Team Code

BSOLS VIRTUAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021
TEAM CODE-17
BHARATA MATA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CHOONDY, ALUVA
VIRTUAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2021-22
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYAN,
STATE OF MAYAN
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVEREIGN SECULAR

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF BAYANK
IN THE MATTER OF
MINORITY WELFARE COMMITTEE (NGO) PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF MAYAN RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 8
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 11
I. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.......... 11

II. THE MAYAN ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL ............................................... 15
III. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHALLENGE ANY MINORITY RIGHTS ............ 18
IV. THE ORDINANCE IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE
STATE GOVERNOR .......................................................................................................... 20
V. V.THE POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN THE
ORDINANCE IS EFFICIENT ............................................................................................. 22
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 24

2
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Cri. Criminal
Hon’ble Honorable
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
Sec. Section
SOP Standard Operating Procedure

3
u/a Under Article

4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88

2. Ahemdabad St. Xavier's College v. State of Guajrat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487; Pradeep Jain v. UOI, AIR
1984 SC 1420; Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1986 SC 1035; Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. I.A.A.I., A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628; D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Union D.T.C.,
AIR 1991 SC 101.
4. Bachan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
5. Chameli v State of Uttar Pradesh CA No. 12122 of 1995 SLP (C) No. 4896 of 1993.
6. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors 1 1985 AIR 724.
7. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2005)1SCC590.
8. Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752.
9. I.C. Golaknath & Ors vs State of Punjab & Anr 1967 AIR 1643.
10. I.R Colho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 550.
11. M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 150.
12. Manager, St. Thomas U.P School, Kerala v. Commr. and Secy. to General Education
Dept.,AIR 2002 SC 756.
13. Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748.
14. 1Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Jan Mohammed
Usmanbhai & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1205
15. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
16. S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662.
17. S.P Mittal v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1.
18. State of Bijar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252
19. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors, 2010 3 SCC 402.
BOOKS
1. Basu D.D, Constitution of India, 14th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Butterworth’s
Wadhwa Publication Nagpur.
2. Dhirajlal & Ratanlal, The Law of Torts.26th edition 2012, LexisNexis Butterworth’s
Wadhwa.

5
3. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth
Wadhwa Nagpur.
4. Shukla V.N, Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.
5. Lawman’s, Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Kamal
Publishers.
6. Rajeev N Pradhan’s, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Development in India and
International Law.
LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. West Law
4. Hein Online
LEGISLATIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners herein has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court to hear and
adjudicate over the matter under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of Bayank,1950
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 exercises 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

7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mayan is a State in the Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic of Bayank. The ever-
increasing population of the State had adversely affected the development and growth of
the State. The population of the State of Mayan alone was estimated more than 3 crores
with the minority communities constituting 48 percent. Percentage of the majority
community has shrunk from 70 percent in 1950 to 52 percent at present day.
2. With a view to control the population growth and to enhance the infrastructure and human
resources development of the State, the State Governor had promulgated the Mayan
(Managaement and Development of Human Resourcesm) Ordinance, 2021(herein referred
as ‘Mayan Ordinance’) (No.1 of 2021) on 25.6.2021.
3. As prescribed under Sections 2 of the Ordinance, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the benefits of all State funded welfare schemes
being announced and implemented by the State was limited to the families having two
children. the parents to whom twins were born in the second delivery, shall not be denied
the benefits of the schemes and rather, the benefits would be only available to the eldest
two among the children. Further, the State funded educational scholarships to the children
of Minority communities were also limited to the eldest two children of the parents having
more than two children.
4. Similarly, under Section 3, the eligibility to contest for election to the Local Bodies was
also limited to the families having two children. The Ordinance however provided
opportunity to contest in the Local Body elections to person having more than two children
living on the date of coming into force of the Ordinance or a person becoming a
father/mother of more than two children before 31 December, 2021 or a person having
more than two children because twins had taken birth in the second delivery.
5. A person with more than two children were confined from the eligibility to contest in
elections to local bodies if not suited to the exceptions.
6. The Ordinance will come into effect from the first day of January, 2022.
7. Mather and Sashank, the President and Secretary of the Minority Welfare Committee, a
registered NGO had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Mayan, praying for a
declaration that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens and particularly the members of the minority communities. The
High Court had issued notice to the Respondent, Chief Secretary, State of Mayan and has
posted the Writ Petition for preliminary hearing.

8
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Is the Writ Petition maintainable?
ISSUE 2
Does the Ordinance violate Art. 14, 21 or any other fundamental rights?
ISSUE 3
Is the Ordinance violative of any Minority Rights?
ISSUE 4
Is the Ordinance within legislative competence?
ISSUE 5
Whether the Population Control Measures prescribed under the Ordinance is Efficient?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE

In the case, no violations of Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of the Sovereign
Secular Democratic Republic of Bayank by the issue of the Bayank Ordinance. Henceforth,
there is no locus standi for the Petitioners to establish Writ Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble HC
of the State of Mayan to entertain proceedings for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
2. THE MAYAN ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL
The Mayan Ordinance issued by the State Governor of Mayan focus on equality among the
citizens and to protect the Fundamental Rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution.,
guaranteed to the citizens and particularly the members of the minority communities. Thus,
the aforesaid Ordinance is Constitutional.
3. THE ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT OF MINORITY RIGHTS
The Mayan Ordinance is does not violate Minority Rights. The Bayank Constitution has
given sufficient significance to education of Minority Classes. The Ordinance does not
violate or in contrary to any of the Constitutional Provisions regarding Minority Rights.
4. THE ORDINANCE IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE
STATE GOVERNOR
The subject matters of the Ordinance fall under the purview of Legislative Competence of
the Governor u/a 213. The Ordinance deals with matters within the State List in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution and is entitled to impose reasonable restriction on the
Fundamental Rights for public good.
5. THE POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN THE
ORDINANCE IS EFFICIENT
The ever-increasing population of the State has adversely affected the development and
growth of the State. With a view to control the population growth and to enhance the
infrastructure and human resources development of the State, the State Governor has
promulgated the Ordinance which prescribes most efficient and faster mode of population
control to attract large masses.

10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE ONE
I. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE

1. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the instant case, the Writ Petition is not
maintainable as there is an no evident infringement of the Fundamental Rights caused by
the issue of the Ordinance which is sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by
Art. 226[1]. In the instant case, Judicial review will remain restricted to the executive
actions [2].
1. INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS THE SINE QUA NON

OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY ART. 226
1.1) THERE IS NO EVIDENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS CAUSED BY THE ISSUE OF THE ORDINANCE
2. It is submitted that Part III of the Constitution which deals with “Fundamental Rights” is
regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution1.The Mayan Ordinance only imposes
reasonable restrictions on the families on the enjoyment of the welfare schemes benefits
and the right to contest in the Elections. These indicate that there is no evident infringement
of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
3. In I.C. Golaknath & Ors vs State of Punjab & Anr2,The Court was of the view that
Fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by the law made by the Parliament. In furtherance
of the same the Court also said that if a law is made to give effect to Article 39(b) and
Article 39(c) which come under the purview of DPSPs and in the process the law violates
Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, the law cannot be declared as unconstitutional and void
merely on the ground of said contravention.
4. Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution states that;
that the ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are so distributed as best
to subserve the common good;
1
I.R Colho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 550.
2
1967 AIR 1643.

11
5. Here the decision to limitations of the state funded welfare schemes and the restriction on
the eligibility to contest in the elections and scholarship of members of minority community
view to control the population growth and to enhance the infrastructure and human
resources development of the State. The ever-increasing population of the State has
adversely affected the development and growth of the State and such measures comes under
the purview of reasonable restriction to tackle the issue effectively and efficiently.
Ultimately, the restrictions were imposed for public good and therefore no evident
infringement of the Fundamental Rights exist in the instant case.
1.2) PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE.
6. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, since no right of Petitioners have
been infringed, they have no locus standi before this Court. PIL is an extremely important
jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. PIL must be encouraged
but its misuse and abuse should not be encouraged3.
7. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested.4 This Hon’ble Court has itself imposed
a self-restraint in its own wisdom on the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the
party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective adequate alternative remedy, although this
Rule is a Rule of convenience and discretion rather than a Rule of law5.
8. A person acquires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or individual right which
has been violated or threatened to be violated. Since, no right of Petitioners had been
infringed; they have no locus standi before this Hon’ble Court.
9. The normal Rule is that a writ petition Under Article 226 ought not to be entertained if
alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined
exceptions as observed in Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors6
10. Therefore, from the above facts and with the situation faced by the govt of this population
boost; the governor was forced to tackle the situation through such an Ordinance as an
effective population control measure as well as a means to Judiciously distribute and
validate welfare schemes for the minority.
3
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors, 2010 3 SCC 402.
4
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2005)1SCC590.
5
Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748.
6
1985 AIR 724.

12
11. Here the Ordinance in not violative of any Fundamental Rights but merely a restriction
within the restriction on the minority classes to effectively tackle their eligibility to welfare
schemes and reservations on the face of their overpopulation; ie to ensure their rights to
welfare scheme’s and reservation by imposing a reasonable restriction with the intention to
include maximum of such minority community to enjoy the benefits of the same.
12. Thus, here the Petitioner don’t have the ‘locus standi’ to initiate writ petition on the basis
of infringement of fundamental rights; but can pursue alternate remedies for enforcement
of their eligibility or towards challenging the classification only in the instant case.
2. REVIEW REMAINED RESTRICTED TO THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS
13. It was held in T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh12 Ordinance making power of
the President and the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power
of the Parliament and State legislatures respectively. This implies that the motives behind
the exercise of this power cannot be questioned, just as is the case with legislation by the
Parliament and State legislatures.
2.1) JUDICIAL REVIEW
14. It was held that power of the Court of Judicial Review to grant compensation in public law
remedy is limited. In other words, power to grant compensation is confined to cases of
violation of Fundamental Rights only. It was also held that the right guaranteed by Art. 226
can be exercised only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III in
of the Constitution.7The main object behind the Petitioners in filing these petitions is to
create hurdles for implementing the Ordinance.
2.2) RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER
15. In the instant case, the State has issued the Ordinance for the welfare of the State. The
Ordinance, if it does not infringe the Constitutional safeguards, neither be examined nor
the motive for such promulgation be in question.8Therefore, the Petitioners have no
authority to challenge the Ordinance promulgated by the Government as it does not
infringe the rights of the students
7
State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
others, AIR 2010 SC, 1476.
8
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1980.

13

14
ISSUE TWO
II. THE MAYAN ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL
6. The counsel on behalf of Respondent contends that the governmental action of issuing the
Ordinance for the State of Mayan was to ensure and establish the Fundamental Rights of
the citizens of State of Mayan, especially the minority classes. It is therefore submitted
before this Hon’ble Court that such governmental action is not in derogation of
Fundamental Rights [1] and hence cannot be challenged [2].
1. THE ORDINANACE IS NOT IN DEROGATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS
1.1) THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED TO ENSURE EQUALIZATION

AMONG CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MAYAN
7. In the instant case, the Mayan Ordinance establishes certain regulations on the benefits
enjoyed by citizens on the sole reason that he/she is having more than two children on the
date of enforcement of the Ordinance.
8. Article 14 of the Bayank Constitution provides Right to Equality to every person whether
citizen or not.9 Every human being is entitled to equality before the law and the equal
9. protection of the laws within its territory.10 Article 14 thus means that ‘equals should be
treated alike.’11 Art. 1412 strikes at arbitrariness of State action in any form.13
10. Upon on the implementation of the Ordinance, the majority of the citizens resort to two or
less than two children. As a result, all the citizens will be equally competent to all the
benefits of the State funded welfare programs and the eligibility of candidateship. In
addition, a circumstance is formulating where the State scholarship for minorities will be
available to all children in the minority classes.
9
In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
10
Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752.
11
M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 150.
12
Article 14 of the Constitution of Hodu – Equality Before Law
13
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487; Pradeep Jain v. UOI, AIR 1984 SC 1420;
Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1986 SC 1035; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. I.A.A.I., A.I.R. 1979 SC
1628; D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101.

15
11. Therefore, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Ordinance is very much
equipped with the formation of Equal State where Equality of all citizens is practically
possible rather than a State where Equality Principle in fact remain as a mere Provision
1.2) THE ORDINANCE SECURES THE PROTECTION OF LIFE OF ALL

CITIZENS
12. The State has the duty to ensure the wellbeing of all citizens. If the State funded welfare
schemes are not controlled, it will give rise to a situation where the State become
incapable of meeting every citizen needs Inorder to avoid such a depression, the State
introduced a condition so that the State resources can be used sustainably satisfying the
Constitutional Duties towards the Citizens.
13. And all the citizens as the Duty to comply to the new Economic Policy evolved by the
State as it is derived for their social wellbeing in the State where ever-increasing
population of the State has adversely affected the development and growth of the State.
1.3) THERE IS NO BAR ON RIGHT TO FREEDOM

14. In the instant case, it is important to note that the Government does not curtail the
Freedom of personal choice of individual on procreation and rather protect his freedom of
Choice. The Ordinance does only introduce certain criteria for the enjoyment benefits of
the State and in transfer to responsibilities of the families with more than two children to
individuals itself who has the duty to care of their families. Such transfers are pertinent so
that the Rights of other citizens is not hindered.
1.4) PROTECTS RIGHT TO LIFE
15. . In Chameli v State of Uttar Pradesh14, the court moved further included the right to food,
water, and a decent environment. The court observed a certain connection regarding an
organized society that purports that right to live as a human being is not ensured by
meeting only the animal needs of man.
16. In the present situation of State of Mayan, the population is fast growing. In near future, a
circumstance will arrive where 1000 people are living in a space meant for 100
people.The affects the standard of living of the citizens in the country.Inorder to avoid
such problems, The State of Mayan through the Ordinance discloses an effective remedy.
14
CA No. 12122 of 1995 SLP (C) No. 4896 of 1993.

16
1.5) PROTECTS RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

17. Livelihood can include basic shelter, food, education, occupation and medical care. As
discussed earlier, the court’s view kept on transforming with time. The Supreme Court in
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation15, popularly known as the “Pavement
Dwellers Case” a five-judge bench of the Court now implied that ‘right to livelihood’ is
borne out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can live without the means of living, that is,
the means of Livelihood.
18. That the court, in this case, observed that: “The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not merely mean that life cannot be
extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death
sentence, except according to the procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of
the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”
19. In a State with population explosion, there will be no sufficient opportunities for an
Individual to choose their livelihood. In the instant case, the State had resorted to protect
the Right to Livelihood of the Citizens.
15
1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

17
ISSUE THREE
III. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHALLENGE ANY MINORITY RIGHTS

20. The Constitution of Bayank provides for special rights to both linguistic and religious
minorities "to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice" under
Article 30. Hence no such law can be framed as may discriminate against such minorities
with regard to the establishment and administration of the educational institutions vis-à-vis
other educational institutions. Article 30 is a special right conferred on the religious and
linguistic minorities because of their numerical handicap and to instil in them a sense of
confidence.
21. In the St Xavier's College case, the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out, "The whole
object of conferring the right on the minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will
be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special
protection, they will be denied equality."16
22. The Supreme Court has time and again, in many judgements, ruled that minority status can
be decided only by taking the state as a unit. It has reasoned that since 'religious' and
'linguistic' are mentioned at the same time in Article 30 of the Constitution, and since the
states were carved out in India by taking language as the criterion, the classification of
'minority' cannot be based on some other principle. Accordingly, a state government can
confer minority status on an educational institute only after considering the socio-economic
backwardness of the minorities in that state.
23. This is the reason why even though 90 per cent of the educational institutions (aided or
unaided) in Kerala are run by person(s) belonging to the minority communities.
1) NO BAR ON THE ENJOYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS OF THE

MINORITY CLASSES
24. The Supreme Court has pointed out in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of
Gujarat17that the spirit behind article 30(1) is the conscience of the nation that the
minorities, religious as well as linguistic, are not prohibited from establishing and
administering educational institutions of their choice for the purpose of giving their
children the best general education to make them complete men and women of the country.
16
Ahemdabad St. Xavier's College v. State of Guajrat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
17
AIR 1974 SC 1389.

18
25. Article 30(1) postulate that the religious community will have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice meaning thereby that where a religious
minority establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer that. The
right to administer has been given to the minority, so that it can mould the institution as it
thinks fit, and in accordance with its ideas of how the interest of the community in general,
and the institution in particular, will be best served.
26. For purpose of article 30(1), even a single philanthropic individual from the concerned
minority can found the institution with his own means.18
27. It has been observed by Supreme Court in the case of Azeez Basha," Article 30(1)
postulates that the religious community will have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice meaning thereby that where a religious minority
establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer that. The article in
our opinion clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer educational
institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not otherwise,"19
28. In S.P Mittal v. Union of India20, the Supreme Court has stated: " In order to claim the
benefit of Article 30(1), the community must show:
(a) that it is religious/linguistic minority,
(b) that the institution was established by it.
Without satisfying these two conditions it cannot claim the guaranteed rights to administer it.
29. In the instant case, State funded Scholarship of Minority class children does subject to a
condition to satisfy, so as to identify the Duty rest upon oon the State or on individuals
and nowhere the Ordinance states about denial or stoppage of the same.
30. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Ordinance does not
challenge any of the Minority rights in the Constitution of Bayank and thereby it is
evident that there is no bar on the enjoyment of educational rights of the minority classes
has been vitiated by the Ordinance.
18
Manager, St. Thomas U.P School, Kerala v. Commr. and Secy. to General Education Dept.,AIR 2002 SC
756.
19
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662.
20
AIR 1983 SC 1.

19
ISSUE FOUR
IV. THE ORDINANCE IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF

THE STATE GOVERNOR
31. Ordinance making powers of the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article
213,
32. If at any time, except when the Legislative Assembly of a State is in session, or where there
is a Legislative Council in a State, except when both Houses of the Legislature are in
session, the Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him
to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear
to him to require:21
1.1) THERE EXIST A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH RENDER IT NECESSARY

FOR THE GOVERNOR TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION,
33. The ever-increasing population of the State has adversely affected the development and
infrastructure and human resources development of the State. In such a circumstance it
necessitates the Governor to take immediate action for the welfare and protection of
Rights of the People and for the stability of State Economy.
1.2) REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS CAN BE PLACED BY ORDINANCE
34. It is very clear from Article 13 of the Indian Constitution which states that law includes any
kind of Ordinance. Also, reasonable restrictions can be placed on ordinances as they are
part of both Substantive and Procedural elements of law.
35. The case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras22. Das, J., had opined those reasonable
restrictions are imposed on the enjoyment of Fundamental Rights due to the fact that in
certain circumstances, individual liberty has to be subordinated to certain other larger
interests of the society. Shastri, J., had observed that in civil society, man’s actions, arising
out of his exertion of the fundamental rights conferred upon him, have to be controlled and
regulated so as to reconcile the conflicting exercise of the civil rights by other people.
21
Art.213, The Constitution of Bayank
22
1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88

20
1.3) THE ORDINANCE WAS ISSUED ON PUBLIC INTEREST
36. The Respondent most humbly submits that ‘public interest’ means those interests which
concern the public at large; some interest that affects the legal rights and liabilities of a
community.23 It is of wide import, comprehending public order, public health, public
security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part
IV of the Constitution24 and consequently the right of the individual has to be sublimated
to the larger interest of the general public25.
37. In the instant case, there raised a disparity between the growing population and the
capacity of the State. In order to abridge the same, the State introduced a division or a
criterion so as to control the growing population by adhering to its duty of provision of
the State funded benefits.
38. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act of State Governor
of issuing the Ordinance befit the circumstances of the case as the interest of the citizens
with respect to protection of Right to Life.
23
State of Bijar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252
24
Bachan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
25
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr., AIR 1986 SC
1205

21
ISSUE FIVE
V. V.THE POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN THE

ORDINANCE IS EFFICIENT
39. The ever-increasing population of the State has adversely affected the development and
infrastructure and human resources development of the State, the State Governor has
promulgated the Ordinance which prescribes most efficient and faster mode of population
control to attract large masses.
1) THE CRITERION BEING IMPOSED ON STATE FUNDED WELFARE

SCHEMES WILL RESULT IN THE POPULATION CONTROL
40. Money and Power are the most among others that seduces a man. The limitations on the
State funded welfare schemes and the restriction on the eligibility to contest in Local
Body elections will firmly draw the mindset of an individual to resort to Two or less than
two children. Particularly, as the State funded welfare schemes make the life in the State
easier, it has capacity to attract large masses. In conclusion, the Ordinance without any
violation of any Fundamental Rights, try to establish a equality State where the benefits
of State funded welfare schemes and eligibility to contest in elections is enjoyed by all
and where there exist a situation in which the population is unlikely to hinder the
Economy and Development of a State or a Nation.
2) MEDICAL CONCERNS
41. The WHO reports that pregnancy and childbirth are among the biggest causes of death
for women in developing countries like India. A study at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Centre has shown that just after the third childbirth, a woman's
arteries thicken and the blood pumping increases by more than 50%, doubling the risk of
a heart attack. So, a safe limit on the number of children is at 3 and traversing beyond this
mark can mean serious complications for the mother and the family.

22
42. Further in the observation of the Outcome of the study, it was remarked that the growing
population of a country, not only result in the massive strain on the mother but also on the
national resources and the state's ability to provide a cause of concern.26
43. Due to the abovementioned reasons; the absolute safe pregnancies a woman can endure
without any sort of health issues is understood as 2 pregnancies; the same is enacted or
enforced through the ordinance of the instant case in a beneficial manner to all the women
of the State of Mayan.
3. THE LITERACY AND FERTILITY ARE INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO

EACH OTHER
44. Mark Montgomery, an economics professor at Stony Brook University and a researcher at
the Population Council, observed that the literacy and fertility are inversely proportional
to each other as studies have found.
45. Further, his observation includes that one of the most powerful tools in stemming
population growth will be education. Education leads to lower birth rates and slows
population growth. This makes it easier for countries to develop. A more-educated
workforce also makes poverty eradication and economic growth easier to achieve.
46. With educated young members forming families; they tend to do family planning and
settle as small or nuclear families rather than uneducated folks living and procuring large
families without even the knowledge of family planning.
47. Therefore, decreasing fertility rate by limiting the number of children can positively
affect the Nation ie,. less number of children means there is a higher chance for them to
be raised into higher education thereby providing the nation with highly educated and
skilled new generation workforce rather than a mass workforce of uneducated and
unskilled folks.27
26
As published in https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2015/future-heart-health.html.
27
As published in https://www.popcouncil.org/research/expert/mark-r.-montgomery.

23
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to
declare that,
1) The Mayan (Managemaent and Development of Human Resourcesm) Ordinance,

2021 (No.1 of 2021) issued by the Governor of the State of Mayan as non-arbitrary
and non-discriminatory.
2) The Ordinance is in consistent with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Part III
of the Constitution of the Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic of Bayank.
3) Th Ordinance is non-violative of the Rights of the Minority Classes.
4) The Ordinance is within the Legislative competence of the Governor.
5) The Population control methods prescribed under the Ordinance is efficient.
AND/OR
Pass any such order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equality and good
conscience.

24

Team Code

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BSOLS VIRTUAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021

BHARATA MATA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CHOONDY, ALUVA

VIRTUAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2021-22

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYAN,

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVEREIGN SECULAR

MINORITY WELFARE COMMITTEE (NGO) PETITIONER

STATE OF MAYAN RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................... 3

I. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.......... 11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

u/a Under Article

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Is the Writ Petition maintainable?

Is the Ordinance violative of any Minority Rights?

Is the Ordinance within legislative competence?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE

1. INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS THE SINE QUA NON

1.1) THERE IS NO EVIDENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. REVIEW REMAINED RESTRICTED TO THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

2.1) JUDICIAL REVIEW

2.2) RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

II. THE MAYAN ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

1. THE ORDINANACE IS NOT IN DEROGATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

1.1) THE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED TO ENSURE EQUALIZATION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.2) THE ORDINANCE SECURES THE PROTECTION OF LIFE OF ALL

1.3) THERE IS NO BAR ON RIGHT TO FREEDOM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.5) PROTECTS RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

III. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHALLENGE ANY MINORITY RIGHTS

1) NO BAR ON THE ENJOYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS OF THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

IV. THE ORDINANCE IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF

1.1) THERE EXIST A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH RENDER IT NECESSARY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.3) THE ORDINANCE WAS ISSUED ON PUBLIC INTEREST

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

V. V.THE POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN THE

1) THE CRITERION BEING IMPOSED ON STATE FUNDED WELFARE