TEAM CODE - 18

MOOT COURT EXCERCISE

DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GGV

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARD

PETITION AGAINST SUBROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASGARD

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ………….. /OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF

CITIZEN OF VORMIR…………………………………..…...................... PETETIONER

vs.

UNION OF ASGARD……………………………….……………………..RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETETIONER

 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………… 3
Cases
Book…
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………….5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………. 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………7-8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………… 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………..10-11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………12-19
I. Whether the petitions are maintainable or not?
II. Whether imposition of President’s Rule under Art. 356 of the Constitution

of Asgard valid?
III. Whether enforcement of Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order,
2019 in the State of Vormir valid?
IV. Whether imposition of Sec. 144 of Criminal Code of Procedure & the
House Arrest of prominent political leaders of the State of Vormir valid?
V. Whether the reorganisation of the State of Vormir into Union Territories of
Wakanda & Vormir valid?

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………..20
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

CASES

Sakal Papers (Pvt) Ltd v Union of india (1962), 12

Dinesh Trivedi v Union of india (1997) 4 SCC 306 13

State of Gujarat v. Dharamdass; AIR 1982 SC 781 13

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295 14

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 14

S.R.Bommai case AIR 1994 SCC (3) 1 15

Nazeer ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253, 257 16

Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 146 16

Faheema Shirin R K v. State of Kerala & Others W.P(C). No.19716/2019-L 17

Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey (application no. 3111/10) 17

Re. Ramlila Maidan (Supra) & Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra AIR1961 19
SC 88

Navtej Johar v Union of india(2018) 10 SCC 13

BOOKS

1. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (52nd ed. 2015).

 H
e
2. JAIN M.P, ASGARDN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. Lexis Nexis).
i
n
3. SHUKLA V.N. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th ed. Eastern Book
OCompany)
n
l
4. SUPINDER KAUR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE(7thth ed. Lexis Nexis)
i
n
e
, WEB SOURCES

 Lexis Asgard, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal

 Manupatra, http://www.manupatrafast.com
 SCC Online, http://www.scconline.com
 Westlaw Asgard, http://www.westlawAsgard.com
 https://home.heinonline.org
 Lexloft,http://www.lex370.vormir.com
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

AND &
Art. ART.
CrPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF LAW
Ed . EDITION
FRs FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
HC HIGH COURT
Hon’ble HONORABLE
IOA INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
JCIL JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORY LEGAL
ISSUE
LR LAW REPORT
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SEC SECTION
UDHR UNIVERSAL DICLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHT
v. VERSUS
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble SC of Asgard has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain & dispose of the
present case by virtue of Art. 32 of The Constitution of Asgard.
Art. 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part.
The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(1) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, probhition, quo warranto & certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of,
(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the SC by clause (1) & (2),
parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits
of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the SC under clause (2).
The right guaranteed by this Art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this constitution.
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,
2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Asgard is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic that follows federalism

where by power is shared between Union & States. The Constitution of Asgard came
into existence when colonial Asgard was divided into Union of Asgard & Republic
of Titan. When it was granted independence there were 526 princely states in
Asgard, they were allowed to be a part of either Asgard or Titan or to remain
independent & exercise their right to self-determination. There were two prominent
religions in the Colonial Asgard, Marvelism & Gothism. The partition took place on
the prevalence of these religions in the two countries. Marvelism was a majority
religion in Asgard & Gothism in Titan. Among the princely states which preferred to
be independent was the State of Vormir which shared borders with the Asgard &
Titan. The ruler of the princely state of Vormir was a Marvel while maximum
population of the state followed Gothism therefore the ruler exercised its right to self
-determination & decided to remain sovereign. Soon there was an invasion in Vormir
by the tribesmen & the army from Titan, the ruler sought the help of Asgard, which
in turn led to the accession of Vormir to Asgard by signing of the Instrument of
Accession on October 26, 1947. Asgardian & Titan forces thus fought their first war
over Vormir in 1947-48. Soon Asgard referred the dispute to the United Nations. It
asked Titan & Asgard to remove its troops conduct a "free & fair" plebiscite to allow
people of Vormir to decide their future. Titan ignored the UN mandate & continued
fighting. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed & the part of the state of Vormir
which was captured by Titan was declared to be belonging to the Union of Asgard.
Both Asgard & Vormir also formed a treaty that they will solve their disputes
mutually over Vormir.
The accession of Vormir led to inclusion of Art. 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution
of Asgard under the heading ‘Temporary, Transitional & Special Provisions’.
According to this Art., except for defence, foreign affairs, & communications it
restricted the Parliament’s legislative powers in respect of Vormir. For extending a
central law on subjects included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA), mere
“consultation” with the state government was needed. But for extending it to other
matters, “concurrence” of the state government was mandatory. Thus, the state's
residents live under a separate set of laws. Art. 370 was supposed to be interpreted as
temporary in the sense that the Vormir Constituent Assembly had a right to
modify/delete/retain it & it shall continue until a plebiscite happens as per the UN
guidelines. The State's constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957
without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Art.. Although the
Art. 370(3) permits deletion by a Presidential Order. Such an order, however, is to be
preceded by the concurrence of Vormir’s Constituent Assembly. Since the Assembly
was dissolved the future of the Art. became uncertain. Uncertainty prompted an
incessant situation in the State & tension between the Titan, Asgard & Vormir. In the
following time Vormir witnessed a steady rise of militant outfits, several unstable
governments, arrests & violent killings.
The Odin Janata party who had been opposing the special status for Vormir for a
long time soon proposed the Constitutional (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 to
repeal the Art.s & called for bifurcation of the state into two union territories that is;
Wakanda (centrally administered) & Vormir (with its legislative assembly) by
introducing the Vormir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. The government used the
“Interpretation clause” of Art. 367 of the Asgardian Constitution wherein the
reference to “Constituent Assembly” was to be read as “Legislative Assembly of the
State” & all the references to “Sardar-I-Riyasat” were to be considered as referring to
Governor of the State. Prominent Vormir leaders, including former Chief Minister
Gamora Mufti & opposition leader, Thanos Abdullah were placed under house arrest
after imposition of President’s Rule. Internet & mobile services were curtailed, &
Sec. 144 of Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 was imposed. Opposition parties
protested in parliament against the Bill & the complete shutdown of the Vormir
valley. Government’s move was criticized as the Reorganization bill breached the
1954 Presidential Order as no consent or concurrence of the Legislature or the State
Government was taken at any point. Further the state was locked down by imposing
Sec. 144.
The sudden abrogation & its procedure invited more than a dozen petitions. The
pleas have been filed by a variety of persons, including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats
& politicians. The petitions have alleged that the Art. 370 amendment could not have
been done without the concurrence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly in
Vormir. Gamora Mufti approached the Court against her house detention. Thanos
Abdullah filed writ petition against the imposition of President’s Rule in the state
without giving chance for floor test. The decision to substitute the "Governor" as the
authority to recommend & ratify proposals to change the legal status of the State,
according to the petitioners, is "illegal & unconstitutional." A plea was also made by
a Sakaar State Vision NGO, it flagged the issue of freedom of the press being
violated & imposition of Sec. 144 they pointed out that essential services including
ambulances, police & fire services are also not accessible due to the curfew situation
& communication blockade. They claimed that they had tried to contact the local
administration to get news about the status of people living in State of Vormir, but
the "entire Valley seemed to be under detention."
The petitions before the court have cited many grounds for challenging the
President’s Order. A substantial question is whether a federal unit can be
downgraded from the status of a State to that of a Union Territory, a move for which
there is no precedent. The constitutional morality of the rest of the country deciding
the destiny of a State without the consent or participation of its citizens is also a
serious issue brought before the courts.
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE II: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART.

356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?
ISSUE III: WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION
(APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER, 2019 IN THE STATE OF
VORMIR VALID?
ISSUE IV: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SEC. 144 OF CRIMINAL
CODE OF PROCEDURE & THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT
POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?
ISSUE V: WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF
VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR VALID?
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,
2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I: WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court of asgard that the appealed
petitioner filed under Art. 32 is maintainable to declare the obligation of Art. 370 &
presidential’s order as unconditional & protect the principle of natural justices. The
apex court is fully empowered to adjudicate the case under its inherent power
through this petition to render complete justice to parties & it cannot be restricted in
any manner. The petitioner is filed as the presidential’s order of the government of
the union of Asgard has overlooked the rights of the citizens of the state of Vormir.
It fulfils all the requirements for the admission as a petition on the ground that it has
affected the fundamental rights of the citizens of the state of Vormir & is opposed to
the general public policy & specific legislation. Furthermore, a federal unit has been
downgraded from the status of the state to that of a union territory & the
constitutional morality of the rest of the country decided the destiny of a state
without the consent or participation of its citizen which resulted in ignorance of the
core element of the democracy. Thus, for the sake of justice & public good, the
petition filed is maintainable.

II: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART. 356

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court of Asgard that the imposition of
President’s rule under Art. 356 of the Constitution of Asgard is not valid because of
the special status that are prevailed for the state of Vormir by having its own
constitution. The other states in the nation of Asgard because according to the Sec.
92 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution the governor has the power to take all the
powers of the state assembly after there is any situation satisfying the breakdown of
the constitution in the state of Vormir.

III: WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION

TO VORMIR) ORDER, 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of asguard enforcement of

Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State of Vormir is not
valid as According to 370
(2) before any change in Art. 370 it must be placed before constituent assembly of
Vormir. In presidential order 1954 there also, new treaty was signed but, in this
order, no new treaty was signed & according to 370 (3) under provided it is given
that president cannot change anything in 370 without presenting & recommended by
constituent assemble.
 IV: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SEC. 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF
PROCEDURE & THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL
LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of Asgard imposition of Sec. 144 of

crpc & the house arrest of prominent political leaders of the state of Vormir is not
valid as there is a violation of fundamental right of Art. 14,19 21 & 22 of
constitution of Asgard & as there will be a complete bar of public meetings or rallies
during the period of operation & there shall be no movement of the public & due to
Sec. 144 of crpc the education institution will be affected.

V. WHETHER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE OF

VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA &
VORMIR VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of Asgard that the decision of the
reorganisation of the state of Vormir into territories of Wakanda & Vormir is invalid
because in the light of downgrading the status of the state of Vormir into two union
territories, the Vormir reorganisation act is ultra-vires to the constitution under Art.
3. It authorises the centre to alter the boundaries of the state & the creation of the
new states but not the downgrading the status of a state to that of a union territory.
This is even evident from the explanations of Art. 3. It is that Art. 3 provides a range
of powers alteration of state boundaries, the alteration of union territories, but does
not conspicuously authorise the degradation of the status of a state into a Union
Territory.
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble SC of Asgard that the appealed petitioner
filed under art. 32 is maintainable to protect the principle of natural justices. the
government of the union of Asgard has overlooked the rights of the citizens of the
state of Vormir. It fulfils all the requirements for the admission as a petition on the
ground that it has affected the fundamental rights of the citizens of the state of
Vormir & is opposed to the general public policy & specific legislation. Through
Art. 32 of the constitution of asgard immediately restriction on mobile internet &
landline services in Vormir & the strict restrictions on freedom of movement in order
to enable journalists to practice their profession & exercise their right to report &
publish, in furtherance of their rights under Art. I9(1)(a), 1.9(1)(g), 21 & 22 of the
Constitution of asgard as well as the Right to know of the residents of the Vormir
valley. The power & authority under which such action was ordered is still unknown
to the Petitioner.
ART. 19(1)(a) all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech & expression
In sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) state that operation of any existing law, or prevent
the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the
sovereignty & integrity of Asgard, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence
The freedom of the press guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of
Asgard has been held by the Hon'ble Court for the judgments to mean freedom from
interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the
content & circulation of newspapers & that there cannot be any interference with that
freedom in the name of public interest.
The Hon'ble Court explained the role of national courts in protecting media freedoms
by stating, inter-alia that the authors of the Art. which are published in newspapers
have to be critical of the action of government in order to expose its weaknesses.
Such Art. tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power. Governments
naturally take recourse to suppress newspapers publishing such Art. in different
ways.
In Sakal Papers (Pvt) Ltd v Union of India 1, this manner of using indirect means to
impinge, on the freedom of newspapers was unconstitutional that Its object is to
regidate something which is directly related to the circulation of a newspaper. Since
circulation of a newspaper is a part of the right of freedom of speech & the Act must

1
1962 AIR 305, SCR (3) 842
 be regarded as one directed against the freedom of speech. It has selected the fact or
thing which is an essential & basic of the conception of the freedom of speech. the
right to circulate one's views to all whom one can reach or care to reach for the
imposition of a restriction. It seeks to achieve its object of enabling what are termed
the smaller newspapers to secure larger circulation by provisions without a
restriction the circulation of what are termed the larger papers with better financial
strength. The impugned law far from being one, which merely interferes with the
right of freedom of speech incidentally, does so directly though it seeks to achieve
the & by purporting to regulate the business aspect of a newspaper Such a course is
not permissible & the courts must be ever vigilant in guarding perhaps the most
precious of all the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. The reason for this is
obvious. The freedom of speech & expression of opinion is of paramount importance
under a democratic Constitution which envisages changes in the composition of
legislatures & governments & must be perceived.
The freedom of the press is aright enjoyed both by the press & the citizenry at large.
The freedom of the press under Art. 19(1)(a) further stems from the Right to Know
available to all citizens under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Asgard; This Hon'ble
Court in a series of judgments from Dinesh Trivedi v Union of India2 onwards has
held that citizens have a right to know about government decisions & actions.
ART. 19(1)(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business:
Art. 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of Asgard provides Right to practice any profession or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to Art.19 (6)
which enumerates the nature of restriction that can be imposed by the state upon the
above right of the citizens. It confers a general & vast right available to all persons to
do any particular type of business of their choice. But this does not confer the right
to do anything consider illegal in eyes of law or to hold a particular job or to occupy
a particular post of the choice of any particular person.
In State of Gujarat v. Dharamdass 3it was held that a citizen whose occupation of a
place is unlawful cannot claim fundamental right to carry on business in such place
since the fundamental rights cannot be availed in the justification of an unlawful act
or in preventing a statutory authority from lawfully discharging its statutory
functions.
ART. 21: Right to Life & Personal Liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law. According to Bhagwati, J., Art. 21 embodies a
constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society. Everyone has
the right to life, liberty & the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the
most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question &
depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can
only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some
sense primary, since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without

2
1997 4 SCC 306
3 AIR 1982 SC 781
 it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Art. 21 had
been interpreted in its original sense. Right to life is fundamental to our very
existence without which we cannot live as a human being & includes all those
aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, & worth
living.It is the only Art. in the Constitution that has received the widest possible
interpretation. Under the canopy of Art. 21, so many rights have found shelter,
growth, & nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum & basic requirements
that are essential & unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to life.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4

By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence.

The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs & faculties by which
life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by
amputation of an armoured leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any
other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 5
the SC reiterated with the approval the above observations & held that the “right to
life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human
body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a
person’s tradition, culture, heritage & all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It
includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace & the right to repose & health.

4
AIR 1963 SC 1295

5
AIR 1978 SC 1675
 ISSUE II: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART.
356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC of Asgard that the imposition of

President’s rule under Art. 356 of the Constitution of Asgard is not valid as in the treaty
between Asgard & Vormir it is clearly mentioned that Asgard has power to make rule only
in three matters but after the President’s order 2019 Asgard had power to make rule in all
the matters which is the violation the treated between Asgard & Vormir. The fundamental
right is also been violated by the constitution of Asgard Art. 14, Art. 19 & 21 is violated
by the president’s rule. Vomir has its own separate Constitution that provides for an
intermediary statutory layer in the state. The state of Vormir by having its own constitution
& the other states in the nation of Asgard because according to the Sec. 92 of the Vormir
Constitution the governor has the power to take all the powers of the state assembly after
there is any situation satisfying the breakdown of the constitution in the state of Vormir
If the presidential rule is been imposed then the Vormir will splits into 2 union
territories. As under Art. 73 of Vormir reconganisation act 2019, that Art. 356 doe
not applied on union territories.
In S.R.Bommai case6,in the case it was held that the power of the President to
dismiss a State government is not absolute.The President should exercise the power
only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of
Parliament. The President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending
the provisions of Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.
Sec. 92 of Constitution of Vormir
Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the State
(1) If at any time, the Governor is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the
Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
this Constitution, the Governor may by Proclamation–
(a) Assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State &
all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by anybody or authority in the State;
(b) make such incidental & consequential provisions as appear to the Governor to be
necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including
provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this
Constitution relating to anybody or authority in the State Provided that nothing in
this Sec. shall authorise the Governor to assume to himself any of the powers vested
in or exercisable by the HC or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any
provision of this Constitution relating to the HC.
The shutting down of all means of communication including mobile services,
internet services & landline phone communications results in disabling on-ground
reporters & journalists who cannot then relay news inputs to their Editors &
publishers.

6
AIR 1994 SCC (3) 1
 ISSUS III: WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION
(APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER, 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR
VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of Asguard enforcement of

Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State of Vormir is not
valid as According to 370
(2) before any change in Art. 370 it must be placed before constituent assembly of
(3) Vormir. In presidential order 1954 there also, new treaty was signed but, in this
order, no new treaty was signed & according to 370 (3) under provided it is given
that president cannot change anything in 370 without presenting & recommended by
constituent assemble.
Art. 370(I)(c) mandates that Art. 370 & Art. 1 shall apply to Vormir by virtue of the
text itself, & that only “other” provisions can be modified & applied under Art.
370(I)(d).
The rule was that in Nazeer ahmed v. King Emperor 7 the rule was that where a
power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in the
said way & not the other way or resorting to the other methods & the other methods
of performance are forbidden necessarily.
The recent decision to rescript a part of the constitution is unconstitutional as it
would involve abrogating the basic structure of the constitution as to change the
identity of it which was held in the case Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala8. The
major decision in the above case was to upheld the federal structure of the
constitution as the basic structure of the constitution.
Art. 367 of the Constitution of Asgard defines the manner of interpretation of
provisions of the Constitution of Asgard, & thus can be used to modify merely
the interpretation of
constitutional provisions generally, when applied to the State of Vormir. However,
C.O. 272 goes much beyond merely modifying the interpretation provision. Insofar
as it seeks to alter the substantive nature of the power under Art. 370(3) to
recommend a presidential notification. In effect, C.O. 272 vests power of a certain
kind, only exercisable by one body, & under Art. 370 alone, in a wholly different
body that lacks the competence to exercise such powers.
It is clearly mention in art. 370 clause(1)(d) & art.370 clause (3) that present can
amendment & abrogated art. 370 but not without recommendation of constituent
assembly & here the amendment & abrogation are done without recommendation of
constituent assembly & state legislation assembly. The president exceeds its power.
7
AIR 1936 PC 253, 257
8
AIR 1973 SC 146
 ISSUE IV: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SEC. 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE
OF PROCEDURE & THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL
LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

It has affected the fundamental rights of the citizens of the state of Vormir & is
opposed to the general public policy & specific legislation. under sec. 144 CrPC had
been imposed, the state of Vormir was placed in a state of defacto curfew, a
complete lockdown.
Sec. 144 of the crpc empowers, the state government to take measures, including the
imposition of certain restrictions, to maintain public tranquility. The government of
Vormir argument that the court could not examine all the orders issued under Sec.
144 & has limited jurisdiction to interfere, the court held that the state was bound to
disclose all the orders passed under Sec. 144 so that aggrieved persons can challenge
them.
The freedom of speech & expression & the freedom to practice any profession or
carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys
constitutional protection under Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 19(1)(g). The restriction upon
such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Art.19 (2)
& (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality & the right to access
to the internet is also a salient feature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). Art. 19 of the UDHR states that “everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion & expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference & to seek, receive & impart information & ideas through any media &
regardless of frontiers.
In Faheema Shirin R K v. State of Kerala & Others9
stated that “When the Human Rights Council of the UN have found that the right to
access to the internet is a fundamental freedom & a tool to ensure the right to
education, a rule or instruction which impairs the said right of the students cannot be
permitted to stand in the eye of the law.”
The House Arrest of prominent political leaders Gamora Mufti & Thanos Abdullah
of the State of Vormir is also not valid as their fundamental right of constitution of
Asgard art. 14, art 19, art. 21 & UDHR Art. 19 is been violated.
Art. 14 of Asgard constitution state clearly states that the state/country shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of Asgard. This law is applicable to all citizens & foreigners. All persons
should be treated equally without any discrimination.
UDHR Art. 19 state that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion & expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference & to seek, receive
& impart information & ideas through any media & regardless of frontiers.

9
W.P(C).No.19716/2019-L
 in Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey10, it was stated that the Internet has acquired significant
importance in terms of the exercise of fundamental rights & freedoms, especially the
freedom of expression. Social media constitute a transparent platform affording
individuals the opportunity to participate in creating, publishing & interpreting
media content. Social media platforms are thus indispensable tools for the exercise
on the right to freedom to express, share & impart information & ideas. Accordingly,
the State & its administrative authorities must display considerable sensitivity not
only when regulating this area but also in their practice, since these platforms have
become one of the most effective & widespread means of both imparting ideas &
receiving information.
Art. 19 of the constitution of Asgard state that Right to Freedom (Protection of
certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc)

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech & expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably & without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of Asgard;
(e) to reside & settle in any part of the territory of Asgard; &
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
Art. 21 of the constitution of Asgard state that the right to life & liberty, is the
right from which all other rights emerge. Without the right to life & liberty, all
the other fundamental rights would be absolutely meaningless.
In Re. Ramlila Maidan (Supra) & Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra11 AIR1961 SC
884

It was states that power under Sec. 144 CrPC is to be used with caution & only
when there is actual & prominent threat endangering public-order & tranquility it
should neither be arbitrary, nor subvert the rights protected by the Constitution. Sec.
144 CrPC. should only be used as the last resort, when a lesser invasive alternative
is not available.

10
(application no. 3111/10)
11
AIR1961 SC 88
 ISSUES V: WHETHER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE OF
VORMIR INTO UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR
VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble SC of Asgard that the decision of the
reorganisation of the state of Vormir into territories of Wakanda & Vormir is invalid
that the status of the state of Vormir into two union territories, the Vormir
reorganisation act is ultra-vires to the constitution under Art. 3. It authorises the
centre to alter the boundaries of the state & the creation of the new states but not the
downgrading the status of a state to that of a union territory.
In Art.3 clauses (a) to (e), "State'' includes a Union territory, but in the proviso,
"State'' does not include a Union territory. The power conferred on Parliament by
clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part
of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory. Art. 3 provides a
range of powers alteration of state boundaries, the alteration of union territories, but
does not conspicuously authorise the degradation of the status of a state into a Union
Territory.
In Navtej Johar v Union of India12case Where the apex court supported the principle
of non- retrogression that the state should not take steps or any measures that leads to
the retrogression on the rights of enjoyment of rights under the constitution.
Art. 1 extends to Vormir & is recognised as a state under the nation of Asgard. It
states that Asgard as Bharat shall be Union of the States. Art. 1(3) further states that
“the territory of Asgard shall comprise - (a) the territories of the States”; (b) the
Union territories specified in the First Schedule” It is asserted that for the purposes
of Art. 1, “states” & “union territories” are treated differently, & “states” are the
units of the Asgardian Union.
Further the power of Art. 3 cannot not be vested to the centre for downgrading the
status of the states into the union territories that if chooses to downgrade it in the
same manner with all the states then Asgardian would become a union of territories
& not the union of states.

12
(2018) 10 SCC
 THE MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2020

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED & AUTHORITIES CITIED, THE

APPELLANT HUMBLY PLEAD BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT TO:

1. A Writ under the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction,
declaring that the reorganisation of the state of Vormir into Union territories
of Wakanda & Vormir & also the enforcement of Constitution (Application
to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State of Vormir as ultra vires Art. 19 & 21 of
constitution read with Art. 370 & 356 of the constitution & other provision
therein, unconstitutional, void ab initio, invalid & inoperative.
2. Issue a direction to the Respondents to immediately relax all restrictions on
house arrest people & Private sectors as ultra vires Art. 19 & 21.
Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice & good conscience.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELANT FACTION SHALL BE DULY

BOUND FOREVER.

Sd/- (Counsel for

Appellant)