BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TEAM CODE :R19

BHARATA MATA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES (BSOLS) VIRTUAL

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF,

MAYAN, BAYANK

WRIT PETITION :_____/2021

IN THE MATTER OF

MINORITY WELFARE COMMITTEE(NGO)………………..PETITIONER

V.

CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF MAYAN………………RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

CONTENTS. PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

I. LEGISLATIONS
II. CASE LAWS

III. JOURNAL
IV. WEBSITES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS. 7

ISSUES RAISED. 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 11

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER. 15

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATION EXPANSION

Art Article

§. Section

§§. Sections

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble Honourable

& And

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LEGISLATIONS :
1. Constitution of Bayank, 1950
❖ Article 12
❖ Article 13 (2)
❖ Article 13 (3)
❖ Article 14
❖ Article 21
❖ Article 25
❖ Article 48
❖ Article 51 A
❖ Article 213
❖ Article 226
❖ Article 246

II. CASE LAWS : page. No

1. Bhudhan Choudhary & Ors v. State of Bihar

1955 1 SCC 1045. 12
2. E. P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555,
1974 SCR (2) 348. 12
3. Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057. 13
4. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248. 13
5. M/s Kasturu Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu &
4

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Kashmir, 1980 AIR 1992, 1980 SCR (3)1338,. 13

6. Upendra Lal v. Narayani Devi, AIR 1986 MP 90 11

III. JOURNAL :
1. All India Reporter
2. Supreme Court Cases
3. Supreme Court Reporter

IV. WEBSITES :
• www.scconline.com
• www.legalserviceindia.com
• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.livelaw.in

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

The humbly submitted to the jurisdiction of honorable high court under article 226 of the
Constitution of Bayank, 1950. This article mentions the writ jurisdiction of the high court
through out the territorial limits in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writs in any
nature of habeas corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the
enforcement of fundamental rights and legal rights. This case presents a chance before the court
to hear a man out who might be having a slight chance to get justice.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS :

Mayan is a State in the Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic of Bayank. Bayank has a
constitution which contains identical provisions as the Indian Constitution. The population of
Bayank was 60 crores approximately in the year 1950, when the Constitution was enacted and
adopted. The population has been steadily increasing since then and the population of the
country at the beginning of the year 2021 is estimated at 137 crores. Mayan had a population of
just below 1 crore in the year 1950 which has increased to more than 3 crores at the beginning of
2021. In 1950, all the minorities together constituted 30 percent of the population of Mayan. In
2021, population of minority communities constitute 48 percent with a particular minority
community having a population of 40 percent. Percentage of the majority community has shrunk
from 70 percent to 52 percent. 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 Mayan (Management and Development of Human Resources )
Ordinance, 2021 (No.1 of 2021) on 25.6.2021.

Mather and Sashank, the President and Secretary of the Minority Welfare Committee, a
registered NGO has 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. High Court
has issued notice to the Respondent, Chief Secretary, State of Mayan and has posted the Writ
Petition for preliminary hearing.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUES RAISED :

ISSUE - (1)

IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

ISSUE –(2)

DOES THE §. 2 & §. 3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

ISSUE – (3)

WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK

ISSUE – (4)

IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS :

(1)IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Writ Petition is not maintainable under
Art 2261. To file a petition one’s legal rights or constitutional right should be violated. The
Ordinance2 is not antithesis to Art 13 (2)3 and made in respect of fundamental rights. The
Ordinance is not created against any special section of people and it is applicable to all in the
state.

(2)DOES THE §. 2 & §. 3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, §. 2&§.3 of the Ordinance is not in violation
of Art 14 & Art 21 or any other fundamental right because the classification between 2 children
family and 2 or more children family is reasonable. Every fundamental rights are not absolute
and can have some restrictions. The Art 21 clearly stated, the procedure established by law we
can restrict fundamental right.

(3)WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK .

1
Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in will
cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto, certiorari or any of them.
2
Art 13 (3)-Definition of law.
3
Art 13 (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and
any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void
9

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, there is no violation of Minority rights
guaranteed under the constitution of Bayank, 1950. The §§. Are wholly made for the entire state
and not to a particular community. The objective of the Ordinance is to develop the State and to
control the population from causing an population explosion.

(4)IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Ordinance 4promulgated by the State
Governor5 of Mayan is within the legislative competency . The rule of pith and substance6 proves
that the subject of population control is with in the legislative competence Whatever subjects in
List III 7the state and center have the complete authority to make law. If the law of state and
center is colliding then the law of center will prevail. Thus the Ordinance is within the legislative
competency.

4
Art 213. Power of Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Legislature
5
Art 12
6
Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which
head of power a given piece of legislation falls.
7
Art 246
10

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED :

(1)IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble HC that, the Writ Petition submitted is not
maintainable under Art 226 of the Constitution of Bayank, 1950. No rights of the any person is
denied in the Ordinance. The Ordinance promulgated by the State Governor is with in his
jurisdiction and the existence of such necessity is not a justiciable issue. 8

1:1 NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HAS MADE IN THE CASE AND THE

SUBSTANCAIL JUSTICE IS DONE :

The Ordinance has not violated any legal right or fundamental right as it was made for the
welfare of the entire state. No group has been discriminated or nothing in the §§. Of Ordinance
is made arbitrarily. It is important for the state Legislature to make or amend laws according to
the changing circumstances of the state. The population control is one of the important matter.

The fact of the case clearly proves that under §. 2 it promotes the family with 2 children. It is one
of the measures to control population. To control population state cannot make punishment to
enforce laws. So such measures are necessary to keep the state under control. §. 2 even
guarantees the Minority community the educational fund up to 2 child for their upliftment.

The increase in population and not Controlling population can cause major economic problems
and resources scarcity. It is more like a society problem. It not only affect one but many. Thus
this Ordinance is for the society ‘welfare and development. And nobody ‘s justice is denied.
Rather it saves the state from being population explosion.

8
Upendra Lal v. Narayani Devi, AIR 1968 MP 90.
11

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Under §. 3 for the participation of election is limited to the people with two children. But it too
from the date of enforcement. This law does not have any retrospective effect. Thus the
classification can said to be reasonable. By this it is cleared that no rights are violated of citizens
of Mayan. Thus the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Art 226 of the Constitution of
Bayank.

(2)DOES THE §. 2 & §. 3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble HC that, nothing in the Ordinance is in violation of
any Fundamental rights like Art 14, Art 21. The Art 14 protects from class discrimination and
inequality and Art 21 protects one life and life related rights. The §§. In issue under the
Ordinance are made with respect of considering the fundamental rights of the citizens.

To control the population of Bayank it is important to control the population of Mayan too. A
country not on consist of union territory but also every state under it. To control the increased
population of the country Bayank. This Ordinance can help the country’s situation and all state
should make laws regarding this issue to control the population.

2:1 MAINTAINABLITY OF § §. UNDER ARTICLE 14 :

Article 14 provides right to equality to Citizen. But this right not absolute, this right is provided
for the citizens to protect from arbitrariness. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. 9 But no §§.
Under the Ordinance is in nature of arbitrariness. Rather by controlling the population, we can
provide equality more effectively.

2:1:1 MAINTAINABLITY OF §. 2 :

It is respectfully submitted to the court that, §. 2 of the Ordinance is not in violation of Art 14.
§2 of the Ordinance grants the aid to families of having 2 children. And it categorized the 2 child
family with more than two child family. It can be a reasonable classification. As it classified
family based on how many children as it is important to . Even a family having twins while a

9
E. P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu.1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348
12

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

delivery is also considered in this §. And excluded them from it. This way the natural justice is
secured in §. 2

The classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things

that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and that such differentia has a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. The basis for classification
may rest on conditions which may be geographical or according to objects or occupation or the
like. 10The classification is well-defined and well- perceptible. Persons having more than two
living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children.
The two constitute two different classes and the classification is founded on an intelligible
differentia clearly distinguishing one from the other. One of the objects sought to be achieved by
the legislation is popularizing the family welfare/family planning programs.

2:1:2 MAINTAINABLITY OF §. 3 :

§. 3 deals with the matter of election. In Javed & Ors vs State Of Haryana,11 the court held that
the statute ruling the restriction of people from panchayat election, who has more than two child
is not Violation of Art 14.

2:2 MAINTAINABLITY OF §§. UNDER ARTICLE 21 :

Art 21 protect the life and liberty of every person, no matter he is citizen or not. Placing strong
reliance on Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr.12 and M/s. Kasturu Lal Lakshmi
Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. 131, it was forcefully urged that the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution
should be allowed to stretch its span to its optimum so as to include in the compendious term of
the Article all the varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberty of man including
the right to enjoy all the materialistic pleasures. But a point to be noted that it is restricted with a
just, fair and reasonable procedure of law.

10
Budhan Choudhry and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045
11
AIR 2003 SC 3057
12
(1978) 1 SCC 248,
13
(1980) 4 SCC
13

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

According Art 4714 the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of
living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. None of
these lofty ideals can be achieved without controlling the population inasmuch as our
materialistic resources are limited and the claimants are many. The concept of sustainable
development which emerges as a fundamental duty from the several clauses of Article 51A15 too
dictates the expansion of population being kept within reasonable bounds.

So it is one of state’s objectives or duty to keep control of population. Art 21 does not confers
fundamental rights to a unborn baby as, Art 21 provides protection to a living person

This there is no violation of Art 21 in the Ordinance.

(3)WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK .

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Ordinance does not violated any of the
minority rights. It is not made for a particular group of people, it was made entirely for the state.
The Article 25 of the constitution is not violated as it is not a matter of religion and human. If it
affects the state then, state can make laws.

Further more it is up on the list III. Of constitution that state and center can together make laws.
This law treats everyone equally and it does not affect any minorities as the entire state is
responsible for the increase in population.

(4)IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble HC that, the Ordinance is within the legislative
competence that no §§. Under the Ordinance violates any Fundamental rights or legal rights
guaranteed under part III of the constitution of Bayank.

14
DPSP
15
Fundamental Duties
14

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In Firoz Ahmed v. Union of India, The Supreme Court has been petitioned to issue directives
for the formulation of appropriate laws, regulations, and guidelines to manage population
growth, which is being referred to as the “root cause of more than 50% of India’s challenges.”

The List III, under Art 246, Seventh schedule of the constitution of Bayank gives the center and
state the authority to make laws of every subject in it. Population control is in List III Entry 20
A, of the constitution. So the state has full authority to make laws of this subject for the welfare
of the country.

PRAYER :

WHEREFORE , in light of issues raised, and arguments advanced and authority cited, it is
humbly prayed before the Hon’ble HC , graciously pleased to,

DISMISS , the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 as the Ordinance promulgated by the State
Governor of Mayan, Ordinance ( Management and Development of Human Resources ) 2021
(No. 1 of the 2021 on 05. 06.2021) is not Violating any fundemental rights or legal rights and the
Ordinance is with in the legislative competency.

AND /OR pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances and in interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

15

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place : State of Mayan, Bayank S/d :_______________

Date : COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

16

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT