INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT RULES AND REGULATIONS

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA, PARI MATERIA WTO

SINDIAN CONSTITUTION

IN THE MATTER OF

SARV NATIVE PEOPLE ASSOCIATION------------------------PETITIONER

CULTURAL FORUM OF SINDIA---------------------------------PETITIONER
PAHARIA PUBLIC UNION-----------------------------------------PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF SINDIA----------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

UPON HUMBLE SUBMISSON ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

(COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ANONYOMS-------------------------3

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES---------------------------------------------------4

1. LIST OF BOOKS-------------------------------------------------------------4
2. ONLINE SOURCES FOR HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL
REFERENCE---------------------------------------------------------------------4

III. REFERRED CASES-------------------------------------------------------------5

IV. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-------------------------------------------6

V. STATEMENT OF FACT--------------------------------------------------------7

VI. STATEMENT OF ISSUES------------------------------------------------------9

VII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS------------------------------------------------10

VIII. WRITTEN PLEADING----------------------------------------------------------11

IX. PRAYERS--------------------------------------------------------------------------15

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS:

1. & - and
2. HC - High Court
3. SC – Supreme Court
4. NGO – Non- Governmental Organization
5. PIL – Public Interest Litigation
6. SCC – Supreme Court Cases
7. SDP – Sarv Democratic Party
8. SJP – Sind Janata Party
9. U.P – Uttar Pradesh
10. UOI – Union of India
11. Vs. - Versus

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 II.TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1. LIST OF BOOKS:

i) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ii) CONSTITUTION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
iii) ALL INDIA REPORT
iv) INSTUMENT OF ACCESSION
v) STATE LEGISLATURE ACT.

2. ONLINE SOURCES FOR HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL

REFERNCE:

i) www.indiankannon.org
ii) www.google.com
iii) www.en.wikipedia.org
iv) www.economictimes.com
v) www.thehindubusinessline.com
vi) www.lawtimesjournel.com
vii) www.firstpost.com
viii) www.indiatimes.com

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

III.REFERRED CASES:

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 IV. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA EXCERCISES JURISDICTION

TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 321 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA, 1950.
THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY SUBMITS TO JURISDICTION OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE PETITIONER.
HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE
SAME.

1
Article 32 in The Constitution of India,1950- 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part-
(1) The right to move the supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, Including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.
(3) Without prejudice to the power conferred on the supreme court by clause (1) and (2), parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
constitution.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 V.STATEMENT OF FACTS:
INTRODUCTION OF SARV AND PAHARIA:
Saru and Paharia is the state in sindia, which is the second most populous country. Saru
and Paharia, which has been under the disputes with Sindia, Punyadesh and shinya.
HISTORY OF MAHARAJA HARAN:
This issue relatives back to 1925, Maharaja Haran, who is a Hindu ruler from 1925 and
during the period of Independence, the king had a confusion to join in Sindia or Punyadesh.
As there were two movement in Saru and Paharia.
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION:
On 22nd October 1947, rebellious citizens from Punyadesh innated the state. Maharaja
Haran initially fought back but appealed for assistance to Sindia. Where the Sindia
government who agreed on assistance with a condition that the ruler should accede with
Sindia with reference to the people after the innated were cleared. The instrument were
signed, soldiers endured paharia to evict the raiders. Which resulted in a war. And at the
beginning of 1948, Sindia took it to the united nations security council. Security council
ordered to withdraw its forces as well as the Punyadesh nations. A ceasefire was agreed on
1st January 1949, Supervised by UN observers.
And thereafter UNCIP was formed to find a solution but No agreement is been reached.
SPECIAL PROVISION:
Though after the two wars in 1965 and 1971, Seema agreement, which passes a way for a
peaceful revolution of the dispute. Special provision was made since accession of Sarv and
Paharia with Sindia.
Article 370 and 35A were included as a temporary transitional and special provision.
370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir[24]
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu
and Kashmir;
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to—
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation
with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to
matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State
to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion
Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of
the State, the President may by order specify.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 Explanation [1950 wording]: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the
State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the
Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for
the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of
March, 1948; (c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation
to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that
State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order
specify:
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of
Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued
except in consultation with the Government of the State:
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred
to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that
Government.
(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-
clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second provision to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given
before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is
convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may,
by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative
only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in
clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
Which provided the special privileges such as separate set of Laws, Owners of lands
and property Fundamental rights.
And the other thing is that it is Muslim majority state.
GENERAL ELECTION:
In 2018, general election NOP, 390 seats in Lok Sabha. In Sarv and Paharia the local
Sarv Democracy Party was in power alliance with Sind Janata Party. In December 2018,
there was terrorist attack which resulted in deed of 100 soldiers. The SJP withdraw its
support, governor dissolved the assembly.
INOPERATIVE CLAUSE
Presidential Order was made in 2019 to make all clauses of Article 370 inoperative under
Article 370(3). And the resolution was adapted by both houses of parliament. Which paused
the way for all the Article of Sindia to apply on the religion of Sarv and Paharia, Which
ensures that Sarv and Paharia, and it has internal and external sovereignty from the Sindian
Constitution.
REORGANIZATION BILL:
On 5th August 2019, the Home Minister introduced the Sarv and Paharia Reorganization
Bill. Sarv and Paharia was made as a two separate union of territories. The bill was

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

successfully passed at both houses. But some local associations filed against this order in the
Hon’ble Supreme court which is clubbed.

VI.STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the presidential order is valid?

3. Whether the act is ultra vires of the constitution of sindia?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 VII.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the petition is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted that since, there has been no fundamental rights of any group of
individuals or citizens is been violated, the amendment done here is rational and in good
concern and thus, the Public Interest Litigation filed in the supreme court is not maintainable
under Article 32.
2. Whether the presidential order is valid?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court of Sindia, that the presidential order is
valid and there has been no gross violation of any principle and article of the Sindian
constitution. And other arguments are explained in the argument advanced.
3. Whether the act is ultra vires of the constitution of Sindia?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble of sindia that the act regarding the
reorganization bill is not ultra- virus of the constitution of sindia as in the very first preamble
of the constitution, explains the equality, secular Democratic principle is ensured.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 VIII.WRITTEN PLEADING
1. Whether the petition is maintainable?
It is humbly submitted that since, there has been no fundamental rights of any group of
individuals or citizens is been violated, the amendment done here is rational and in good
concern and thus, the Public Interest Litigation filed in the supreme court is not maintainable
under Article 32.
DEFENDANT ADVANCE ARGUMENTS
The Counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the PIL filed by the Petitioner is
not maintainable as the Petitioner haven’t impugned by any Fundamental rights and there
was not any violation made to an individual.
(1.1) EXCLUTION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST:
It is humbly submitted in the hon’ble court of sindia that the observance of the
principle of natural justice may be excluded in case such observance would cause injury
to the public interest and liberty of the people of the region.
In Union of India v. Tulsi ram patel, the supreme court has made it clear that the rule of
natural justice can be avoided if its observance will paralyze the administrative process.
The cases of Public Interest includes the defence of the country and maintenance of state
secret thus the rule of natural justice may be excluded or may be avoided in the interest
of the state secret. And there has also been the another case which in Satyavir Singh v.
Union of India, the Supreme court has expressed the view that natural justice must not be
allowed to run wild. The court can determines whether the exclusion is Public Interest or
Not.
If the right of people is not prejudicially affected, the application of rules of natural
justice is not affected and the PIL can be excluded on this ground the counsel submit that
there has been no violation of Article 14,19 and 21, as the special provisions for Sarv and
Paharia is a temporary article. And here there is no other state in Sindia have this special
powers, which is also against the equality of a country, and therefore Article 370 and
35A is unconstitutional.
(1.2) THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AT LARGE:
The counsel submits that the Act was for the larger public interest. Both the state as
well as the national interest. Here the people of Paharian region and Sarv has
discriminated from other sindian nationality right. And there is an larger view of
exploitation in the region, not any central power intervene in the region. The importance
of proper security to that region cannot be given. Statement prevents people from

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 fulfilling their potential and may have a severe knock on effect for social cohesion and
stability, it may even lead to communal tension and displacement.
And here in this case, there is no fundamental rights violated, the state is in
emergency and there has been a large terrorist attack in the seema city. So, the president
made a proper legislation to solve this issue. The unrest in the place is just for a period of
short time and if we overcome this period, the larger position would be achieved.
And government has taken proper measures to calm the situation of the country. The
fundamental rights of the people cannot be invoked as there is emergency in the place. And
therefore it is pointed out that interference by the courts through the PIL in the sphere of
executive and legislature is not justified as it is likely to the cause conflict between the three
organs of the government. From the facts to the case, The government has not done any
violation of the right to the people. It is just an provision for increasing the national security
of the country. The bill is constitutionally valid.

In the light of all the submissions, the act does not attack any fundamental provisions
of the country. Instead, It strengthens the country’s security stance.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2. Whether the presidential order is valid?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court of Sindia, that the presidential order is
valid and there has been no gross violation of any principle and article of the Sindian
constitution. And other arguments are explained in the argument advanced.
Arguments advanced.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the order of the president is valid
and which has been explained under the following provision.
(2.1) THINGS IN THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION:
From the facts of the case, where during the period of independence, the government
of Sindia annexed Sarv and Paharia. On 26th October 1947. And in the mother law of the
country is considered, special provision in Sarv and Paharia is mentioned in Article 370 and
35A of the constitution of Sindia, which isdrafted in constitution. Which is temporary and
special provision. From this, It is very clear that it is a temporary provision, which can be
abrogated at any time.
(2.2) FOR NATIOONAL SECURITY:
The counsel submits that In 2018, December there was a severe terrorist attack
occurred in Seema city killing almost 100 soldiers of Sindia. Where in the region of sarv
and Paharia as the Sindian government could not provide proper military aidence. After the
period of election, there were serious of unrest in the part of Sarv and Paharia. So, to ensure
the national peace of the country the president using his power passed a law. An ordinance
passes under Article 123 sindian constitution has specifically explained about the president
power in the Article 121 and 123 of the Sindian Constitution. In the case T. Venkata reddy
v. state of A.P where the president can make laws for the welfare of the state. Then there
can be no question arise by the government. As there was no state legislature present in this
case, president made a bill and passed it to both the houses of the parliament. And form the
house, it come from two majority and the reorganization bill was passed.

In the light of all the submissions made the presidential order made by the president
of the country is valid, as it is for interest of the nation. No legal means has been violated.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 3. Whether the act is ultra vires of the constitution of Sindia?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble of sindia that the act regarding the
reorganization bill is not ultra- virus of the constitution of sindia as in the very first
preamble of the constitution, explains the equality, secular Democratic principle is
ensured.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED:
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court of sindia that the act was not ultra
vires of the constitution of sindia. And it is intra virus to the constitution2. President has
the power to legislate the laws under the article 357 of the constitution of sindia. And
through Article 356 of the constitution of sindia says that the president, on receipt of a
report from the governor of a state, or otherwise is satisfied that a situation has arises in
which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provision
of the constitution by means of Proclamations. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India that
the assemblies were dissolved and the president rule was in force, and there were
guidelines made for imposing president’s rule. And in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of
India that the president’s rule was imposed in the state of Bihar as there were no party
had the required majority. And even in the case, It has been explained that the both the
parties has no majority to rule, so president rule into the force, and through the means of
bill it has been passed to the both the house of parliament and which has been passed
with the majority of 67% and 84% of the parliament, And then the president signed it.
There has no ultra virus has made in the act, it is all come under the intro virus of the
act of the parliament. And even in the Article 370 (3) there has a clause to alagate the
Article 370 of the constitution. During the period of instrument, It has been explained as
a temporary clause Article, So from the conventions made by the counsel it is clear that
the act is intra virus of the constitution.

In the light of all the submissions made, the act does not have ultra virus to the
constitution of sindia. Where it is all through the means of the constitution of Sindia, The
amendment has enforced.

2
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs state of Uttar Pradesh on 28 April,1961. SCC cites 132-Cited by 206.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 XI.PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel
for the Respondent Humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold &
declare;
(1) Dismiss the writ petition
(2) In the alternative declare and adjudge;
a) That the Respondent have not violated the Fundamental rights of the indigenous
people.
b) For the purpose of national interest.
c) The Law is rational and valid.
And/or
Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of
justice, fairness, equality and good conscience. Or the act of Kindness, the counsel
shall forever pray.

(Counsel for Respondent).

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT