ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, JAIPUR

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT INDIANA

NGO PRAVAH CHAKRA……………………………………………………PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PURVA PRADESH……………………………………………….RESPONDENT

Clubbed with

NGO ARYAN FOUNDATION………………………………………………….PETITIONER

Versus

ELECTION COMMISION OF INDIANA………………………………………RESPONDENT

Clubbed with

GOVERNMEMNT OF PURVA PRADESH……………………………………….PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIANA………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 1ST ICFAI VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………3

Index of Authorities………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………….5

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………6-7

Statement of Issues……………………………………………………………….. 8

Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………………… 9

Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………………….10- 30

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………. 31

PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

UOI Union Of India

Const. Constitution

& And

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

Ors Others

Vs Versus

NGO Non-governmental organization

Sect. Section

Hon’ble Honourable

Cl. Clause

PIL Public interest litigation

Govt. Government

Supp. Supplement

Pg.no. Page number

SCC Supreme court cases

SCR Supreme court reporter

SCALE Supreme court Almanac

ALD Andhra legal decision

PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES
1. SP Gupta vs union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
2. Common cause vs union of India AIR 2015 SCC 2286
3. Laxmikant Pandey vs UOI AIR 1984 2 SCC 244
4. Federation of Bar Association in Karnatka v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2544: (2000) 6
S.C.C 715 (India)
5. Bodhisattwa vs Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 (1) SCC 490
6. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
7. secretary, ministry of information and broadcasting, government of India v cricket association of
Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236
8. Bandhua Mukti Morcha AIR 1984 SC 802
9. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu and Ors. 1992 supp (2) SCC 651
10. Mohd Haroon vs Union of India, 2014 5 SCC 252 : 2014 (4) SCALE 86
11. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & another 1996 AIR 1234
12. Tamil Nadu centre for public interest litigation v State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 6 SCC 734
13. Archbishop Raphael Cheenath SVD vs State of Orissa, ( 2016) 9 SCC 682: AIR 2016 SC 3639
14. Sudesh Dogra V UOI, (2014) 6 SCC 486: AIR 2014 SC 1940
15. CERC V UOI, AIR 1995 SC 922: (1995) 3 SCC 42
16. Secratary ministry of information and broadcasting, government of India vs cricket association
of Bengal AIR 1995 SC 123
17. Sakal papers : AIR 1962 SC 305
18. Central board - (2011) 8 SCC 497
19. Yuvajana- 2014 (1) ALD 259
20. Kharak singh V state of UP AIR 1963 SCc 1295; (1964) 1 SCR 332
21. Maneka Gandhi vs. union of India ( UOI) and ors. AIR 1978 SC 597
22. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla(1997)2 SCC 83
23. State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803
24. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India & Ors AIR 1984 SC 802
25. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India 1995 AIR 922,1955 SCC(3) 42

PETITIONER
 26. DEVIKA BISWAS VS UNION OF INDIA AIR2016SC4405
27. C.E.S.C. Limited and Ors. v. Subhash Chandra Bose AIR 1992 SC 573
28. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. AIR 1996 SC 2426
29. Francis Coralie Versus Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981(SC)746
30. Vincent Vs. Union of India AIR 1987(SC) 990
31. HENNING JACOBSON vs. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 197 US 11(1905)
32. Parmanand Katara v Union Of India .AIR 1989 SC 2039
33. Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR2006SC980
34. SR BOMMAI vs. India AIR 1995 SC
35. AK KAUL v UOI AIR 1995 SC 1403
36. Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors AIR1993MP214
37. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597
38. D.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India AIR1996SC2481
39. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors AIR1973SC106
40. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors
AIR 1995 SC 1236
41. Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Ors 2012(2)PLJR217
42. R. Rama Murthy and Ors. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1986(2)APLJ (HC) 136

PETITIONER
 II. STATUTES
I. Constitution of India,1950……………………………………….

III. ARTICLES
Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey, PRESIDENTIAL TAKEOVER OF STATE GOVERNMENT, ILI Law Review(Aug.15,
2021, 9:30AM), http://ili.ac.in

Anant Malviya, Right to Life and Duty of the State in cases of Violence and Riots August 7, 2014,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-life-and-duty-of-the-state-in-cases-of-violence-and-riots/, [ 15 august 2021]

Aatrika Bhaumik, Calcutta High Court Orders CBI Probe Into West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Cases Of Murder
And Rape,

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/calcutta-high-court-west-bengal-post-poll-violence-cbi-investigation-nhrc-sit-- 179877

Anindya Sundar Das v UOI and other connected matters, [ 19 august 2021]

IV. BOOK

M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law(Eighth Edition,Second Reprint, Lexsis Nexsis 2018)

………………………………………

V. JOURNAL
Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Sahu, An overview of article 21 of the Indian constitution, Volume 3;
May 2017; Page No. 98-100, www.lawjournals.org

Report of second press comm, vol I, 34-35. www.indianculture.gov.in

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art.32 of the Constitution
of Indiana which reads as follows:

Article32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part-

Clause (1) “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.

Clause (2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto ,and certiorari, whichever may be the
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.”

PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In 2019, the world was hit by a global pandemic named Covid-19 which resulted in lakhs of deaths
all across the globe. On the recommendation of WHO, to prevent the contagious disease, various
guidelines were issued in all the countries severely affected to prevent the spread of disease.
As the number of cases rapidly increased worldwide, several countries imposed a national lockdown
wherein all the economic, educational and social activities except the few of emergency nature, were
completely restricted to avoid any kind of mass movement and public gatherings.

2. An Asian Country named Indiana which was severely affected during Covid-19 first wave during
March 2020- July 2020, also had imposed strict national lockdown, despite which a lot of people had
lost their lives. In 2021, the second wave of Covid-19 massively hit Indiana which was even more
dangerous because the virus had mutated to a different variant and was now severely affecting lungs
due to which comparatively more people were getting infected and were dying. The medical
infrastructure had completely collapsed. Several states of Indiana had completely imposed lockdown
in their respective states.

I.

1. Amid all the chaos and national crisis, general elections to elect members of the Legislative
Assembly of Purva Pradesh, one of the states of Indiana, were scheduled during the peak of the
second wave. But no guidelines for preventing the Covid-19 were issued by the State of Purva
Pradesh. Consequently, all the contesting political parties conducted huge election campaigns, calling
for thousands and thousands of people and appealed to vote in their favour. During the campaign, no
norms of social distancing, wearing masks, etc. were followed. Due to this, within few days of the
election campaign, there was a spike in the number of Covid cases across the state of Purva Pradesh.

2. The results were announced on 2nd June 2021 and soon after that violence erupted on a large scale in
the state. It was alleged by the major opposition party that their leaders, workers and supporters were
the prime victims of such post-poll violence. It was also alleged that many citizens had to leave their
native place and had to take refuge in the nearby state of Prag Pradesh to save their lives. They
presented some pieces of evidence showing that such violence had created a greater impact on
economic activities, demographic balance and communal harmony in the state and had resulted in the
situation of lawlessness which led to the internal displacement of the people.

3. Whereas it was alleged by the winning party that such violence was sponsored by the major
opposition party, which was having government at the Centre to create instability in the state for
creating the grounds of imposition of State Emergency. On the other side, a popular face, Mr. Bisham
Singh, of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) who lost the election from his constituency was chosen
to be the Chief Minister of the State of Purva Pradesh by LDP.

PETITIONER
 II.

4. An NGO named Pravah Chakra, visited the violence-affected areas on 10th June 2021 for conducting
a preliminary survey and prepare a report but were allegedly attacked by the locals. The NGO filed a
Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court against such violence.

5. On 18th June 2021, Bisham Singh took oath as the Chief Minister of Purva Pradesh and his
government came into power. But even after having a regular government, the law-andorder situation
in the state continued to suffer while the ruling and major opposition parties were still playing the
blame game. Subsequently, having regard to the massive outrage and violence, the President of
Indiana imposed President’s Rule in Purva Pradesh on 30th June 2021. During the President’s rule,
15 members of LDP joined RHD. Due to this, the LDP’s ability to form government became
questionable.

III
6. In the meantime, Vidhan Sabha elections for the State of Vrihadh Pradesh were also scheduled to
take place in September 2021 while a similar situation of Pandemic has been prevailing in the state.
Another NGO named Aryan Foundation filed a petition to postpone the election process in the State
of Vrihadh Pradesh.

7. Consequently, the Government of Purva Pradesh filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging
the President’s Rule and the defection of the members of the ruling party as due to the State
Emergency, the Legislature of the State is suspended and the Speaker of the House cannot decide on
the disqualification of the defecting members. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana clubbed all
these petitions and decided to hear them jointly.

PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

• WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS AND PIL ARE MAINTAINABLE IN THE

HON’BLE COURT OR NOT?

II

• WHETHER THE VIOLENCE OCCURRED IN STATE OF PURVA PRADESH

CAUSED VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE.

III

• WHETHER THE CONDUCTION OF ELECTION IN VRIHADH PRADESH IS

VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT?

IV

• WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE IS ULTRA

VIRES OR NOT?

PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] Whether the petitions filed in hon’ble supreme court are

maintainable?
it is humbly submitted that the PIL’s and the writ petition are maintainable and the
petitioners have locus standi before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana on the following
grounds. Firstly, the petitioners have a locus standi [1.1] Secondly, There has been violation
of fundamental rights [1.2] and lastly There was no requirement for the petitioners to exhaust
local remedies [1.3]

[2] Whether the post poll violence occurred in the state of Purva
Pradesh is a violation of fundamental rights of people?

It is very humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana that the post poll
violence is the breach of several fundamental rights enshrined under part 3rd of constitution of
Indiana. Firstly, the post poll violence is a breach of right to life and personal liberty under
article 21 of the constitution of Indiana. [2.1] Secondly, The attack over an NGO and stopping
it from survey is violation freedom of speech and expression under article 19 (1) (a) of
constitution of Indiana. [2.2] Thirdly, The attack over NGO is a violation to article 19 (1) (d)
of constitution of Indiana. [2.3] And lastly, The authority has responsibility over targeted
attacks [2.4]

[3] Whether the conduction of elections in Vrihad Pradesh is

violation of fundamental rights?
The petitioner humbly submits that the conduction of election in state of Vrihadh Pradesh in
admist of covid 19 is gross violation of Right to health included under Right to life under
Art. 21.

[4] Whether the imposition of president rule is ultra vires or not?

The Petitioner humbly submits that the imposition of President rule is ultra vires on
following grounds; firstly, there is arbitrary imposition of president rule under Art.356
without any relevant grounds of such imposition [3.1]. Secondly, the fundamental rights of
Petitioner has been violated under Art.19(1)(a) [3.2]. Thirdly, arbitrary imposition of
president rule has led to gross violation of anti-defection law [3.3].
[1] Whether the petitions filed in hon’ble supreme court are
maintainable?
It is humbly submitted that the PIL’s and the writ petition are maintainable and the
petitioners have locus standi before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana on the following
grounds. Firstly, the petitioners have a locus standi [1.1] Secondly, There has been violation
of fundamental rights [1.2] and lastly There was no requirement for the petitioners to exhaust
local remedies [1.3]

[1.1] Whether the petitioners have a locus standi in the case?

It is humbly contended that the PIL’s filed by Pravah Chakra and Aryan foundation are
maintainable and petitioners have locus standi before the hon’ble supreme court of Indiana.

It is humbly contended before hon’ble court that for the purpose of the determination of any
claim before the court of law the claimant has to show the locus standi before hon’ble court.
The public interest litigation most significantly disregards the traditional concept of locus
standi1.

It is humbly submitted that both the NGO’s are acting in public faith. In Purva Pradesh there
been a violent attack over the NGO. In S. P. Gupta vs Union of India hon’ble supreme court
held that, “any member of public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some
provision of constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance
of such constitutional or legal provision’’2

The schedule of elections of Vrihad Pradesh is an irresponsible attempt meanwhile in this

situation of pandemic. In Common Cause vs Union of India, the PIL was filed seeking the
governmental actions against public interest was held to be maintainable3.

The PIL raised by the NGO’s are in public good. In Laxmikant Pandey vs UOI4 the
complaint letter by an advocate complaining the malpractices indulged in by social
organizations in the matter of offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents was
admitted in the hon’ble supreme court.

1
Jain MP, Indian Constitutional Law, eighth edition, lexis nexis, pg. no. 1430
2
Sp gupta vs union of india AIR 1982 SC 149
3
Common cause vs union of India AIR 2015 SCC 2286
4
Laxmikant Pandey vs UOI AIR 1984 2 SCC 244
 For the writ petition by the government of Purva Pradesh-
It is humbly contended before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana that the writ petition filed by
the government of Purva Pradesh is maintainable and the petitioner has locus standi. The act
of the union of Indiana resulted in violation of freedom of speech and expression under
article 19 (1) (a). Violation of Fundamental Right is sine qua non of the exercise of the right
conferred by Article 325.

[1.2] There has been violation of fundamental rights

It is humbly contended before the supreme court of Indiana that right to life and personal
liberty under article 21 in inclusion with the right to health shall be violated on the
conduction of elections in Vrihad Pradesh, Article 32 (1) guarantees the right to move
supreme court on the infringement of fundamental rights. Right to move to the supreme court
in the violation of fundamental rights is a fundamental right itself6.

It is humbly submitted that the elections of Purva Pradesh were held in a critical condition
which raised many concerns as no guidelines for preventing the Covid-19 were issued by the
State of Purva Pradesh, now the Vidhan Sabha elections for the State of Vrihadh Pradesh are
also scheduled to take place in September 2021 while a situation of Pandemic has been
prevailing in the state. This will cause spread of this highly mutating virus.

freedom of speech and expression under article 19 (1) (a) is violated by alleged attack on
NGO Pravah Chakra. Freedom of speech is the mother of all the liberties7. The freedom of
speech not only involves communication, but also the receipt of information. Communication
and the receipt of information are the two sides of the same coin8.

It is humbly contended that the violent attack on the NGO Pravah Chakra put a veil over the
truth. Which might come out after the survey. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain9 the
supreme court held that “article 19 (1) (a) ensures and comprehends to all the citizens right to
know, right to receive information regarding matters of public concern.” The attack on the
NGO is an attack over the freedom of opinion and expression.

5
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2544: (2000) 6 S.C.C 715 (India)
6
Bodhisattwa vs Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 (1) SCC 490
7
Report of second press comm, vol I, 34-35.
8
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, eighth edition, lexis nexis, page 1064
9
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
[1.2.5] Due to violence the dissemination of relevant information was stopped allegedly. It
was the duty of the state to prevent such acts. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India v Cricket Association of Bengal10 the supreme court held
that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19 (1) (a) includes the right to
acquire information and to disseminate the same.

Right to move freely throughout the territory of Indiana under article 19 (1) (d) have been
deeply violated by the violent attack over the NGO Pravah Chakra.

The arbitrary imposition of the president rule over the State of Purva Pradesh is an attempt to
quash the basic structure of the constitution i.e. federalism. The imposition was mala fide and
was done to abolish the house of the state.

[1.3] There was no requirement for the petitioners to exhaust local

remedies.

This is very humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court that there was no any
requirement for the petitioner to go for the alternative remedies pro bono publico. Both the
NGO’s namely Pravah Chakra and Aryan Foundation are acting in public faith.

Article 32 is a fundamental right itself as stated in Bodhisattwa vs Shubhra Chakraborty AIR

199611. Having a fundamental right, it is guaranteed under part 3rd of constitution of Indiana.

In the very case of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras hon’ble supreme court held that a
petitioner can come straight to the supreme court even before approaching high court of the
state under article 226 of the constitution. For the breach of fundamental rights one can
approach to the supreme court directly.

Also if a petitioner approaches high court first then the case is firstly decided by a single
bench then after appeal can be made for the divisional bench and thereafter the appeal may be
taken for a move to supreme court. This may cause more delay and prove costlier to the
petitioner than a writ petition directly under article 3212. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha case
supreme court held that there is no limitation in regard to the kind of proceeding envisaged

10
Secretary, ministry of information and broadcasting, Government of India v cricket association of Bengal AIR
1995 SC 1236
11
Bodhisattwa vs Shubhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 (1) SCC 490
12
MP Jain, Indian constitutional law 8th edition 2020 pg. no. 1412
under article 32 except the proceeding must be appropriate i.e. enforcement of fundamental
rights. Under article 32 court isn’t bound to follow the ordinary adversary procedure and may
adopt such procedure as may be effective for the enforcement for the fundamental rights13

Thus, it is humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court of

Indiana that petitions are maintainable.

13
Bandhua Mukti Morcha AIR 1984 SC 802
2. Whether the post poll violence occurred in the state of Purva
Pradesh is a violation of fundamental rights of people?

It is very humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana that the post poll
violence is the breach of several fundamental rights enshrined under part 3rd of constitution of
Indiana. Firstly, the post poll violence is a breach of right to life and personal liberty under
article 21 of the constitution of Indiana. [2.1] Secondly, The attack over an NGO and stopping
it from survey is violation freedom of speech and expression under article 19 (1) (a) of
constitution of Indiana. [2.2] Thirdly, The attack over NGO is a violation to article 19 (1) (d)
of constitution of Indiana. [2.3] And lastly, The authority has responsibility over targeted
attacks [2.4]

[2.1] The post poll violence is a breach of right to life and personal
liberty under article 21 of the constitution of Indiana.

It is humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana that the authorities are
responsible for the alleged attack over NGO Pravah Chakra. As stated in Mohd Haroon vs
UOI (2014)1, “the state government is prima facie responsible for being negligent at initial
stage is not anticipating communal violence and for not taking necessary steps for its
prevention. It is the responsibility of state administration in association with intelligence
agencies of both the state and centre to prevent such recurrence of communal violence in any
parts of state. The court ordered for rehabilitation of affected and stranded persons. The court
issued directions for payment of compensation for deaths and injuries, for damage to movable
and immovable properties, for loss of source of livelihood of farmers etc’’.

The Supreme Court has already held that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of
every person and it cannot permit any body or group of persons to threaten it. In National
Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & ors. It was held that ‘We are a country
governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being
and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and
equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life
and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody
or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing

1
Mohd Haroon vs Union of India, 2014 5 SCC 252 : 2014 (4) SCALE 86
which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such
threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty-bound to protect the
threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its
constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be
dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out
its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the
State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their
applications, the Chakmas are denied rights, constitutional and statutory, to be considered for
being registered as citizens of India.”2.

In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others , it was held that Article 21 of the
Constitution casts an obligation on the State to preserve life3.

While regarding deaths of farmers in Tamil Nadu centre for public interest litigation v state
of Tamil Nadu (2017)4 , the state was held guardian and is required to see how to solve these
problems of deaths of people by taking curative measures treating it as a natural disaster.

It is also been held that additional quantum is to be paid for deaths and injury to person and
destruction and damage to property5. Also for violence and displacement of people,
compensation and rehabilitation measures were sought from the state6. So the state is
responsible not only for the alleged violence but it is also the sole authority for providing
compensation and rehabilitation.

The lack of dignified life and lawlessness lead to the displacement of people from the state of
Purva Pradesh. In the CERC V UOI7, hon’ble supreme court said that to achieve self
expression of ones personality and to enjoy the life with dignity. The state should provide
facilities and opportunities to enable the people to reach at least minimum standard of health,
economic security and civilized living while sharing accordingly to their capacity, social and
cultural heritage. Lawlessness in the state of Purva Pradesh took away dignified life of
people.

2
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & another 1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742
3
Parmanand Katara v UOI and ors. 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997
4
Tamil Nadu centre for public interest litigation v State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 6 SCC 734
5
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath SVD vs State of Orissa, ( 2016) 9 SCC 682: AIR 2016 SC 3639
6
Sudesh Dogra V UOI, (2014) 6 SCC 486: AIR 2014 SC 1940
7
CERC V UOI, AIR 1995 SC 922: (1995) 3 SCC 42
 [2.2] The attack on an NGO and stopping it from survey is violation
freedom of speech and expression under article 19 (1) (a) of constitution
of Indiana.

It is humbly submitted before hon’ble supreme court of Indiana that alleged violence and
stopping an NGO doing survey has caused breach of freedom of speech, opinion and
expression guaranteed under article 19 (1) (a). This includes the right to propagate or publish
opinion8 and also the right to receive information. The survey amounts to this right.

Riots more often than not takes place due to indifference of the administration in enforcing
law and order. If the authorities act in time and act efficiently, riots can surely be prevented9.

It is humbly contended that The right to acquire information and to disseminate the same is
guaranteed under the freedom of speech and expression10. the NGO Pravah Chakra was
practicing this right to acquire the information and the violence interrupted in that.

Attack over NGO Pravah Chakra has prevented the process of survey. In Sakal Papers (P)
Ltd. and Ors. v. The Union of India11 The Court asserted that the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) included the freedom of the press. For propagating
his ideas a citizen had the right to publish them, to disseminate them and to circulate them,
either by word or mouth or by writing. Therefore the dissemination of information has been
stopped allegedly and the authorities are prima facie responsible for the same.

It is humbly contended that the right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom
of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is
claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security12. the
alleged act of violence caused abridgement of such.

8
MP Jain, Indian constitutional law, Eighth Edition, 2020, page number 1059

9
Anant Malviya, Right to Life and Duty of the State in cases of Violence and Riots August 7, 2014,

https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-life-and-duty-of-the-state-in-cases-of-violence-and-riots/, [ 15 august 2021]

10
Secratary ministry of information and broadcasting, government of india vs cricket association of Bengal AIR
1995 SC 1236: MANU/SC/0246/1995
11
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. The Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305
12
Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497
 [2.3] The attack over NGO is a violation to article 19 (1) (d) of
constitution of Indiana.

It is humbly contended that the violence over the NGO Pravah Chakra affected freedom of
movement. the right to move freely throughout the territory of Indiana means right to
locomotion which connotes the right to move wherever one likes and however one likes13.

In Maneka Gandhi V UOI it was said that, “Article 19 confers certain freedoms on Indian
citizens, some of which by their very language and nature are limited in their exercise by
geographical considerations. The right to move freely throughout the 'territory of India' and
the right to reside and settle in any part of the 'territory of India' which are contained in
Clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19(1) are of this nature. The two clauses expressly restrict the
operation of the rights mentioned therein to the territorial limits of India. Besides, by the very
object and nature of those rights, their exercise is limited to Indian territory. Those rights are
intended to bring in sharp focus the unity and integrity of the country and its quasi-federal
structure. Their drive is directed against the fissiparous theory that 'sons of the soil' alone
shall thrive, the 'soil' being conditioned by regional and sub-regional considerations14

[2.4] The authority has responsibility over targeted attacks.

It is humbly submitted before court that the targetted attacks over individuals and
volunteer groups are not only the violation of right to life under article 21 but it is also the
violation of freedom of opinion and expression under article 19 (1) (a) as the people of
different opinions were targeted and the authorities were negligent throughout the course
of time.

13
Kharak Singh V State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332
14
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 597
 The authority is responsible for being negligent in prevention of violence. In Mohd
Haroon v UOI state government was prima facie responsible for being negligent and not
taking necessary steps for its prevention15.

As stated in Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party vs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors.16 In the high court of Andhra Pradesh, ‘It is the duty of the State and its
Police administration to ensure that nothing untoward takes place in the society.
Whenever it suspects likelihood of breach of peace, it is empowered to take recourse to
law and prevent any such breach occurring in the society. Most importantly, preventive
measures are conceded for keeping the possible troublemakers at bay. Therefore, the
likelihood of clashes or violence erupting prior to the meeting or during the meeting or in
its aftermath, cannot be also a factor for the Police to prevent the meeting from taking
place at all. The Police have got power to prevent the troublemakers from succeeding in
their designs. Simultaneously, the State has an obligation to protect the innocent from any
such troublemakers. Violence, in any form, is a betrayal of the letter and spirit of
democracy. It is, in fact, the duty of the Police administration to prevent the anti-social
elements from gaining an upper-hand or succeeding in their dubious designs. The State is,
after all, larger and powerful than a handful of trouble mongers.’

The silence of the authority in prevention of violence clearly signifies its intention to
promote trouble mongers and disharmony in the state of Purva Pradesh. The failure in
administration in prevention of violence has caused the breach of Several Fundamental
Rights.

While dealing a case of similiar post poll violence occurred in state of West Bengal in
May 2021, in Anindya Sundar Das v UOI17 on justice I.P. Mukherji stated, If a crime is
suspected to have been committed, it is the duty of the State to investigate into it,
apprehend the offender and prosecute him. An ordinary citizen has a right against the
State to expect that the alleged offender is brought to justice. Maintenance of law and
order and discharge of police functions is with the state under entries 1 and 2 of list II of
the seventh schedule corresponding to Article 246 of the Constitution of India. It follows
that normally investigation of and prosecution for a crime committed within the state is
within the purview of the state.

15
Mohd Haroon V UOI (2014) 5 SCC 252: 2014 (4) SCALE 86
16
Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2014 (1) ALD 259

17
Aatrika Bhaumik, Calcutta High Court Orders CBI Probe Into West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Cases Of
Murder And Rape, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/calcutta-high-court-west-bengal-post-poll-violence-
cbi-investigation-nhrc-sit--179877 Anindya Sundar Das v UOI and other connected matters, [ 19 august 2021]
Thus it is humbly submitted before hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana
that the post poll violence occurred in the state of Purva Pradesh is a
violation of fundamental rights of people
[3] Whether the conduction of elections in Vrihad Pradesh is
violation of fundamental rights?

[3.1]The petitioner humbly submits that the conduction of election in

state of Vrihadh Pradesh in admist of covid 19 is gross violation of
Right to health included under Right to life under Art. 21.

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla22, it has been held that- “the right to life guaranteed under
Art. 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care”. In fact, in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan23,the Supreme Court held that right to life, enshrined in Art.
21 “means something more than survival or animal existence. It includes all those aspects of life
which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete & worth living. That which alone can make
it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to life.” Similarly in
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India & Ors 24 interpreted the right to health under Art. 21
which guarantees the right to life.

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India25, the Supreme Court laid down
that:

“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with
human dignity requires the State to provide to workmen facilities & opportunities to
reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The

22
(1997)2 SCC 83
23
AIR 1983 SC 803
24
AIR 1984 SC 802
25
1995 AIR 922,1955 SCC(3) 42
 health & strength of worker, the court said, was an important facet of right to life.
Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Art. 21

In Devika Biswas vs Union of India26, the Court held that ,there had been a violation of Art. 21
of the Const. in manner in which sterilization is being carried out. “It stated that right to health
including reproductive rights was an integral part of Art. 21. Further, the right to make a choice
in relation to sterilization free from any coercion was also guaranteed under the Const.”. In
C.E.S.C. Limited and Ors. v. Subhash Chandra Bose and Ors.27 dealing with the right to health
of workers, “it was noted that the right to health must be considered an aspect of social justice
informed by not only Art. 21 of the Const., but also the Directive Principles of State Policy and
international covenants to which India is a party”. Similarly, the bare minimum obligations of the
State to ensure the preservation of the right to life and health were enunciated in Paschim Banga
Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B28.

In the case of Francis Coralie Versus Union Territory of Delhi29 reported in right to life under
Art. 21 of the Indian Const. has been interpret in the following words:-

“But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to protection of limb or
faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. We think that the right to life includes
the right to life with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries
of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading,
writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and
commingling with fellow human beings.”

In the case of Vincent Vs. Union of India30, it was held that, “A healthy body is the very
foundation for all human activities................ In a welfare state, therefore, it is the obligation of

26
AIR2016SC4405
27
AIR 1992 SC 573
28
AIR 1996 SC 2426
29
AIR 1981(SC)746
the State to ensure the creation and sustaining of conditions congenial to good health...........
Maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to
the very physical existence of the community and oh the betterment of these depends the
building of the society of which the Const. makers envisaged.”

In HENNING JACOBSON vs. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 31 , “it was held that

upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself
against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members”.

The framers of Indian constitution were deeply influenced by the international document i.e. Universal
Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) 1948 which had a great impact on the drafting of Indian
constitution. The Article 9 of UDHR provides for ‘protection of life & personal liberty’ of every person. As
India was signatory to the declaration, the constituent Assembly adopted the similar provision as a
fundamental right therein.32

Article 21 includes Right to Health and Medical Care Art. 21 as well as Directive principles of State
policy33 obligates State to preserve the life of person. In a landmark decision of Parmanand Katara v
Union Of India34 the Supreme Court held that in medico legal cases preservation of life is of paramount
importance therefore it is the primary duty of doctor to give immediate aid to the victims.

Therefore it is humbly summited before this hon’ble court that since the pandemic was on its high peak ,
it was necessary to postpone the election to reduce the number of escalating cases in state of Vrihadh
Pradesh which threatens the life of residents of the state and conduction of election in the state would led
to gross violation of Right to Health. Also it would be challenging for the election commission to track
and monitor all the political interaction and electoral campaign which is taking place in various platforms.

30
AIR 1987(SC) 990
31
197 US 11(1905)
32
Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Sahu, An overview of article 21 of the Indian constitution, Volume 3; May 2017;
Page No. 98-100, www.lawjournals.org
33. Art. 46 and 47 of Indian Constitution
34.AIR 1989 SC 2039
Hence, the chances of violating the model code of conduct during election campaign will be easier for
political parties.

Thus, The Conduction of elections in Vrihad Pradesh is violation of

fundamental rights.
[4] WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE IS
ULTRA VIRES OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submits that the imposition of President rule is ultra vires on following
grounds ; firstly, there is arbitrary imposition of president rule under Art.356 without any
relevant grounds of such imposition[4.1]. Secondly , the fundamental rights of Petitioner has
been violated under Art.19(1)(a) [4.2]. Thirdly , arbitrary imposition of president rule has led to
gross violation of anti-defection law[4.3].

[4.1] there is arbitrary imposition of President rule under Art.356

without any relevant grounds of such imposition

Article 356 of the Const. of India gives the President of India the power to suspend state
government and impose President’s rule on any state in the country “if he is satisfied that a
situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Const.”.35

In Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.36, it was held that , “if
political party with support of other political party stakes claim to form government and satisfies
the Governor about its majority to form stable government, Governor cannot refuse formation of
Government and override the majority claim because of his subjective assessment that majority
was cobbled by illegal and unethical means - Grounds of mal-administration by State
Government enjoying majority is not available for invoking power under Article 356 - Hence,

35
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law(Eighth Edition,Second Reprint, Lexsis Nexsis 2018),Page no.739
36
AIR2006SC980
impugned proclamation was unconstitutional.” It further said that the proclamation under Article
356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The SC or the HC can strike down the proclamation
if it is found to be mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds. The deletion of
article 356 Cl (5) (which was introduced by 38th (Amendment) Act) by the 44th (Amendment)
Act, removes the cloud on the reviewability of the action.

In SR BOMMAI vs. India37, in this case SC in its judgment by majority declared that
“proclamation of emergency in states of Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland were
unconstitutional & the floor test is necessary requisite before sending the report to the President
recommending action under Art. 356 (1). It further said that the dissolution of assembly prior to
approval of the proclamation by the Parliament under Art. 356(3) will be per se invalid.”

To promote the parliamentary govt., the court has insisted that the question whether the
incumbent state Chief Minister has lost the majority support or not, must be decided on the floor
of the house & not by the Governor himself. Further, the Governor ought to explore the
possibility of installing an alternate Ministry before reporting failure of constitutional machinery
in the state to the president under Art. 356(1). 38

In AK KAUL v UOI39, according to Jeevan Reddy, J, when called upon, the union govt. has to
produce material on the basis of which action was taken. The court will not go into correctness of
the material or its adequacy. Its enquiry was limited to see whether the material was relevant to
the action taken. Even if some material was irrelevant , the court will not interfere as long as
there was some material which was relevant to the action taken. In Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors40. it was held that “mere worsening of law and order situation in a State due
to sudden outbreak of violence, does not call for extreme step of imposition of President's rule
unless to the satisfaction of the President, the law & order situation in a State, due to sudden
disturbances, has made it or likely to make the functioning of the Govt. impossible in the State.

37
AIR 1995 SC
38
AIR 1994 SC at 1986, 2100
39
AIR 1995 SC 1403
40
AIR1993MP214
The Central intervention in such an extreme difficult situation may be justified deploying the
Army in the affected area or by extending help to the State by sending its reserved force.”

In the present case, the mere violence and outrage were not the relevant material for imposing
the president rule because there was regular govt.in state which is effectively ruling the state and
the governor had not explore the possibility of installing an alternate ministry to overcome the
instability in the state. Also since the Indiana is a federal state where the states are equal partners
in the governance of the country it is duty of Central govt. to allow the constituent units to run
their government without undue interference in their functioning. And the ruling party has come
to the power with the massive support of the state’s voters. If the govt. is derailed it would be an
insult to people’s verdict.

PANDIT THAKUR DAS BHARGAVA rightly stated that:

... no Constitution can be said to have failed to work unless and until all the provisions of the
Constitution relating to the State are exhausted ..... Unless & until every attempts has been
made, and unless he (the Governor) finds that even the ordinary liberties cannot be enjoyed by
the people, he will not come to the conclusion that the Constitution has failed.41

The Venkatachaliah Commission has recommended that (1) Art. 356 must be used sparingly
only as a remedy of the last resort42. 2) In case of political breakdown, the concerned State
should be given an opportunity to explain its position and redress the situation before invoking
article 356 unless the situation is such that following the above course would not be in the
interest of security of State, or defense of the country, or for other reasons necessitating urgent
action. 43

Shri Shriram Maheshwari made study of the President’s rule from 1950 to 1976 and presented
them in three phases- 1950-66, 1967-71 and 1972-76. He found in his study that President’s rule
was imposed on the many occasions for the political consideration & suggested that, it should be
imposed in the situation as contemplated under article 356.44

41
Supra note 39 at 169
42
Supra note 35 at 169 para 8.19.2.
43
Ibid para 8.19.5.
44
Shriram Maheshwari President’s Rule in India (Macmillan Co. of India, Delhi 1977).
Shri Harbir Singh Kathuria45 has analysed cases of President’s rule from 1967-89 and
concluded that power was grossly misused for political consideration and suggested that some
healthy guidelines be evolved to direct President’s rule so that constitutional obligation do not
get subordinated to political expediencies.

[4.2] the fundamental rights of Petitioner has been violated under

Art.19(1)(a)

Art.19 (1) (a) guarantees the Petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression. In Maneka
Gandhi v. UOI 46, it was held that “Democracy ensures every right of general discussions of
public matters.”

In D.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India47, it was held that

“Freedom of expression equally generates & disseminates ideas and opinions, information of
political and social importance in a free market place for peaceful social transformation under
rule of law. The purpose of freedom of speech is to understand political issues so as to protect
the citizens and to enable them to participate effectively in the working of the democracy in a
representative form of Govt. Freedom of expression would play crucial role in the formation of
public opinion on social, political and economic questions. Therefore, political speeches are
greater degree of protection and special and higher status than other types of speeches and
expressions”.

In Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.48 it was held that “the
values sought by society in protecting the right to the freedom of speech would fall into four

45
Harbir Singh Khaturia President’s Rule in India 1967-1989 (Uppal I st ed. 1990)
46
AIR 1978 SC 597
47
AIR1996SC2481
48
AIR1973SC106
broad categories. Free expression is necessary: (1) for individual fulfilment, (2) for attainment of
truth. (3) for participation by members of the society in political or social decision making and
(4) for maintaining the balance between stability and change in society”.

In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and

Ors.49 it was held that, "The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire
information and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self-
expression which is an important means of free conscience and self-fulfilment. It enables people
to contribute to debates on social and moral issues. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so
essential to democracy.”

In the present case, government of Purva Pradesh under Art. 19(1)(a), had the right to express the
political opinion & to carry out political discussions for proper functioning of democratic
government but imposition of president rule has violated this right. After such imposition the
elected government has been derailed due to which they cannot freely articulate their ideas,
agendas and its policies for welfare of the people which may degrade the public faith in the govt.

Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI) and Ors.50, it was held that
that the freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic Government. This freedom is essential
for proper functioning of the democratic process. The freedom of speech and expression is
regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of
liberties, giving succor and protection to all other liberties. Freedom of speech plays a crucial
role in the formation of public opinion on social, political and economic matters.

The Universal declaration of Human Rights on 'December 10, 1948, by the United States
enunciated : "Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression."51

49
AIR 1995 SC 1236
50
2012(2)PLJR217
51
1986(2)APLJ (HC) 136
[4.3] arbitrary imposition of president rule has led to gross violation of anti-defection law.

It is humbly contented that the defection of party members was the prima facie violation of anti-
defection law as per the Tenth Schedule, widely known as the Anti-Defection law, was added to
the Indian Constitution by virtue of 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 with an aim of curbing the
political defections which posed a threat to parliamentary democracy and the stability of a
representative government. It lays down the provisions for disqualification of members of the
Parliament and State assemblies.52

To substantiate, the provision under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule envisages that a
member of the house or the assembly is disqualified, if he or she voluntarily gives up his or her
membership of the party from which he or she was elected to the house or the assembly.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu53 and Others underpinned the
purpose of the said paragraph in following words:

“The provision of Paragraph 2(1)(a) proceeds on the premise that political propriety and
morality demand that if a person, after the election, changes his affiliation and leaves and
political party which had set him up as a candidate at the election, then he should give up his
Membership of the legislature and go back before the electorate. The same yardstick is applied to
a person who is elected as an Independent candidate and wishes to join a political party after the
election.”

In Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Ors.Vs.Speaker Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly and
Ors.54,it was held that “The 10 th schedule clearly empowers the speaker and he must be given
the power to take decisions in matter of disqualification”.

In Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Ors. vs. B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ors.55, it was held that “The
scope of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, enables the Speaker in a
quasi-judicial capacity to declare that a Member of the House stands disqualified for the reasons
mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.”

52
Tenth schedule: Shukla, V.N, Constitution of India, pg-1196, 13th edition
53 Kihoto Hollohan vsZachillhu and Others 1992 SCR (1) 686
54 2020(3)BLJ462
55 (2011)7MLJ283(SC)
Therefore it is humbly submitted that the after the imposition of president rule, the state
legislature was dissolved due to which speaker do not have power to decide disqualification of
defecting members and this has led to violation of anti-defection law.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED,
IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT

[1] The State of Purva Pradesh shall be ordered to compensate the victims of the post poll
violence and their families including all the disseminated people and the respective NGO
Pravah Chakra. The family members of the deceased shall be given 10 lakhs per family and
physically injured shall be given 2 lakhs each. The disseminated people shall be called back
and their economic losses shall be compensated reasonably. The NGO shall be given
damages amounting 20 lakhs and due protection by the state for further process of survey.

[2] The Vidhan Sabha elections of Vrihad Pradesh, scheduled in September 2021, shall be
extended till the situation to be normalize for public good.

[3] The president rule imposed in the state of Purva Pradesh shall be abolished.

[4] The defected members of Liberal Democratic Party shall be considered disqualified.

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

All of which is humbly prayed

[COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS]