TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... I

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ... II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ... III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ... IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...V

ISSUES RAISED ... VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...VII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...XII

PRAYERS ...XIX

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABRREVIATION FULL FORM

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

Art. ARTICLE

H.C. HIGH COURT

Ors. OTHERS

S. SECTIONS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SC SUPREME COURT

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

u/a UNDER ARTICLE

u/s UNDER SECTION

W.A. WRIT APPEAL

V/vs. VERSUS

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITATED

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225:

2. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1:

3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1:

4. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592:

5. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625:

6. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 309:

7. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124:

8. Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (1992) 2 SCC 11:

9. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762:

10. Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270:

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 STATUTES:

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952

The Constitution of India

BOOKS REFERRED:

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY.

BLUEBOOK OXFORD 20TH EDITION.

SCC, JOURNAL 2018.

WEBSITE REFERRED:

www.scconline.com
www.manupatrafast.in
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY

THIS INSTANT MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION.

Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949

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 powers 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

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The government established the high-powered Commission to address societal

challenges, acknowledging the gravity of issues such as terrorism, corruption, communal
clashes, and divisive forces in the country.

2. The Commission conducted extensive research, interacted with the public, and prepared
consultation papers, reflecting a genuine effort to understand public opinion and propose
meaningful solutions.

3. The government, while appreciating the Commission's work, maintains the discretion to
evaluate the feasibility, legality, and implications of the proposed amendments before
implementing them. This evaluation is crucial to ensure that constitutional principles are
upheld and unintended consequences are avoided.

4. The government asserts the importance of preserving the principles of federalism and
parliamentary sovereignty. While cooperation with other political parties is valued, the
final decision rests with Parliament, and it must be made autonomously without external
influence.

5. The government is committed to addressing the issues highlighted by the petitioner within
the framework of the Constitution and existing laws, striving to strike a balance between
protecting individual rights, upholding the Constitution, and addressing societal
challenges.

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 ISSUES RAISED

IN LIEU OF THE PRESENT. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FOLLOWING

ISSUES RISE FOR ADJUDICATION BY THIS HON’BLE COURT:

ISSUE 1

WHETHER WRIT PETITION IS MAINTANABLE?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER PROPOSAL AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE PASSED?

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 Summary of Arguments:

Issue 1: Whether Writ Petition is Maintainable?

The respondent contents that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the government's
discretion in evaluating the recommendations and the court's limited interference in policy
matters.

The government asserts that the decision-making process regarding policy matters is within
their jurisdiction, and judicial intervention might not be warranted in this case.

Issue 2: Whether Proposed Amendments Should Be Passed?

The government counters that while the issues raised by the petitioner are valid, the
government must carefully evaluate the proposed amendments to ensure they align with the
Constitution and do not infringe on individual rights.

The government asserts its commitment to addressing the mentioned issues but argues for a
cautious approach, balancing the urgent need for action with the necessity of responsible
decision-making and legal considerations.

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

Issue 1: Whether Writ Petition is Maintainable?

Discretion of the Executive: The government argues that decisions related to policy-making
and constitutional amendments fall within the realm of executive discretion. Courts generally
avoid interfering with policy matters, especially those involving complex constitutional
changes, which are typically debated and decided upon by the elected representatives in
Parliament.

Separation of Powers: The government asserts that mandamus should not be used to
interfere with the legislative process. The doctrine of separation of powers mandates that the
judiciary does not interfere with the functioning of the legislature, and policy decisions are
best left to the elected representatives who are accountable to the public.

Lack of Direct Impact: the government contends that the proposed amendments do not
directly infringe upon individual rights or legal obligations, but there is no immediate need
for mandamus. Mandamus writs are generally issued to rectify specific wrongs that directly
impact individuals or entities.

In the Case Law: Registrar of Cooperative Societies v. K. Kunjabmu, AIR 1986 SC 903:
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a private
right. The government can refer to this case to argue that the recommendations made by the
Commission, while in the public interest, might not translate into a private right enforceable
through Mandamus.

In the Case Law: State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86: In this case, the
Supreme Court clarified that a Mandamus writ cannot be issued to enforce a policy decision.
The government refers to this case to argue that the evaluation of policy matters, including
the implementation of recommendations, is a discretionary power, and the court should not
interfere with such decision

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 Issue 2: Whether Proposed Amendments Should Be Passed?

Potential Erosion of Rights: Opponents of the proposed amendments argues that some of
the suggested changes might infringe upon fundamental rights or dilute constitutional
safeguards. Any amendment that compromises individual liberties or the basic structure of
the Constitution should be vehemently opposed, as it could set a dangerous precedent.

Need for Comprehensive Evaluation: Critics assert that the government has not provided
comprehensive details or conducted thorough evaluations regarding the potential impact of
the proposed amendments. Without clear, evidence-based reasoning, rushing through
constitutional changes could lead to unintended consequences and legal ambiguities.

Alternative Solutions: Those against the amendments propose alternative solutions, such as
strengthening existing laws, improving law enforcement agencies' efficiency, or enhancing
social and economic development to address the root causes of issues like crime and
communal conflicts. We state that hasty constitutional amendments are not the only or the
best solution to the stated problems.

In the Case Law: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) Supp SCC 1: In this case,
the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of free and fair elections, a fundamental part
of democratic principles. The government in the present matter is using this case to argue that
the proposed amendments, even though addressing crucial issues, must also ensure that the
democratic process, particularly free and fair elections, is not compromised, justifying a
careful evaluation before passage.

In the Case Law: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1: In this case, the
Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review if they
violate the basic structure of the Constitution. In the present matter government is citing this
case to assert that a careful evaluation of the proposed amendments is essential to avoid any
violation of the basic structure, justifying a thorough examination before passage.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT
 PRAYER:

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and
authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble
Supreme Court that it may be pleased to:

1. Declare, that the writ petition is not maintainable here

2. Declare, proposed amendments should not be passed.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best
interests of justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED.

T-E1
Counsels for the Respondent

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESONDENT