Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N THE Matters OF: Special Leave Petition NO
N THE Matters OF: Special Leave Petition NO
IN THE
AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTERS OF
(REPRESENTED BY HERSELF)
V.
ASSEMBLY.............................RESPONDENT
(REPRESENTED BY HIMSELF)
[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 3 of Order XXI
AND
(REPRESENTED BY HERSELF)
V.
GAJSTHAN.............................................RESPONDENT
CLUBBED WITH
V.
[Under Article 133 of the Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 1 of
Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India Read with Rule 3, Order LV Of the Supreme
On December 26, 2019, assembly elections took place in the province of Gajsthan
Disputes arose among ministers of the Peace Party during July 2020 regarding
allocation of state revenue. The matters of dispute were related to the fundamental
idea of the Peace Party, and thus the Party asked the members to support it in all its
policies.
On August 15, 2020, the dissenting ministers, along with 13 other representatives
publicly opposed the policies of provincial government, and the central leadership of
On August 16, 2020, the Socialist Party’s representative presented an application for
the disqualification of the forementioned members from the Assembly on the grounds
of defection. Meanwhile, on October 15, 2020, the Bill was introduced in the
assembly; with the dissenting members voting against it, the Bill was defeated.
Following this, on November 5, 2020, the Socialist Party urged the State Governor to
direct the Chief Minister to face a trust vote in the assembly. The Governor thus
directed that it be done by November 15, 2020. The Chief Minister denied the
The appellant, 7 Miles Pvt. Ltd. [“7 Miles”] observing that the colleges in Veerupur,
Thus, in order to procure large-scale kitchen equipment for their restaurants, the
appellant entered into an agreement on May 1, 2020, with the respondent, Ghantaghar
Pvt. Ltd. [“Ghantaghar”], who has a reputation for delivering quality products
within aggressive deadlines. Ghantaghar had also boasted about its vast network of
suppliers. The agreement specified the deadline for delivery of goods as 31 July 2020.
On June 15, 2020, the Ministry of Health notified regulations for closing educational
institutions till November 30, 2020, and banning inter-state transportation of goods till
July 30, 2020, which came into force in the entire State of Gajsthan on the onslaught
of a flu that was contained within the state. However, neither intra-state transport nor
manufacturing was suspended. Hence, the respondent denied delivering goods within
The appellants most humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
1. Special Leave Petition No. 2455/2021, filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 3 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
2. Special Leave Petition No. 2456/2021, filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 3 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
3. Civil Appeal No. 2457/2021, filed under Article 133 of the Constitution of
Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 1 of Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The aforementioned matters have been clubbed under Article 142 of the Constitution of
Kisaanistan, 1950, read with Rule 3 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
II. WHETHER OR NOT DOES THE GOVERNOR HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
DIRECT THE CHIEF MINISTER TO CALL FOR A TRUST VOTE IN THE ASSEMBLY?
MAY 1, 2020?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The fact that the Peace Party had asked all its members to support it in all its policies, and
that subsequently their Bill was opposed on the floor of the assembly by the dissenting
members of the Party makes evident the defiance of Party direction, and thus amounts to
II. THE GOVERNOR DOES HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DIRECT THE CHIEF
As per Article 163(2) of the Constitution of Kisaanistan, whenever there is doubt with
regards to whether or not the Governor is required to act in his discretion under the
Constitution, the decision of the Governor in his/her discretion shall be final, and the validity
of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought
or ought not to have acted in his discretion. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India has
affirmed the power of the Governor to call for a trust vote/floor test whenever he/she a
The fact that intra-state transport of goods and manufacturing activities have not been
suspended by the Ministry of Health’s notification proves that the delivery of goods within
the deadline, however difficult, is not impossible. Courts, in various cases, have held that
It must first be clarified that “the words ‘voluntary giving up membership’ are not
formal resignation, an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has
The Supreme Court of India [“Supreme Court”] has elaborated on the rationale underlying
Tenth Schedule2 and upheld the Anti-Defection Law brought out by way of Constitutional
Amendment3, and ruled that “the Speaker’s order under the law disqualifying a member of
Admittedly, paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule bars court interference. The majority view of the
Supreme Court was that “Paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule barring judicial review affects
Article 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution (of India), and thus is required to be ratified by
half the State Legislatures in accordance with Article 368(2) of the Constitution (of India). As
1
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558
2
Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950
3
The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985
4
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412; cited in M. P. JAIN, INDIAN
on grounds of defection
Paragraph 2(b) of Tenth Schedule states that a member of the House belonging to any
political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House, if he votes in such
House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs, without
obtaining, the prior permission of such political party, and such voting has not been condoned
by such political party within fifteen days from the date of such voting.6
The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan7 has adopted a restrictive view of the ‘direction’
issued by a political party “the violation of which may entail disqualification”. 8 With
relevance to the current facts, such direction should pertain to matters where “the motion
under consideration relates to a matter which is an integral policy of the political party on the
The forementioned provisions become relevant when considering the fact that the central
leadership of the Peace Party had asked the members to support the Party in all its policies. 10
Keeping in mind the aforementioned case and the fact that the Gajsthan (Tax and other
Exemptions) Bill, 202011 introduced by the Peace Party was integral to the policies and ideals
of the party and the basis on which it approached the electorate, it can be concluded that the
party had issued a direction to all its members. The dissenting members, voting against such
6
Para 2(b), Tenth Schedule, Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950
7
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
8
M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 47(LexisNexis, 8th ed. , 2018)
9
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412; cited in M. P. JAIN, INDIAN
II. THE GOVERNOR DOES HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DIRECT THE
Admittedly, the normal rule is that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers. This rule, however, has exceptions allowing the Governor to act in his
discretion.
The Constitution gives the Governor the power to decide whether or not a matter falls under
his discretionary powers.13 The Governor’s decision under this is final, and the validity of
Admittedly, the exceptions pointed out under the Constitution do not relate to the power of
the Governor calling a trust vote. However, the Supreme Court has held that such exceptions
are exhaustive.15 The Governor has been conferred discretionary powers for the primary
reasons that he is an agent of the Central Government and serves as an important link
between the Centre and State to maintain the unity and integrity of the country. 16 The counsel
submits that it is sine qua non for the State Government of Gajsthan to have the confidence of
the Assembly for the maintenance of unity and integrity in the country. Thus, the Governor
has the right as well as the duty to direct the Chief Minister to call for a trust vote if or when
he objectively believes that the government has lost the confidence of the Assembly. This
12
Proposition, The First Year Intra-Batch Moot Court Competition, 2020-21, para. 11
13
Article 163(2), Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950
14
Article 163(2), Constitution of Kisaanistan, 1950
15
M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P., (2004) 8 SCC 788
16
VIII CAD, 489, 495
view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. v. Speaker
Therefore, in the present case, the counsel submits that the Governor’s direction to the Chief
Minister to call a trust vote came under his discretionary powers and was not ultra vires of his
constitutional mandate. The Governor called for a trust vote only upon the application by the
Socialist Party, wherein it alleged that the incumbent government had lost the trust of the
assembly.18 Additionally, the Governor’s direction was in accordance with the S. R. Bommai
judgement, wherein the Supreme Court asked for a floor test to be held if the government is
The doctrine of frustration has been defined by the Supreme Court in Satyabrata Ghose,
wherein it stated that “the doctrine is based essentially on impossibility of performance of the
contract.”20 The doctrine is a special case of impossibility and as such comes under S. 56 of
17
(2020) SCC OnLine SC 486
18
Proposition, The First Year Intra-Batch Moot Court Competition, 2020-21, para. 12
19
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918
20
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44
21
S. 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872