SJCL National Memorandum Drafting Competition, 2022

TC - 06
SJCL National Memorandum Drafting Competition, 2022
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF SISAKA
Under ARTICLE 32 (PIL) of the Sisakan Constitution, 1950
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. ___________ of 2022
Kangla Samrakshana Vedike (NGO) …PETITIONER
Vs.
The State of Togoland …RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF SISAKA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO. PARTICULARS Pg.No.
1. List of Abbreviations 2
2. Index of Authorities 3
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5
4. Statement of Facts 6
5. Issues Raised 7
6. Summary of Arguments 8
7. Arguments Advanced:
(1). The Writ Petition is not maintainable.
1.1. Petitioner does not have Locus Standi to approach the Hon’ble 10
Supreme Court
1.2. The Petition is not Maintainable 11
(2). The Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities
has not been violated.
2.1. Article 21A has not been violated 12
2.2. Article 29 has not been violated
(3). The Centre is not constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to
ensure instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level of
education.
3.1. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is applicable & VIIth Schedule 14
overlooked.
3.2. Doctrine of Repugnancy is to be determined 15
8. Prayer 17
[1]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO. SHORT FORM FULL FORM
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Anr. Another
3. DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
4. FR Fundamental Right
5. fn. Footnote
6. Govt. Government
7. HC High Court
8. Hon’ble Honourable
9. i.e. That is
10. NGO Non-Governmental Organization
11. Ors. Others
12. PIL Public Interest Litigation
13. para Paragraph
14. r/w. Read with
15. SC Supreme Court
16. SCC Supreme Court Cases
17. SCJ Supreme Court Journal
18. SLP Special Leave Petition
19. UOI Union of India
20. v./ vs. Versus
21. W.P. Writ Petition
[2]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. Indian Constitution, 1950
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. M. P. Jain, The Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexisNexis.
2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, LexisNexis, Volume -
1.
3. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, LexisNexis, Volume -
2.
ONLINE CITATION
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.scconline.com/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/
4. https://www.casemine.com/
5. https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw
6. https://www.livelaw.in/
7. https://taxguru.in/
CASES CITED
1. Governing Body, G.C. College, Silchar vs. Guwahati University [AIR 1973 SC 761: (1973)
1 SCC 192], para 4; and Scheduled Caste Uplift Union vs. UOI, [1995 Supp (3) 526]
2. Manganbhai vs. UOI [(1970) 3 SCC 400: AIR 1969 SC 783].
3. V.Annaraja vs. The Secretary to the Union of India, [WP.No.3822 of 2019 and WMP
No.4247 of 2019].
4. Rajiv RanjanSingh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) vs. UOI, [(2006) 6 SCC 613, 429-30: (2006) 8 JT 328].
[3]
5. Hindi Hitarakshak Samiti vs. UOI, [(1990) 1 SCJ 617: AIR 1990 SC 851: (1990) 2 SCC
352].
6. Prakash Singh vs. UOI, [(1997) 11 SCC 239]
7. Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs. State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and Urban Planning
Department, Civil Secretariat & Ors., [Writ Petition No. 1093 (M/B) of 2006 (PIL)].
8. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs. UOI, [(2014) 8 SCC 1: AIR 2014 SC 2114]
9. T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
10. DAV College, Jullundur vs. State of Punjab, [AIR 1971 SC 1737: (1971) 2 SCC 269]
11. Usha Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2004) 6 SCC 264: (2004) 5 SCALE 800]
12. Associated managements of Primary and Secondary schools in Karnataka vs. The State of
Karnataka, [2008 (4) Kar LJ 593]
13. Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 264]
14. State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognised –
Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL
Nos.5166-5190 OF 2013]
15. Nallur Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (C) No.290 of 2009]
16. R.G. Nadadur & Ors. vs. Shubodaya Vidya Samasthe & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5191-
5199 OF 2013]
17. State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Mohamed Hussain Jucka [CIVIL APPEAL No. 5090 OF
2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32858 of 2013)]
[4]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel on behalf of the State of Togoland [i.e., the Respondent] has appeared before this
Hon’ble Supreme Court for the W.P. filed by the Kangla Samrakshana Vedike (NGO) [i.e., the
Petitioner] under Article 32 (PIL) of Sisakan Constitution, 1950.
The counsel would humbly submit that the said jurisdiction is not maintainable in the upcoming
arguments advanced and the petition to be dismissed by the Hon’ble SC accordingly.
[5]
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The present Petition was raised before the “Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sisaka”, between the
“Kangla Samrakshana Vedike (NGO)” & the “State of Togoland”.
Sisaka is a nation with diverse communities belonging to various ethnicities and religions. To
maintain peace and stability of the nation, an official language policy was adopted using English
and Sisakan as official languages of the State for the affairs of the federal government gradually
promoting Sisakan throughout the country.
Togoland being a larger state in Sisaka has the Togo, Selogo and Kangla as 3 major linguistic
communities, and other states of Sisaka follow their official languages. The medium of instruction
in all primary schools of the State of Togoland is Togo; whereas Selogo is used as medium of
instructions in some districts but Kangla is not used as the same even though it's the highest spoken
language in the particular district, where a girl named Meena pursues her schooling in nearest
government school due to her poverty.
Where the Kangla Samrakshana Vedike (NGO), active in educating students in Kangla for free,
files petition based on:
1) Right to Education for children includes the right to be taught in their mother tongue, which
enables them to understand the concepts and is also beneficial for protecting their culture.
Any violation of this, is a violation of Article 21A, 29 and 350A of the Constitution.
2) Sisaka which has developed from a backward economy since the 21st century, there are
adequate resources for the State to enforce Right to Education in true Spirit and impart
education at primary level in respective mother tongues. Any backdrop in such, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is sought to provide necessary justice.
[6]
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities has been
violated?
3. Whether the Centre is constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to ensure instruction
in the mother tongue at the primary level of education?
[7]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?
The counsel on behalf of The State of Togoland [hereinafter the Respondent], humbly
submits that the Writ Petition (Writ of Mandamus) is not maintainable as no fundamental
right has been violated. The Writ Petition - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the
Petitioner under Article 32 of Sisakan Constitution, 1950 before the Hon’ble SC of Sisaka
is based on “Publicity Interest Litigation” and not ‘Public Interest Litigation’. Hence, this
writ petition filed by the Petitioner is to be dismissed by the Hon’ble SC.
2. Whether the Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities has

been violated?
submits that the Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities with
reference to the Articles 21A and 29 of the Sisakan Constitution, 1950, has not been
violated.
3. Whether the Centre is constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to ensure

instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level of education?
submits that through the constitutional doctrines like Doctrine of Territorial Nexus &
Doctrine of Repugnancy, it is clear that Centre is not constitutionally bound to take
appropriate steps to ensure instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level of
education. The same is explained with the compiled cases judgement of the Hon’ble SC
that is State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognised
– Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.1; Nallur Prasad &
1
State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognised – Unaided – English Medium)
Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5166-5190 OF 2013]
[8]
Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.2; R.G. Nadadur & Ors. vs. Shubodaya Vidya Samasthe
& Anr.3; & State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Mohamed Hussain Jucka4.
2
Nallur Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (C) No.290 of 2009]
3
R.G. Nadadur & Ors. vs. Shubodaya Vidya Samasthe & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5191-5199 OF 2013]
4
State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Mohamed Hussain Jucka [CIVIL APPEAL No. 5090 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.
(C) No.32858 of 2013)]
[9]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether the writ petition is maintainable?
1.1. Petitioner does not have Locus Standi to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court
1.1.1. It is humbly submitted that, the State of Togoland (hereinafter the Respondent) strongly
contends that the Petitioner does not have locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC, under
Article 32 of the Sisakan Constitution, 1950. A person shall not have locus standi to apply
under Article 32:
(a) if he is not presently affected by the impugned order5;
(b) if his fundamental rights have neither been directly and substantially invaded,
nor are in imminent danger of being invaded6.
1.1.2. It is further humbly submitted that the Petitioner is having locus standi to file the PIL. The
locus standi of the Petitioner for filing PIL is based on the following:
i) The bona fide aspect;

ii) Real and genuine public interest;
iii) Sufficient interest in the proceedings;
iv) Violation of fundamental right of Public at large;
v) Not having any personal gain, political motive or oblique consideration.
1.1.3. It is to be noted that this is a “Publicity Interest Litigation” on the hands of Petitioner rather
than PIL as relied in the case V.Annaraja vs The Secretary to the Union of India7. Where
in the present case, the Kangla Samrakshana Vedike, wanted to publicize their education
in Kangla for free and gained their reputation as such throughout Sisaka. This is not a real
and genuine public interest and has a personal gain for this NGO to popularize in Sisaka.
5
Governing Body, G.C. College, Silchar vs. Guwahati University [AIR 1973 SC 761: (1973) 1 SCC 192], para 4; and
Scheduled Caste Uplift Union vs. UOI, [1995 Supp (3) 526], para 2.
6
Manganbhai vs. UOI [(1970) 3 SCC 400: AIR 1969 SC 783], para 213.
7
V.Annaraja vs The Secretary to the Union of India, [WP.No.3822 of 2019 and WMP No.4247 of 2019].
[10]
1.1.4. Thus making it evident that the Petitioner has no locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC
by way of Writ petition on the PIL aspect under Article 32 of the Sisakan Constitution.
1.2. The Petition is not maintainable
1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that in the case Rajiv RanjanSingh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) vs. UOI8, where
it was observed that “in a collateral proceedings like a PIL under Article 32 remedy of writ
of mandamus cannot be sought”. Where in the present case, both PIL and Writ of
Mandamus seeked by the Petitioner is invalid. Moreover, in the case Hindi Hitarakshak
Samiti vs. UOI9, “since Article 32 is a remedy available only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, it follows that - the court will not interfere with the policy decision of
the Government unless that amounts to a direct and casual violation of a fundamental right
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”. The medium of instruction in primary education
is most probably in the first 2 highest linguistic community languages and to change the
policy of the same lies in the hands of the Government and thus the court cannot interfere
in the same.
1.2.2. Further it is to be noted that in the case of Prakash Singh vs. UOI10, the questions regarding
the quality and kind of security to be provided to certain protected persons should be
decided by a committee of experts and not by court”. Where in the present case, the quality
or kind of service towards the linguistic community and the right to education with respect
to the medium of instruction in primary schools are to be recognized and provided by the
respective committee groups and not by the court.
1.2.3. In the case of Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and
Urban Planning Department, Civil Secretariat & Ors.11, it stated that “the Court will not
ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its
jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated”.
Hence, humbly submitting that, this Writ Petition to be disallowed.
8
Rajiv RanjanSingh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) vs. UOI, [(2006) 6 SCC 613, 429-30: (2006) 8 JT 328], para 14.
9
Hindi Hitarakshak Samiti vs. UOI, [(1990) 1 SCJ 617: AIR 1990 SC 851: (1990) 2 SCC 352], para 7-8
10
Prakash Singh vs. UOI, [(1997) 11 SCC 239]
11
Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and Urban Planning Department, Civil
Secretariat & Ors., [Writ Petition No. 1093 (M/B) of 2006 (PIL)].
[11]
ISSUE 2: Whether the Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities has
been violated?
2.1. Article 21A is not violated
2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the Article 21A - Right to Education guaranteed in FR of the
Constitution in Part III clearly depicts that the State by law may determine for the free and
compulsory education for children between ages 6 to 14 yrs. In the present case, Meena
was provided education in the Government School and she was not rejected her right of
education in that instance. Hence there has been no violation of Right to education
conferred under this Part.
2.1.2. It is well noted that Article 21A casts an obligation only on the State and its
instrumentalities and not on private unaided educational institutions, as represented in the
case Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs. UOI12. Therefore, the Petitioners seek
remedy under Article 21A with respect to State aided educational institutions with regard
to the primary level in which the Government Schools does provide Meena with education
as prescribed to their policy and the State’s linguistic standards. Thus, making this Article
21A not being violated.
2.1.3. It is further humbly submitted from the case T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors.13, the hon’ble HC held that “the right to choose a medium of instruction
is implicit in the right to education under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution”. Thus,
making this part not to be violated.
2.2. Article 29 is not violated
2.2.1. It is humbly submitted that distinction between the cases DAV College, Jullundur vs. State
of Punjab14; and Usha Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra15, is that there was no requirement
that the medium of instruction should be in regional language. The right of minorities to
12
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs. UOI, [(2014) 8 SCC 1: AIR 2014 SC 2114]
13
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
14
DAV College, Jullundur vs. State of Punjab, [AIR 1971 SC 1737: (1971) 2 SCC 269]
15
Usha Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2004) 6 SCC 264: (2004) 5 SCALE 800], pg.279
[12]
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) r/w.
29(1) would include the right to have a choice of medium of instruction in imparting
education.
2.2.2. Consequently in the case Associated managements of Primary and Secondary schools in
Karnataka vs. The State of Karnataka16, it is observed that “a Govt. order insofar as it
directed minority educational institutions to convert the medium of instruction from
English to Kannada was struck down by the Karnataka High Court”.
2.2.3. Thus making it clear that through the draft proposition17, in which the State of Togoland
has its population speaking 54% in Togo, 25% in Selogo & 15% in Kangla, to which Togo
is used as a medium of instruction in all primary schools; and Selogo is used as a medium
of instruction in some of the districts. The Kangla Language to be used as a medium of
instruction in primary schools is with respect to the educational institution’s fundamental
right. When there is a conflict between the fundamental rights, either the “Doctrine of
Harmonious construction” might prevail or with respect to the court’s judgment, decree or
order.
2.2.4. Where in the given case, the Article 29 is not being violated, as other than the main official
languages (i.e., English & Sisakan) in Sisaka, the State of Togoland’s main 2 official
mother tongues are utilized as medium of instruction in the primary education in that State.
This case of raising the issue of the Kangla language to be the medium of instruction in
primary education is a process of creating a minority class conflict within the people of the
State and is a publicity petition on behalf of the Petitioner.
16
Associated managements of Primary and Secondary schools in Karnataka vs. The State of Karnataka, [2008 (4)
Kar LJ 593]
17
Draft Proposition, Pg.no.4, pt.no.2 & 4.
[13]
ISSUE 3: Whether the Centre is constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to ensure
instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level of education?
3.1. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is applicable & VIIth Schedule overlooked

3.1.1. It is humbly submitted that according to the doctrine of Territorial Nexus, when a statute
has been enacted by a State Legislature, its operation ought not to extend beyond the
concerned State Boundaries - to which doctrine of territorial nexus comes into picture.
3.1.2. In the case of Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors.18
in which a Constitution Bench of this Court has taken the view that the State Legislature
has the regulatory power to legislate on the medium of instruction in institutions of primary
or secondary education. Under Article 162 of the Constitution, the State Government has
executive powers co-extensive with its legislative powers and therefore the Karnataka
Government order dated 29.04.1994 prescribing that the medium of instruction of all
children studying in classes I to IV will be mother tongue was well within the powers of
the State Government.
3.1.3. The relevant portion of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Court in
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors.19 (supra) on
which the reliance is placed that:
“23.…..The power to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is

exclusively vested in the States by item No.II of List II, and power to legislate on
medium of instruction in institutions of primary or secondary education must
therefore rest with the State Legislatures. Power to legislate in respect of medium
of instruction is, however, not distinct legislative head; it resides with the State
Legislatures in which the power to legislate on education is vested, unless it is taken
away by necessary intendment to the contrary. Under items 63 to 65 the power to
legislate in respect of medium of instruction having regard to the width of those
items, must be deemed to vest in the Union. Power to legislate in respect of medium
18
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors. [AIR 1963 SC 703]
19
Supra Fn.18
[14]
of instruction, in so far it has a direct bearing and impact upon the legislative head
of coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education
or research and scientific and technical institutions, must also be deemed by item
66 List I to be vested in the Union.”
3.1.4. From the aforesaid quotation, it’s evident that the Constitution Bench has held that under
the scheme of distribution of legislative powers between the States and the Union, the
power to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is exclusively vested in the
States and has further held that in exercise of this power the State can prescribe the medium
of instruction.
3.1.5. The Constitution Bench has only held that if the medium of instruction has a direct bearing
or impact on the determination of standards in institutions of higher education, the
legislative power can be exercised by the Union to prescribe a medium of instruction. But
in the medium of instruction as the mother tongue, there is no standard of education that is
going to be increased during the primary stage and hence involvement of the Centre is not
required.
3.2. Doctrine of Repugnancy is to be determined

3.2.1. It is humbly submitted that according to Article 254 of the Sisakan Constitution, the
Repugnancy between the Centre and State Law asserts that if any provision of law made
by the State Legislature is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which
is competent to enact or to any provisions of the existing law with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then the law made by the Parliament whether
passed before or after the law made by the State Legislature or, as the case may be, the
existing law shall prevail and the law made by the State Legislature shall, to the extent of
the repugnancy be void.
3.2.2. In the case Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.20 in which a three-Judge
Bench of this Court clearly held that “the State can impose reasonable regulations in the
larger interests of the State and the nation even on institutions established by religious and
linguistic minorities and protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and that the word
‘choice’ in Article 30 of the Constitution is subject to such regulation imposed by the
20
Usha Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 264]
[15]
State”. Where the only caution that the State has to exercise is that by imposing such
regulations the minority character of the institutions is not destroyed. If the State
Government (Karnataka) has issued the order dated 29.04.1994 under Article 162 of the
Constitution prescribing that the medium of instruction for all children studying in classes
I to IV would be mother tongue, such an order being regulatory in nature and not affecting
the minority character of the institutions, does not in any way affect the right guaranteed
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Where the Karnataka Government Order dated
29.04.1994 insofar as compels minority institutions to adopt medium of instruction for
students studying in classes I to IV as mother tongue is violative of right under Article 30
of the Constitution, therefore, is not correct.
3.2.3. In Article 350 it is provided that it shall be the endeavor of every State and of every local
authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue
at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups. a
linguistic minority under Article 30(1) of the Constitution has the right to choose the
medium of instruction in which education will be imparted in the primary stages of the
school which it has established. Article 350A therefore cannot be interpreted to empower
the State to compel a linguistic minority to choose its mother tongue only as a medium of
instruction in a primary school established by it in violation of this fundamental right under
Article 30(1). The same was observed from the compilation cases of Hon’ble SC, that is
State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognised –
Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.21; Nallur Prasad &
Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.22; R.G. Nadadur & Ors. vs. Shubodaya Vidya
Samasthe & Anr.23; & State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Mohamed Hussain Jucka24. Thus
clearly asserting that the Centre is not constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to
ensure instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level of education.
21
State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognised – Unaided – English Medium)
Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5166-5190 OF 2013]
22
Nallur Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (C) No.290 of 2009]
23
R.G. Nadadur & Ors. vs. Shubodaya Vidya Samasthe & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5191-5199 OF 2013]
24
State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Mohamed Hussain Jucka [CIVIL APPEAL No. 5090 OF 2014 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No.32858 of 2013)]
[16]
PRAYER
Whereas from the facts stated, arguments advanced with the provisions and cases cited, the counsel
on behalf of the Respondent, humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench to adjudicate and declare
that,
1. The Writ Petition is not maintainable.
2. The right to education of children belonging to linguistic minorities has not been violated.
3. The Centre is not constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to ensure instruction in
the mother tongue at the primary level of education.
And to pass any other relief, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sisaka may deemed fit and proper
in the interest of JUSTICE, EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE and for this act of kindness, the
Respondent and the counsel on behalf of Respondent shall duly bound to pray forever.
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[17]

SJCL National Memorandum Drafting Competition, 2022

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

SJCL National Memorandum Drafting Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC - 06

SJCL National Memorandum Drafting Competition, 2022

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF SISAKA

Under ARTICLE 32 (PIL) of the Sisakan Constitution, 1950

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. ___________ of 2022

Kangla Samrakshana Vedike (NGO) …PETITIONER

The State of Togoland …RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

S.NO. PARTICULARS Pg.No.

S.NO. SHORT FORM FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Reporter

3. DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

10. NGO Non-Governmental Organization

11. Ors. Others

12. PIL Public Interest Litigation

13. para Paragraph

14. r/w. Read with

15. SC Supreme Court

16. SCC Supreme Court Cases

17. SCJ Supreme Court Journal

18. SLP Special Leave Petition

19. UOI Union of India

20. v./ vs. Versus

21. W.P. Writ Petition

2. Manganbhai vs. UOI [(1970) 3 SCC 400: AIR 1969 SC 783].

6. Prakash Singh vs. UOI, [(1997) 11 SCC 239]

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the Right to Education of children belonging to linguistic minorities has

3. Whether the Centre is constitutionally bound to take appropriate steps to ensure

ISSUE 1: Whether the writ petition is maintainable?

i) The bona fide aspect;

1.2. The Petition is not maintainable

2.1. Article 21A is not violated

2.2. Article 29 is not violated

3.1. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus is applicable & VIIth Schedule overlooked

“23.…..The power to legislate in respect of primary or secondary education is

3.2. Doctrine of Repugnancy is to be determined

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

You might also like