TEAM CODE:N25(r)

DR.RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

NAVITAS, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF LaLa Land

IN THE MATTER OF–

Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land

Local Alliance for change The State of Bhilwara

(PETITIONER) V. (RESPONDENT)

CLUBBED WITH

Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land

Local Alliance for change The State of Bhilwara

(PETITIONER) V. (RESPONDENT)

CLUBBED WITH

Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land

`
Mr Gems Panda Union of LaLaLand

(PETITIONER) V. (RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS(S)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................................................VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................VIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................

1) The state assembly cannot directly refer their legislation to the president for

seeking his assent

i. The role of Governor cannot be reduced to that of a passive observer in the legislative

process by direct referral to the president ..................................................................1

ii. The state assembly’s actions were unwarranted as the governor’s decision to give his

assent to the bill was entirely in consonance to his constitutionally mandated powers

and its validity should not be questioned....................................................................2

2) T h e B h i l w a r a A d m i s s i o n t o M e d i c a l C o l l e g e B i l l , 2 0 2 2 d o e s n o t

violate Article 14 of the constitution of LaLa Land

i. Lack of rational nexus between the classification and the object being sought..........3

ii. The bill fails proportionality test because there exist equally effective measures to

attain the objective that are not as restrictive………………………………………...

 3) The act violates Mr Panda’s right to freedom of speech and expression...................7

i. The violation of Mr Panda’s rights guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a). ...........................7

ii. Restriction by the ministry of telecommunications does not fall under article 19(2)

and is arbitrary, unreasonable and goes against public interest..................................8

PRAYER.....................................................................................................................................X
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Text box (pg no.

from arguments
advance)
Rameshwar Prasad (6) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1.........................................................1

Hoeschst pharmaceuticals ltd. v. State of Bihar 1983 SCC (4)................................................2

Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly 2016

....................................................................................................................................................3

B.K Pavitra v union of India 2019............................................................................................3

Union of India v. Motion Picture Assn (1999) 6 SCC 150.............................................................4

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 ..........................................................6,7

Statutes

Constitution of India 1950, art 14(1)..........................................................................................3

Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)..........................................................................................7

Constitution of India 1950, art 254(2)........................................................................................1

Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2)..........................................................................................7

Constitution of India 1950, art 201(2)........................................................................................4

Nationl Medical Commission act 2019 ,....................................................................................4

Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical College Act, 2021………………………..

Reports
Report of the Commission on Reservation to State Government Schools…………………….8

Constituent Assembly Debates

june 13…………………………………………………………………………………………2

PAGE 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum in response to the petitions filed before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32.

The present memorial on behalf of the respondent sets forth the facts, contentions and

Arguments in the present case.

PAGE 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS.

I. LaLa land is a democratic country. It has adopted a quasi federal constitution. Bhilwara

is a southern state Of Lala land.

II. The admission in the medical institutions in LaLa land are carried out via national level

exam– Medical Entrance Test of LaLa (MET LaLa). Shivangi, a resident of the state of

watched a video of Mr. Gibbs Panda, where he claimed that it is impossible to clear

MET LaLa without a coaching’s aid. This claim had a very severe effect on her mind

and she committed suicide.The Ministry of Telecommunication had to take the video

down to prevent further damage.

III. The State government of Bhilwara set up a Medical Consultation Committee to study

the impact of MET on medical admissions in Bhilwara. Based on the recommendations

of the Committee, Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 was presented in

the State Legislature, which had multiple provisions, one of them canceling the MET.

IV. The bill was referred by the assembly to the Governor Mr. Polly Boobde,. Mr. Polly

granted his assent to it. The bill could not reach the President for his assent and came

into effect as a state sanctioned law. Since the provisions of the Bill were repugnant

with National Medical Commission Act, 2019, it became void as per Article 254(1) of

the Constitution of LaLa Land. The speaker of the Assembly Ms. IDP Upadhyay met

the President Mr. Dooman Dada, and provided him a copy of the already assented bill

for his consideration.

V. Local Alliance for Change (LAC) moved the Supreme Court against the Assembly’s

action of directly referring the bill to President. It also contended that the bill violated

the Article 14 of The Constitution of LaLa Land. Mr Gems Panda also filed a petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that take-down of his video by Ministry

violated his Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).

PAGE 6
MEMORANDUM for petetioner [STATEMENT OF ISSUES]

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUEI

In the light of procedural deadlock in Article 200 and Article 254 of the Constitution of LaLa

Land, can the State Assembly’s powers be read to allow them to directly refer a bill to the

President?

ISSUEII

Whether the Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 violates Article 14 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land?

ISSUEIII

Whether Mr Panda’s right to Freedom of Speech and Expression has been violated?

NAVITAS2022 PAGE|7
 MEMORANDUM for petetioner [STATEMENT OF ISSUES]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT 1:In the light of procedural deadlock in article 200 and article 254 Of the

Constitution of LaLa Land, the state assembly’s powers can not be read to allow them to

directly refer a bill to the president.

By directly placing their bill before the president, the state legislature undermined the role and

presence of governor Mr. Polly Boobde and that the governor’s role and responsibilities in

regards to the assent of bills can simply not be read as that of being a passive observer.

Secondly, the state assembly’s condemnation of the governor’s decision to give his assent to

the bill was unreasonable and unwarranted. Mr Boobde’s move was entirely in consonance to

his constitutionally mandated powers and its validity cannot be questioned.

ARGUMENT 2:The Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill 2022, violates article 14 of the

constitution of LaLa land.

Tthe BAMC bill 2022 undeniably violates article 14. There exists no valid rational nexus

between the classification the legislation makes and the object that it is being sought to achieve.

There absolutely did exist a less restrictive yet equally effective manner of achieving the same

objective rather than the introduction of the BAMC Bill.

NAVITAS2022 PAGE|8
 ARGUMENT 3: Mr Panda’s right to freedom of speech and expression have been violated.

Mr Panda’s right to freedom of speech has been violated. Firstly, the taking down of Mr

Panda’s video is in clear violation to his rights guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a). Secondly, the

act by the Ministry of Telecommunications does not fall into the ambit of the exceptions as

illustrated in Article 19(2) and this restriction was arbitrary, unreasonable, disproportional and

not in the interest of general public, thereby defeating its very purpose.

Page :8
MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. In The Light Of Procedural Deadlock In Article 200 And Article 254 Of The

Constitution Of Lala Land, The State Assembly’s Powers Can not Be Read To Allow

Them To Directly Refer A Bill To The President.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of LaLa Land that through the

proceeding arguments, the counsel intends to prove that (1)The governor holds some

discretion in deciding whether to refer a bill to the president or grant his assent to the bill. By

directly placing their bill before the president, the state government reduces the role of the

governor to that of a passive observer, which is not constitutionally valid. And (2) Secondly,

the state assembly’s condemnation of the governor’s decision to give his assent to the bill

was unreasonable and unwarranted. The governor move was entirely in consonance to his

constitutionally mandated powers and its validity cannot be questioned.

1.1) The role of Governor cannot be reduced to that of a passive observer in the

legislative process by direct referral to the president.

1.1.1) Article 163 of the Constitution of Bhilwara states that There shall be a Council of

Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the

exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution

required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

1.1.2) As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme court, “A governor has been assigned the

role of a constitutional sentinel” and that, “governor occupies a very significant and

NAVITAS2022 1
 MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
important post in the democratic set up”1.It was also held that the governor must not

just stand as a symbolic figure oblivious to the duties that he is expected to carry out.

1.1.3) It can be read from article 200 and 254(2) that a bill can be sent for referral to the

president for the purpose of obtaining his assent only upon having been reserved by

the governor for the same2.

Therefore, the counsel would like to highlight that the role of the governor is not merely

ceremonial and the actions of the state government Reduce it to the same, which is not

constitutional.

1.2) The state assembly’s actions were unwarranted as the governor’s decision to give

his assent to the bill was entirely in consonance to his constitutionally mandated

powers and its validity should not be questioned.

The constitution provides to the governor, discretion in terms of the action he/ she could

take upon being presented with a bill and as has been noted by the supreme court, it is

significant to note that this discretion, the subjective decision taken on the part of the

governor is one that falls beyond questioning via judicial scrutiny 3. It was held by the

supreme court that this vesting of discretionary power to a governor is not contrary to

and does not negate the powers of a responsible government4

II. The Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 does violates Article 14 of the

constitution of LaLa Land..

It is humbly submitted before the court that the BAMC bill 2022 undeniably violates article 14.

Firstly, that there exists no valid rational nexus between the classification the legislation makes

1Rameshwar Prasad (6) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1

2 Constitution of India 1950, Art 200, Art 254(2)
3 Hoeschst pharmaceuticals ltd. v. State of Bihar 1983 SCC (4)
4 Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly 2016

NAVITAS2022 2
 MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
and the object that it is being sought to achieve [A]. There exists a less restrictive yet equally

effective manner of achieving the same objective rather than the introduction of the BAMC Bill,

therefore, making the actions disproportional. [B].

2.1) There exists no valid rational nexus between the classification the legislation makes

and the object that it is being sought to achieve.

2.1.1) The counsel humbly submits that the central intention of the act as has been stated

by the state itself is to combat the pervasive advantage held by those students hailing

from socio-economically privileged backgrounds and to bridge the gap between

those students and the ones who are decidedly less privileged.

2.1.2) The state’s method to the bring this intent to fruition is to scrap the existing MET

Lala and, in its stead, place a state level entrance examination. The counsel holds the

belief that this would absolutely fail bringing about a level playing field to medical

aspirants hailing from positions of differing privilege. The reason being that any

entrance exam by virtue of just being an entrance exam would birth specifics courses

and methods to specifically score good marks and do well, these courses again

would naturally benefit the rich and wealthy.

2.2) The bill fails proportionality test because there exist equally effective measures to

attain the objective that are not as restrictive.

2.2.1) According to the test of proportionality laid out by the supreme court

specifically for determining the validity of a restriction on one’s fundamental

rights , it can be stated that there must not exist another less restrictive yet equally

effective method to achieve the same objective, which is not the present case.

NAVITAS2022 3
 MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
2.2.2) The counsel submits that in order to facilitate the fruition of the state’s goal

of bringing in students from underprivileged backgrounds into medical institutions,

the act of completely striking down MET Lala within the state of Bhilwara was

entirely unnecessary. The same could have been achieved by the simple act of

reserving seats in these institutions for underprivileged students of Bhilwara.

2.2.3) By doing so, admission into institutions in Bhilwara of students from other

states would still be accessible on a pan Lala land level through the MET Lala

exam, in addition to this the state of Bhilwara would also be able to ensure the

admission of its socio-economically backward students. This, the counsel believes

is far less inequitable than the BAMC Bill which would have made it inordinately

more difficult for a student not hailing from Bhilwara to gain admission in its

medical institutions.

III. Mr Gems Panda’s right to freedom of speech and expression have been violated

It is submitted before the court that Mr Panda’s right to freedom of speech has been violated.

Firstly, the taking down of Mr Panda’s video is in clear violation to his rights guaranteed in

Article 19(1)(a) [A]. Secondly, the act by the Ministry of Telecommunications does not fall into

the ambit of the exceptions as illustrated in Article 19(2) and this restriction was arbitrary,

unreasonable, disproportional and goes against the interests of the general, thereby defeating its

very purpose[B].

3.1) Taking down of Mr Panda’s video is in clear violation to his rights guaranteed in

Article 19(1)(a)

As has been stated by the Supreme Court itself this is a right which involves the

freedom of expressing one’s ideas or thoughts, airing viewpoints that may differ from

NAVITAS2022 4
 MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
the one you hold dear to yourself5. It was stressed upon by the court that the presence of

these rights is a clear indication of a free society.

3.1.1) It was held by the Supreme court that every single member of society would be

given the rights to express this idea or opinion freely onto others.6

3.1.2) The counsel would like to refer to what was held by the supreme court in terms

what is permissible to be protected under freedom of speech 7. The first is just

discussion the informal exchange of views and ideas, going up from there we get

advocacy, now this advocacy maybe as unfavourable or unpalatable as possible, its

still is given protection under freedom of speech and expression.

3.2) Restriction by the ministry of telecommunications does not fall under article 19(2)

and is arbitrary, unreasonable and not in public interest.

3.2.1) The counsel submits that the act of the ministry of telecommunications in striking

down Mr Panda’s video from all platforms was completely arbitrary and excessive.

3.2.2) For any restriction to be applied on someone’s fundamental right to freedom of

expression it would have to necessarily follow the test of reasonableness as in the

restriction would have to be reasonable. The two aspects that fall into this test is that

of the restriction being arbitrary and excessive. 8

3.2.3) The video was not the sole or even the primary reason behind Shivangi unfortunate

suicide. The girl was depressed for a very significant period of time, before she

even glanced upon the video in question. Its pertinent to note that the cause of this

depression was then clearly not Mr Panda’s video, it was brought about by her

5 Union of India v. Motion Picture Assn. (1999) 6 SCC 150

6 (1997) 4 SCC 306 Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India.
7 Id.
8 Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. TRAI 2016

NAVITAS2022 5
MEMORANDUM for petetioner [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
constant exposure to overbearing advertisements from a vast number a coaching

institutes.

3.2.4) The counsel fails to understand the ministry’s move of solely targeting Mr Pandey’s

video, wherein fact if they truly cared or were concerned about the welfare of

students, they would have also endeavoured to strike down the material being

propagated by these coaching institutes.

3.2.5) The exceptions of the freedom of speech and expression as expressed under article

19(2) do not apply to the aforementioned action by the ministry.An isolated incident

brought about an individual girl already suffering from debilitating mental ailments

like, anxiety and depression cannot be pinned upon a single video, especially when

we have proven the existence of other contributing factors. It must be reiterated that

despite this undeniable fact no similar action was taken against these very relevant

factors.

NAVITAS2022 6
MEMORANDUM for PETETIONER [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities

cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to declare

that:

1. IN THE LIGHT OF PROCEDURAL DEADLOCK IN ARTICLE 200 AND ARTICLE 254

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND, THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS

CAN NOT BE READ TO ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE

PRESIDENT.

2. THE BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 VIOLATES

THE ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND.

3. MR PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION HAVE BEEN

VIOLATED.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as are duty bound shall ever pray.

DATE:12/10/2022 (S/d)

PLACE: Supreme court of LaLa Land (Counsel for the Respondent)

NAVITAS2022 PAGE|X