being
a minority community, as per Art.29(1) 25 has the right to preserve its own language, script or
culture by and through educational institutions. Mordija is the educational institution of the
Jeroba community, qualifies to be a minority institution based on language.

[2.2] The establishment of educational institutions by minorities is valid:

As conferred under Part III of the constitution, being a fundamental right Art. 30 26 guarantees
says all minorities whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their own where the state shall not, in granting aid to the
educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the basis of it being a
minority administered institution. They have the complete autonomy to administer their
institution by preparing their own rules and regulations relating to the mode of conversation,
exam patterns, syllabus, functions, practices etc., where the state shall not intervene
unnecessarily.

25.A
rt. 29. Protection of interests of minorities(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof
having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
The Pannaji Devi Chand, A Marwadi Vs.The Firm Of Senaji Kapur Chand AIR 1930;
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2002;
Canoro Resources Ltd. vs Union Of India AIR 2011.
26. Art. 30  Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and
administered by a minority, referred to in clause ( 1 ), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such
law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause
(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground
that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2002
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr AIR 1974
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors AIR, 2002
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.Etc.Etc AIR, 2002

16 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

[2.3] State interference in the functioning of the minority institutions is a violation of their
rights:

Art. 35127 of the constitution emphasizes on development of Hindi language. This however,
doesn’t signify the need to mandate a compulsory paper of Hindi language in all the primary and
secondary institutions of the union as it violates art. 29(1).
For the promotion of Hindi language mandating a compulsory paper in Hindi violates the
autonomy of the minority communities as this is an unnecessary intervention of govt. in their
administration.
The State has authority to make directive policies and take actions for the welfare of the
academic as well as the non-academic staff of the organization.
The State is responsible for keeping eye of these institutions for the effective management and
proper functioning of the institutions. But it was held in many cases that Government cannot
impose restrictions and cannot interfere in the functioning of the institutions as it will lead to the
infringement of the rights of the minorities guaranteed under the Article 30 Indian Constitution.

In the case of TMA PAI v. State of Karnataka, the judgment stated was,
"…it was suggested that the State does have the right to intervene or make policies or rules or
regulations related to the administration of the minority institutions. Particularly the protest was
taken to the selection or nomination by the state on the administration of private institutions as
well as to provide rights regarding the issue of admission of students, setting up of fee structure
and short listing, selecting and appointing faculties by channels of the State."

27.
Art. 351: Directive for development of the Hindi language It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi
language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and
to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani
and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its
vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages PART XVIII EMERGENCY PROVISIONS

17 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COVID-19 INTRA-BATCH VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

P
RAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited may this hon’ble apex court be pleased to:

1. SET ASIDE the order of the high court and held this petition maintainable
under article 136.

2. SET ASIDE the order of the high court and consider the appointment of
teachers of Mordijas effective retrospectively from 15th may 2014 qualified.

3. SET ASIDE the rule passed by the Govt. of Hindustan and issue an order
citing Hindi paper to be an optional paper for all the primary and secondary
educational institutions of the union.

AND/OR
Pass any other order, Direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Place: Hindustan
Date: 12th June 2020

s/d-
(Counsel for the petitioners)

18 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER