Winner Team Memorial Respondents LCDNMCC National Moot 07 Muzzamil212393 Hnluacin 20230829 220809 1 39

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, August 29, 2023

Printed For: Md Muzzamil Ibrahim, Hidayatullah National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th LCDNMCC National Moot Court, 2023

Winner Team Memorial - Respondents
Law College Dehradun

Faculty of Uttaranchal University
In the Matter
Before Supreme Court of Indiana
Under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana
(SLP.) NO.__________/2023)
Aliza Firdos and Others … Petitioner;
Versus
State of Kaloshia … Respondent.
With
(Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
Young Indian Lawyers Assocaiation … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Indiana … Respondent.
And
Writ Petition (CRL.) NO. _____________/2023
Akhandanand Tripathi … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Indiana … Respondent.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4-6
• Table of Cases 4-5
• Books 5
• Journals 6
• Databases 6
• Statutes 6
Statement of Jurisdiction 7
Statement of Facts 8-11
Issues 12
Summary of Arguments 13-14
Arguments Advanced 15
1. Whether the wearing of a Hijab is a 15-25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fundamental right under Article -19 (1)(A)

and Article- 25 of the constitution of the
Indiana?
2. Whether the 106th constitutional 26-30
amendment act, 2022 is, constitutionally
valid?
3. Whether the imposition of the president's 31-37
rule in the state of Kaloshia was
constitutionally valid?
4. Whether the state of Kaloshia can be given 38-47
the right to secede from the union of
Indiana?
Prayer 48
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Edn. Edition
Hon'ble Honourable
i.e., That is
No. Number
PC Privy Council
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
u/A Under Article
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
WWW World Wide Web
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
SNO. CASES
1. Gulam Abbas v. state of uttar Pradesh,
(1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198.
2. HH Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja
Jeeyar Swami v. state of Tamil nadu,
(1972) 2 SCC 11 : AIR 1972 SC 1586.
3. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v.
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, (1983)
4 SCC 522 : AIR 1984 SC 51.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Madras v. Shri L.T Swamiar of Shirur

Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
5. Commissioner, Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR
1954 SC 282.
6. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4
SCC 397 : AIR 2017 SC 1079.
7. Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka,
(2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1394 : AIR 2022.
8. Fatima Hussain Syed v. Bharat Education
Society, AIR 2003 Bom 75.
9. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji v. The State Of
Rajasthan and Others on 21 January, AIR
1963 SC 1638, (1964) 1 SCR 561.
10. Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 1967 SC 1910.
11. Modern Dental College & Research Centre
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7
SCC 353.
12. Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka,
(2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1394 : AIR 2022.
13. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6
SCC 241.
14. Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan v. F.N.
Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648.
15. The Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. The
Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295.
16. Bhagat Singh v. Emperor, (1930-31) 58
IA 169.
17. Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433 (1939),
59 S.Ct. 972 (1939).
18. The Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. The
Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295.
19. Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan v. F.N.
Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648.
BOOKS:
1. M.P. Jain, The Constitution of India, 8th Edition
2. V.N. Shukla, The Constitutional of India, 12th
Edition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Jagadish Swarup, Constitution of India, 2nd

Edition (Volume 1, 2, 3), Modern Law
Publication.
4. D.J. DE, Constitution of India, 3rd Edition
(Volume 1, 2), Asia Law House.
5. Justice M.L. Singhal and Suhaas R Joshi Manual
on the Constitution of India, 14th Edition
6. (Volume 3) Lexis Nexis.
7. H.K. Sharay, An Analytical Constitution of India,
4th Edition, Eastern Law House
8. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th
edition, Volume 1&2, Universal Law Publishing
9. D.D. Basu, Commentary Constitution of India,
8th edition, Volume 10, Lexisnexis 8. M.P. Jain,
Indian Contititutional Law of India, 7th edition,
Lexis Nexis
JOURNALS REFFERED:
1. All India Reporter
2. Indian Law Reporter
3. Supreme Court Cases
DATABASE REFFERED:
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. http://www.indiankanoon.com
3. http://www.manupatra.com
4. http://www.livelaw.com
5. http://www.thebluebook.com
6. http://www.thehindu.com
7. http://www.indconlawphil.wordpress.com
8. http://www.barandbench.com
9. http://www.judis.nic.in
10. http://www.uidai.gov.in
11. http://www.westlaw.com
12. http://www.scconline.co
STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of India
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble supreme court of Indiana, by Special Leave
petition under Article- 136 of the constitution of Indiana. : Article 136
Reads as follows—
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme

Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.”
The counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of Hon'ble supreme court of Indiana, by Power of President
to consult Supreme Court. Petition under Article- 143 of the
constitution of Indiana. Article 143 Reads as follows—
“143. (1) If at any time it appears to the President that a question
of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a
nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain
the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question
to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing
as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.”
The counsel for the petitioner most humbly submit to the jurisdiction
of Hon'ble supreme court of Indiana, by Power of Supreme Court to
issue writs under Article- 32 of the constitution of Indiana. Article 32
Reads as follows—
“32. (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.
The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. History : - In the early 16th century, Feloshia was self-sufficient
country. The Arbitrary action of monarch led the signing of charter
known as Magna Carta, famously known as the First Charter on Civil
and Political Rights which resulted in constitutional monarchy in the
country. However the people of the colonies did not have the rights
including basic rights which the citizens of Feloshia possessed, they
were exploited. This led to the discovery of new continent known as the
Northern Czar. The people residing there belonged to different countries
or colonies which Feloshia captured. After a few months, Feloshia
started to go into what is known as economic depression and levitation
of taxes which led to a war between the people of Northern Czar and
the Government of Feloshia. Northern Czar was declared victorious after
the war and they declared themselves independent. Every community
had the right to leave the Union whenever it wanted to. The enactment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the first written and federal constitution in the world was done in
1787, which came into force in 1789. Since then, the Northern Czar
became known as the United States of Czar (USC). The constitution's
most significant drawbacks was that it did not provide any rights to its
Citizens. The Zebestia community did not have any rights since the
people who belonged to this category were bonded enslaved people. In
the 18th century, President elected of USC was of Zebestia community.
He wanted the rights to be available to the Zebestians as well, which
was not appreciated by the federal states such as Vexas. When the
rights were extended to Zebestians, the state of Vexas revolted
violently and staunchly against the Union Government. The State of
Vexas contended that it wanted to quit the Union and declare itself an
independent nation. The case regarding the same was filed before the
Supreme Court of Czar. The court finally held that the State of Vexas
will continue to be a federal state of USC and can secede from it.
2. Formation of International Organisations : - After the end of
the Second World War, an international organization known as the
United Nations Organization was formed to prevent any future wars and
world wars and to prevent the exploitation of people's basic human
rights worldwide, which had been witnessed during both world wars
Two most important documents, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) was formed Out of many different human rights
provided under the above conventions, Article 1 of the ICCPR gave the
right of self determination for the people.
3. Background of Indiana : - Indiana is the South Asian
subcontinent with six distinct geographic regions. It features a plethora
of linguistic diversity and cultural diversity. Indiana attained
independence in 1947 from Filoshia. The Parliament of Filoshia had
introduced an act known for Indiana as the Government of Indiana Act,
1935. Section 6 of this Act stated that if a state wants to be part of
Indiana, it can do so through an Instrument of Accession. After Indiana
attained independence, the country was divided into two countries,
Indiana and Belani, by the Indiana Independence Act of 1947. After
Independence Government of Indiana Act, 1935 remained in force and
because of this, if any independent state wants to be part of either of
the country and it can do so through Instrument of Accession on such
terms and conditions.
a) The State of Kaloshia was forced to be a part of the territory of
Indiana by sending army of Indiana to the state to threaten the
ruler. The king had to sign the Instrument of Accession out of
sheer pressure.
b) The Constitution of Indiana was drafted. It provided various rights
to its citizens and some rights to non-citizens as well, including
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fundamental rights, right to religion (only to citizens), etc. The

Constituent Assembly suggested that Indiana should be a Union
of States, somewhat a United States, to prevent the secession of
any states and any civil wars USC faced.
c) After the independence, Indiana started its development in all
aspects, economy and military, at a very rapid rate. The State of
Kaloshia proved to be one of the most critical states that helped in
Indiana's development. It has the highest literacy rate within
Indiana and contributes around 10% of the country's total GDP
(Gross Domestic Product). It has the highest per capita income
within Indiana and is a complete state. It is situated in the
southern part of Indiana. Also, due to the abundance of natural
resources in the state, it is known as the Rhine Valley of Indiana.
d) The Parliament of Indiana introduced the 106thConstitutional
Amendment Bill, 2020 to add Article 3A to the Indiana
Constitution, which gave the right to the states that in case they
want to secede the Union, they can propose the same. After a
referendum, the state can secede from the Union. This
amendment was passed quickly and received the permission of
the President on 03rd March 2022.
e) Indiana's majority population practices the Induism religion,
whereas Kaloshia's majority population practices the Drakism
religion. Only the regional party ISP (Indiana Samaj Party) has
been able to form Government in Kaloshia, independently and
with a full majority, whereas, at the central level, either ICP
(Indiana Congress Party) or IJP (Indiana Janta Party) generally
forms the Government. Since 2014, the IJP has been in power at
the central Government. But in 2022, the ISP did not attain a full
majority in the State Legislature hence, formed a coalition
Government with the IJP.
f) One fine day, a private school in Kaloshia denied entry to girls
belonging to the Drakism religion, specifically, on the ground that
they were wearing a Hijab, which is considered to be a part of
their custom. The students protested against it, but the school
authorities did not allow their entry stating that it was not part of
their prescribed uniform. A few days after, the State Govt. of
Kaloshia issued a notification under Section 133 (2) of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983, stating that no student who is
wearing a Hijab or is not in proper uniform shall be allowed to
attend the classes either in schools or in colleges, irrespective
whether it is a government institution or a private institution.
g) This led to a lot of agitation among the people of Kaloshia, stating
that wearing of Hijab is their customary practice and comes under
the freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)(a) and it is a part of their right to practice any religion freely

granted by Article 25 of the Constitution of Indiana. In respect of
this, one of the students named Aliza Firdos filed a Writ Petition
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kaloshia challenging the
notification of the Government. Meanwhile, other writ petitions
were filed before the High Court for the same matter, in response
to which the High Court clubbed all the petitions for hearing.
h) After hearing the contention of both the petitioners and the
respondents, the High Court of Kaloshia declared that the
notification of the State Government is constitutionally valid and
falls under reasonable restrictions of respective fundamental
rights. The court further remarked that wearing Hijab is not a
religious right but a cultural right and is not an essential religious
practice of Drakism.
i) Instead of the court's judgment, the people of Kaloshia started to
protest violently on the road and in public places. After this, there
was also political tension prevailing as the members of ISP were
unwilling to be in a coalition government after the notification
regarding the hijab ban was released as they were not consulted
before releasing the same.
j) Assuming the demonstrations of protest and the break - down of
the coalition government, the Government of Indiana imposed
President's rule in the State of Kaloshia on the ground of failure of
constitutional machinery.
k) Meanwhile, a group of young advocates, named Indiana Young
Lawyers Association, approached the President of Indiana on the
issue that the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is
against the constitutional framework. Eventually, it is against
Article 1 of the Constitution. In response to this, the President of
Indiana transferred the dispute to the Supreme Court for
adjudication under Article 143 of the Constitution of Indiana.
l) After the President's rule imposition in the State of Kaloshia, the
protests intensified further and this time there was also
disturbance caused in public order. The people of Kaloshia were
unanimously protesting and demanded secession from the Union.
In light of this, the State of Kaloshia invoked the provisions under
Article 3A, which was inserted by the 106th Constitutional
Amendment Act, 2022, on the ground that the right to the self-
determination is a universally recognized civil and political right
under ICCPR, which Indiana ratifies.
m) Instead of the President's rule imposed in the State of Kaloshia,
the former Deputy Chief Minister of Kaloshia named,
Akhandanand Tripathi, filed a writ petition before the Supreme
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Indiana stating that the Act of the Central Government

was arbitrary as the Governor should have been given the
opportunity for the formation of possible governments as
flexibility in the Government formation is one of the advantages
under Parliamentary Form of Government. After the formation of
the new Government, the State Government should have been
given the first opportunity to control the ongoing protests, as
stated in the case of S.R Bommai v. Union of India.
n) Apart from this, in response to the judgment of the High Court
regarding the Hijab - ban issue, Aliza Firdos and other students
have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of
Indiana. All three petitions have been accepted and clubbed by
the Supreme Court and are pending further hearings.
ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE WEARING OF A HIJAB IS A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)(A) AN ARTICLE 25 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
II. WHETHER THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT,
2022 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
III. WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT's RULE IN
THE STATE OF KALOSHIA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
IV. WHETHER THE STATE OF KALOSHIA CAN BE GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION OF INDIANA?
III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE WEARING OF A HIJAB IS A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)(A) AN ARTICLE 25 OF THE
The counsel humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the demand of the petitioners that the right to wear hijab is part of the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indiana. The right to wear a hijab under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), “In our case, Rule 11 (of
the Karnataka Education Rules) places reasonable restrictions for
institutional discipline.” Independent claim of 19(1)(a) cannot go
together with Article 25. “The consequence of the demand to declare
Hijab as an essential religious practice is huge because there is an
element of compulsion or else you will be expelled from the community.
According to the government order issued under the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983, “public order” is one of the reasons for not
allowing students to wear a headscarf in educational institutions along
with “unity” and “integrity”. Article 25 of Constitution guarantees to all
people's right to freedom and conscience to profess, practice and
propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. It is not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a fundamental right under Article- 25 of the Constitution of Indiana.

II. WHETHER THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT,
2022 IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana by
the counsel that the 106th constitutional Amendment act 2022 is
constitutionally valid. The amendment was brought into the
constitution as per the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), which the Government of Indiana ratified on 10th April
1979. Indiana Parliament have power to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of Indiana for implementing of International
convention and Hence, Since the Government of Indiana have ratified
ICCPR a International human rights treaty, the parliament have power
to make laws for implementing such treaty. Also the right to self-
determination is indisputably a norm of jus cogens which compels all
its ratified country to follow and make laws on it.
III. WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT's RULE IN
THE STATE OF KALOSHIA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble supreme court of Indiana
that it is the duty of the Union Government to ensure that governance
of a State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. Under Article 356, the President may issue a proclamation
to impose emergency in a state if he is satisfied on receipt of a report
from the Governor of the State, or otherwise, that a situation has arisen
under which the Government of the State cannot be carried on
smoothly. In such a situation, proclamation of emergency by the
President is called ‘proclamation on account of the failure (or
breakdown) of constitutional machinery.’ In popular language it is
called the President's Rule.
IV. WHETHER THE STATE OF KALOSHIA CAN BE GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION OF INDIANA?
that the Issue of secede of the state of Kaloshia is a matter of relevant
and grave importance to be decided by the Hon'ble court. It is well
established that the state of Kaloshia is a part of union but has right to
self-determination and can secede from the union of Indiana as the
106th constitutional amendment itself states that every state in
Indiana shall have right to secede from the union and inserted Article-
3A.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THE WEARING OF A HIJAB IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)(A) AN ARTICLE 25 OF THE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court Indiana

that- wearing of hijab is not a fundamental right under Article- 19 (1)
(A) and Article- 25 as, since ages, Indiana is a secular country. For
Indiana, there is no official religion, in as much as it is not a theocratic
State. The State does not extend patronage to any particular religion
and thus, it maintains neutrality in the sense that it does not
discriminate against anyone on the basis of religious identities per se.
1.1 Hijab is not Essential Religious Practices
1.1.1. Should associate with Constitutional values. The person
seeking refuge under the umbrella of Article 25 of the Constitution has
to demonstrate not only essential religious practice but also its
engagement with the constitutional values.
The practices of each of the faith have to be examined on the basis
of the tenets of that religion alone. Any religion practice should be
treated as part of a religion, it is necessary that it be regarded by the
said religion as its essential and integral part. The practice not essential
will be clothed with religious sanctions. It means that purely secular
practices which not be an essential and integral part of religion are not
protected and can be abrogated by legislation subject to other
fundamental Rights.1
1.1.2. What constitutes as essential a part of a religion or religious
practice has to be decided by the court with reference to the doctrine of
a particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the
community as a part of its religion2
1.1.3 Argument of essential religious practice, in the case of
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta3
Wherein, this Court held that, Essential part of a religion means the
core beliefs upon which a religion is founded. It is upon the cornerstone
of essential parts or practices that the superstructure of a religion is
built, without which a religion will be no religion. The test to determine
whether a part or practice is essential to a religion is to find out
whether the nature of the religion would be changed without that part
or practice.
If taking away of that part or practice results in a fundamental
change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part
could be treated as an essential or integral part of the religion.4
1.1.4. It was held in Commissioner, Hindu religious endowments,
Madras v. Shri L.T Swamiar of Shirur Mutt5 , AIR 1954 SC 282 that what
may be associated with a religion but not an essential religious practice
of that particular religion can be amendable by the state.6
Further, what constitutes to be an essential part of a religion is to be
primarily decided by the doctrines of that religion itself. It is this
judgement which gave rise to the ‘Doctrine of Essentiality’ which was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
used in the judgements of Sabarimala and Triple Talaq

1.1.5. Justice Gupta held that “discipline was one of the attributes
students learn in schools; that defiance of rules would be an antithesis
of discipline. The students had a right to education under Article 21 but
not of insisting of wearing something additional to their uniform, as
part of their religion, in a secular school. Justice Gupta pointed out that
the uniform is an equaliser of inequalities. If students of one faith
insisted on a particular dress, others would follow suit. Permitting one
religion to wear religious symbols would be an antithesis to secularism.
The right to education would continue to be available and it was the
choice of the student whether to avail it or not. The freedom of
expression under Article (19)(a) did not extend to the headscarf, he
said. The Karnataka GO promoted an equal environment. Anything worn
by students under his/her shirt cannot be said to be objectionable in
terms of the GO issued.
Religion, Justice Gupta said, had no meaning in a secular school run
by the State and the constitutional goal of fraternity would be defeated
if students were permitted to carry their religious symbols to the
classroom. None of the fundamental rights were absolute and all of
them should be read together as a whole.”7
1.1.6. The Supreme Court decided on a challenge to the Dargah
Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 which claimed that it violated the fundamental
rights of Muslims belonging to the Soofi Chistia Order. They members
of the order claimed it was they who were the sole custodians of the
shrine at Ajmer. The Act, however, permitted all Hanafi Muslims to
partake in the maintenance and affairs of the Dargah. The Court
rejected the challenge to the Dargah Act observing that the tomb had
never been confined to members of the Soofi Chistia Order. The Court
further held that in order that the practices in question should be
treated as a part of religion they must be regarded by the said religion
as its essential and integral part; otherwise even purely secular
practices which are not an essential or an integral part of religion are
apt to be clothed with a religious form and may make a claim for being
treated as religious practices within the meaning of Article 26.
1.1.7. The Apex Court in Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar8 accepted the
balance test when competing rights are involved and has taken a view
that individual interest must yield to the larger public interest. Thus,
conflict to competing rights can be resolved not by negating individual
rights but by upholding larger right to remain, to hold such relationship
between institution and students.
1.1.8. It was held in Commissioner, Hindu religious endowments,
Madras v. Shri L.T Swamiar of Shirur Mutt9 that what may be associated
with a religion but not an essential religious practice of that particular
religion can be amendable by the state.10 Further, what constitutes to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
be an essential part of a religion is to be primarily decided by the

doctrines of that religion itself. It is this judgement which gave rise to
the ‘Doctrine of Essentiality’ which was used in the judgements of
Sabarimala and Triple Talaq.
1.2. State can be authorised to regulate religious and allied
activities
1.2.1. The decision of this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh11 was relied upon. This submission, however, is not correct and
therefore declined. The reasons being, that under Section 13312 of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 the Government has powers to give
directions. Section 145 of the 1983 Act gives the State Government
powers to make Rules, which have been made and are called the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and
Prescription of Curricula Etc.,) Rules, 1995. Rule 11(1)13 , of the above
Rules' states that the recognized educational institutions can prescribe
uniform. Therefore, the State Government in any case has powers to
prescribe a uniform/dress code. Therefore, the submissions that the
G.O is not a valid law is not correct. The G.O draws its source from the
statue and the statutory rules. Therefore, it has the force of law.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that it still has to pass muster the
provisions of Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution.
1.2.2. Holy Quran does not mandate the wearing of a Hijab or
Headgear for Muslim women.14 “…at the most is a means to gain
access to public places and not a religious end in itself. It was a
measure of women enablement and not a figurative constraint.”
What is not religiously made obligatory therefore cannot be made a
quintessential aspect of the religion through public agitations or by the
passionate arguments in courts.
It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered
to, those not wearing hijab become the sinners, Islam loses its glory
and it ceases to be a religion.15
1.2.3. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation,16 it was held that the State is not
prevented from making any law in relation to religious practice and the
same is permissible under Article 25(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The limited jurisdiction granted by Article 25(2) relates to the making
of a law in relation to economic, financial, political or other secular
activities associated with the religious practice. The Court held as
under:“83. Article 25(2) gives specific power to the State to make any
law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice as
provided by sub- clause (a) of Article 25(2). This is a further
curtailment of the right to profess, practice and propagate religion
conferred on the persons under Article 25(1). Article 25(2)(a) covers
only a limited area associated with religious practice, in respect of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which a law can be made. A careful reading of Article 25(2)(a) indicates

that it does not prevent the State from making any law in relation to
the religious practice as such. The limited jurisdiction granted by Article
25(2) relates to the making of a law in relation to economic, financial,
political or other secular activities associated with the religious
practice.17
1.2.4. In the case of Fatima Hussain Syed v. Bharat Education
Society.18 in a similar incident regarding the dress code, when a
controversy occurred at Kartik High School, Mumbai. The Bombay High
Court appraised the matter and ruled that it was not a violation of
Article 25 of the Constitution for the principal to prohibit the wearing of
head scarf or head covering in the school.
1.3 No reasonable mind can imagine a school without a uniform and
can impose reasonable restrictions.
1.3.1 The power to prescribe uniform as of necessity inheres in every
school subject to all just exceptions.
“…it is impossible to instil the scientific temperament
which our Constitution prescribes as a fundamental duty vide
Article 51A(h) into the young minds so long as any
propositions such as wearing of hijab or bhagwa are regarded
as religiously sacrosanct and therefore, not open to question.
They inculcate secular values amongst the students in their
impressionable & formative years.”19
1.3.2 “It is nobody's case that the dress code is sectarian.”
Stating that the Court has no quarrel with petitioners' essential
proposition that what one desires to wear is a facet of one's autonomy
and that one's attire is one's expression, but the same is subject to
reasonable regulation.
It is too far-fetched to argue that the school dress code militates
against the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Articles, 14, 15,
19, 21 & 25 of the Constitution and therefore, the same should be
outlawed by the stroke of a pen. Adherence to the dress code is a
mandatory for students.
Article 25- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing
law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or
other secular activity which may be associated with religious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
practice;
(b) Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes
and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying
of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of
the Sikh religion
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in maintaining harmony,
brotherhood and uniformity among citizens.20
1.3.3 Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan21
the validity of Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 was the subject matter of
consideration. It was held that the protection under Article 25 is not
absolute and the Court may have to enquire whether the practice in
question is religious in character and if it is, whether it can be regarded
as an integral or essential part of the religion.22 It was held as
under:“Articles 25 and 26 constitute the fundamental rights to freedom
of religion guaranteed to the citizens of this country. Article 25(1)
protects the citizen's fundamental right to freedom of conscience and
his right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The
protection given to this right is, however, not absolute. It is subject to
public order, morality and health as Article 25(1) itself denotes. It is
also subject to the laws, existing or future, which are specified in Article
25(2)23
1.3.4 In a Constitution Bench judgment reported as I.R. Coelho v.
State of Tamil Nadu24 , this Court held that it can no longer be stated
that protection provided by fundamental rights comes in isolated pools.
On the contrary, these rights together provide a comprehensive
guarantee against excesses by State authorities However, it is to be
noted that none of the fundamental rights is absolute.25 The
curtailment of the right is permissible by following due procedure which
can withstand the test of reasonableness. The intent and object of the
Government Order is only to maintain uniformity amongst the students
by adherence to the prescribed uniform. It is reasonable as the same
has the effect of regulation of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(a). Thus, the right of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and
of privacy under Article 21 are complementary to each other and not
mutually exclusive and does meet the injunction of reasonableness for
the purposes of Article 21 and Article 14.
1.3.5 Further, it is well settled that executive powers can be used to
supplement the statutory rules. This Court in a judgment reported as
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan26 . held that it is true that
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular
point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules27
Hence, the prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
restriction constitutionally permissible which the students

cannot object to.
The college can prescribe uniform to the exclusion of hijab or bhagwa
or such other religious symbols and therefore, the alleged act of the
respondents in seeking adherence to the school discipline & dress code
cannot be faltered. The order directs the College Development
Committees all over the State to prescribe ‘Student Uniform’,
presumably in terms of Rule 11 of Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Classification, Regulation & Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995.
1.3.6 Karnataka Education institutions Rule 1995 : Accordingly,
Rule. 11. Provision of Uniform, Clothing, Text Books etc., (1) Every
recognized educational institution may specify its own set of Uniform.
Such uniform once specified shall not be changed within the period of
next five years. (2) When an educational institution intends to change
the uniform as specified in sub-rule (1) above, it shall issue notice to
parents in this regard at least one year in advance.28
1.4 Section 133. Powers of Government to give directions.—
(1) The State Government may, subject to other provisions of this
Act, by order, direct the Commissioner of Public Instruction or the
Director or any other officer not below the rank of the District
Educational Officer to make an enquiry or to take appropriate
proceeding under this Act in respect of any matter specified in the
said order and the Director or the other officer, as the case may
be, shall report to the State Government in due course the result
of the enquiry made or the proceeding taken by him.29
(2) The State Government may give such directions to any
educational institution or tutorial institution as in its opinion are
necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or
to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein or of any
rules or orders made thereunder and the Governing Council or the
owner, as the case may be, of such institution shall comply with
every such direction.
(3) The State Government may also give such directions to the
officers or authorities under its control as in its opinion are
necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act
and it shall be the duty of such officer or authority to comply with
such directions.
1.4.1 In Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of
Madhya Pradesh30 , it was held that the right under Article 19(1)(g) is
not absolute but is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6)
in the larger interest and welfare of student community and to promote
merit, achieve excellence and curb malpractices, fee and admissions
could certainly be regulated. This Court held as under:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“57. It is well settled that the right under Article 19(1)(g) is not
absolute in terms but is subject to reasonable restrictions under
clause (6). Reasonableness has to be determined having regard to
the nature of right alleged to be infringed, purpose of the restriction,
extent of restriction and other relevant factors. In applying these
factors, one cannot lose sight of the directive principles of State
policy.
The Court has to try to strike a just balance between the
fundamental rights and the larger interest of the society. The
Court interferes with a statute if it clearly violates the
fundamental rights. Larger interest and welfare of student
community to promote merit, achieve excellence and curb
malpractices, fee and admissions can certainly be regulated.” 31
82. It has been argued that Article 25 of the Constitution must be
given a conjunctive meaning. In Article 25(1), the term ‘conscience’
needs to be given not only the widest connotation but also an
interconnected meaning. It is contended to be wide enough to cover
the use of hijab, which reflects an expression of conscience. It is
argued that the terms ‘conscience’, ‘profess’ and ‘practice’, as
occurring in Article 25(1), are distinct and at the same time,
interconnected. Practice would necessarily include conscience and
therefore both are inseparable.32
83. It is further submitted that the right to dress inheres in the
right to freedom of speech and expression, right to identity and the
right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Restriction on dress, even in the context of uniform, must have a
rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Dress has been
referred also in the context of expression of self. It is submitted that
Muslim women wearing hijab is a symbolic expression of their
identity to the public as a woman who follows Islam. The wearing of
hijab does not cause any issue of public disorder or disturbance.
Moreover, an arbitrary, unsubstantiated and illogical constraint
imposed on the appearance of Muslim women and their choice of self
-presentment is constitutionally impermissible and an explicit
violation of Article 19 guaranteed in the Constitution. It was
submitted that the purpose of uniform is not to erase the markers of
individuality. 33
1.4.2 Accommodating with all these above mentioned case laws and
reasoning it is proved that wearing of Hijab is not a fundamental under
Article - 19 (1)(A) and Article -25 as it is not an essential practice of
Islam and so not protected under fundamental right as well as in any
statute. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the state in order to
maintain public order and uniformity among students and it is up to the
state how to maintain and where to. A religion is that abstract which
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
none can define and it's only the court to determine each and every
practice as essential to the religion or the tenets of that religion.34
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
the counsel that the 106th constitutional Amendment act 2022 is
constitutionally valid. The amendment was brought into the
constitution as per the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights(ICCPR), which the Government of Indiana ratified on 10th April
1979.
2.1. Indiana Parliament have power to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of Indiana for implementing of International
convention.
2.1.1. It is argued that Article 5135 of the Constitution Of Indiana
talks about Promotion of International peace and security. Article 51(c)
states to- “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in
the dealings of organized peoples with one another.”36 Also Article
25337 talks about- Legislation for giving effect to international
agreements. It states that “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for
the whole or any part of the territory of Indiana for implementing any
treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or
any decision made at any international conference, association or other
body.” It is implicit from, the above two Articles i.e. Article 51(c)38 and
Article 253 that any international convention in harmony with the
constitutional spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the
meaning and content thereof, to promote the object of the
constitutional guarantee.
Hence, Since the Government of Indiana have ratified ICCPR a
International human rights treaty, the parliament have power to make
laws for implementing such treaty.
2.1.2. In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan39 , The court
observed that, International conventions and norms, consistent with
the spirit of the Constitution, can be read into those rights for
interpreting them in the larger context to promote the objects of the
Constitution - In the absence of domestic law on the particular aspect,
these conventions and norms as ratified by India, can be relied on by
the Supreme Court to formulate guidelines for enforcement of
fundamental rights - International Law International fundamental rights
conventions and norms.
2.2. The right to self-determination is indisputably a norm of jus
cogens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jus cogens finds its origin from Article 53 of the Vienna convention
on the Law of Treaties (1969)40 . Jus cogens i.e. compelling law means a
body of fundamental principles of international law which binds all
states and does not allow any exceptions.41 The entire 1970 Declaration
can be said to contain norms of jus cogens since they were passed
consensually by member states and are therefore evidence that custom
exists in international practice to this effect.42
2.2.1. Predrag Zenović concludes that the right to self-determination
is jus cogens, with evidence of international treaties, the General
Assembly resolutions and State practice on decolonization43 . Also the
statements made by 6 out of the 26 delegations that gave examples at
the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties in favours of jus cogens
status for the right to self-determination44
Hence, Self-determination being a norm of jus cogens and compels
all its ratified country to follow and make laws on it.
2.3. Indiana states do not have right to freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
The Article 1(1) of ICCPR gives that “All peoples have the right of
self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.”45 Self-determination means the right of the people to
shape their own political, economic and cultural destinies. It is argued
that Indiana states do not have these rights and hence there is a need
to give the right to states of Indiana to freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
The 7th schedule under Article 246 of the constitution segregates
the powers between the parliament and the state legislatures. It
divides the legislative power between the Union and State Governments
on the subject matters listed in three lists - the union list, the state list
and the concurrent list. But in reality, Union have more power then the
State in terms of making laws and governing their territory which can
be evidented through several articles (articles 245-254) in the
Constitution46 .
2.3.1. Exceptions of Article 24647 , Union have more power then
state. Article 246 of the constitution segregates the powers between
the parliament and the state legislatures, but there are certain
exceptional circumstances when the above system of distribution is
either suspended or the powers of the Union Parliament are extended
over the subjects mentioned in the State List. These exceptional
circumstances are-
i. For the National Interests: Parliament may make laws under Article
249(1)48 in matters of National Interest. According to Article 249,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by, 2/3 of the

members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in
the national interest that Parliament should make laws with
respect to any matter enumerated within State Law, then it shall
be lawful for the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any
part of the territory of India with respect to that matter so long as
the resolution remains in force.49
ii. During a Proclamation of Emergency : Article 25050 says that while
the Proclamation of Emergency is in operation the Parliament shall
have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory
of India with respect to all matters in the State List.51
iii. With the consent of the State : As according to Article 25252 , if
the legislature of two or more states pass resolution to the effect
that it is desirable to have a law passed by parliament on any
matter in the state list, it shall be lawful for parliament to make
laws regulating that matter. Any other state may adopt such a law
by passing a resolution to that effect; such law can only be
amended or repealed by the act of the parliament.
iv. For giving effect to treaties and international agreements : Article
25353 empowers the Parliament to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of India for implementing treaties and
international agreements and conventions. In other words, the
normal distribution of powers will not stand in the way of
Parliament to pass a law for giving effect to an international
obligation even though such law relates to any of the subject in
the State List. Art 253 enables the Government of India to
implement all international obligations and commitments.54
v. In case of failure of constitutional machinery in a State : - Under
Article 35655 , Parliament is empowered to make laws with respect
to all matters in the State List when the Parliament declares that
the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution.56
Hence, it is argued that this dominance of Union legislature over
State legislature bounds the state government, not letting the state to
get politically, economically, socially and culturally free. This brings the
need of right to self-determination which gives right of the people of
that state to shape their own political, economic and cultural destinies.
2.3.2. The Amendment promotes the desire of majority of the
people. It goes with the Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, states that
something is moral, or good when it produces the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of people. It's a theory of normative
ethics that asks whether a specific action is good or bad, moral or
immoral.57 The Article 2(c)(ii) of Chapter II of the 106th
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
constitutional amendment act, 2022 states that the amendment of

referendum for secession is approved when, “the amendment is
supported by a simple majority of the citizens of the state voting in the
referendum.”58 The amendment is passed when maximum number of
the people (simple majority) is in the favour of the secession i.e. if the
greatest amount of people are satisfied then the amendment is said to
be passed. Hence, the amendment passes the normative ethics of
utilitarianism and hence is constitutional.
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT's RULE IN THE
STATE OF KALOSHIA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
the counsel that the imposition of the president's rule in the state of
Kaloshia was constitutionally valid
3.1 Rationale of the provision
3.1.1 Article 356 empowers the Union government to take over
executive and legislative powers of any State by issuing a Presidential
proclamation. In this way, the Union government is authorized to
interfere in the affairs of the State in a direct and drastic manner. The
rationale behind the article may be discussed under the following
heads:
1. Objective of the Indian Union,
2. Nature of State Autonomy,
3. Duty of the Union towards States and
4. Justification of the Provision.
3.1.2. Objective of the Indian Union It is usual practice amongst the
constitutional experts to categories the Constitutions as federal or
unitary which may not always be proper because, the Constitution of a
country is product of a number of historical geographical and political
factors distinguished from that of another country.59 Therefore, there is
a difficulty in the categorization of Indian Constitution in either of the
two, i.e., federal or unitary. India has always been a distinct entity from
time immemorial. It is regarded as a country of diversity where
casteism, religion, communalism, regionalism and linguism work as
divisive forces. These forces were at work throughout the history of the
country.
3.1.3. A cursory glance at the long history of India-cultural,
geographical and political- reveals that despite diversity, attempts were
made from time to time to establish unity. The framers of the
Constitution were quite aware of the aforesaid background and the idea
of a United India informed each and every part of the Constitution.
When the Constituent Assembly of India met, the founding fathers
were unanimous in insisting that there should be one governmental
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edifice for the whole of the country. The Constitution was so framed as
to meet the peculiar situation of the country. The country was
deliberately described as a “Union of State” under article 1 to
discountenance the divisive forces and the term federation was
purposely avoided.60
The interference of the Union government with the affairs of the
State government cannot be deemed to be an encroachment on the
authority of the State.
3.1.4. Article 356 is the constitutional mandate contained in Part
XVIII under head “Emergency Provisions” and marginal note
“Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States.” It is
clear from the positioning of this article that it is to be invoked in an
emergent situation, viz. the failure of constitutional machinery.
Provision of this article is divided into 5 clauses. Clause 1 is concerned
with condition for invocation of the article and its consequences. Other
clauses of the article deal with procedure for approval and extension of
duration of the invocation.61 Clause 1 of article 356 is as under : If the
President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or
otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the
government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation - (a)
assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Governor of the
State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the
Governor or anybody or authority in the State other than the Legislature
of the State and (b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the
State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament.62
Under sub cl. (c), the President can make incidental and
consequential provisions necessary for giving effect to the objects of
the proclamation
3.2. Article- 356 reads that—63
356. “Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in
States.—(1) If the President, on receipt of a report from the
Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has
arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President
may by Proclamation—
(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the
Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in
or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the
State other than the Legislature of the State;
(b) Declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be
exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;
(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to

the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for
suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions
of this Constitution relating to anybody or authority in the
State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorize the
President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or
exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part
the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to
High Courts.”64
It is the duty of the Union Government to ensure that governance of
a State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. Under Article 356, the President may issue a proclamation
to impose emergency in a state if he is satisfied on receipt of a report
from the Governor of the State, or otherwise, that a situation has arisen
under which the Government of the State cannot be carried on
smoothly. In such a situation, proclamation of emergency by the
President is called ‘proclamation on account of the failure (or
breakdown) of constitutional machinery.’ In popular language it is
called the President's Rule.
If the states do not comply with these directions issued by the
Centre to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic which has taken a toll
physically, monetarily, emotionally on humans, then the central
government is justified to invoke the President's Rule in the state as
non-compliance to such orders can lead to grave consequences.65
3.2.1. To impose president rule in any state, the situation in terms of
gravity and magnitude of the issues should be far more serious. It
should be evident that the state is unable to deal with the situation and
thus, the President has to step in to administer the state. The most
imperative factor that is to be kept in mind is that there must not be a
single factor that leads to such a grave situation of public disorder and
distress, but all the factors and circumstances should be studied
together to achieve a decision.66
3.3. Duty of the Union towards States
3.3.1. In view of objective of the Indian Union, a duty is imposed on
the Union under article 355 to protect States against external
aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government
of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. Article 356 empowers the Union government to take over
the executive and legislative powers of a State in a situation in which
the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution. Evidently, such a power is
concomitant to the constitutional duty of the Union under article 355 to
ensure the governance of the State in accordance with the provisions of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Constitution.67
3.3.2. At this stage, it is necessary to know the character of the
power exercised by the President under Article 356 of the Constitution.
It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Javantilal Amratlal v.
F.N. Rana and Sardari Lal v. Union of India68 , that the power, under
Article 356 is not a power of the Union Government but that it is a
power specifically vested in the President by the Constitution and in
regard to which the satisfaction is the personal satisfaction of the
President.
3.3.3. In Jayanti Lal Amrit Lal Shodhan's case69 , the Supreme Court
observed:
“The power to declare failure of the constitutional machinery in
States under Article 356 to enumerate a few out of the various
powers - are not powers of the Union Government : these are powers
vested in the President by the Constitution and are incapable of
being delegated or entrusted to any other body or authority under
Article 258 (1)”.
3.3.4. The primary question for the consideration is whether the
satisfaction of the President leading to his making a Proclamation under
Article 356 is justifiable. Sri Choudhary argued that the existence of a
situation in which the Government of the State could not be carried on
in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution was a
jurisdictional condition for the exercise of the President's power and the
Court was entitled to exercise its power of judicial review to discover
whether the power had been exercised bona fide and whether there
were any relevant circumstances at all justifying the expression of
satisfaction, though he would concede that the Court could not go into
the sufficiency of the reasons. He relied on the well-known principles of
Administrative Law expounded by the Supreme Court in Barium
Chemical Ltd v. Company Law Board and Rohtak Industries Ltd. v. S.T.
Agarwal,70 by the House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture,
[1968] 1 All ER 694 and by the Privy Council in Rossclunis v.
Papadopoullos, [1958] 2 All ER 23. He particularly relied on the
observations of Lord Morton in the last case where he said.
“There Lordships think that if it could be shown that there were no
grounds on which the appellant could be satisfied, a Court might
infer either that he did not honestly form that view or that, in
forming it, he could not have applied his mind to the relevant facts.
But it does not require any mental ability or legal ingenuity to
identify the issue of the President's satisfaction under Article 356 as a
basically political issue. I ask, as Justice Frankfurter asked in the case
of Coleman v. Miller,71 . “Is it for Courts to meddle with matters that
required no subtlety to the identified as political questions?” Even the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rights which the petitioner claims are infringed are not rights of a
person or property but political rights and rights of Government. And
what are the considerations which may lead the President to conclude
that the Government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution? In all these cases there may be
such a failure of the Government of the State as to amount to an
abdication of its Governmental power. Any other cause which may
paralyze the Government of a State may be a consideration. Article 355
casts a duty on the Union Government to protect every State against
internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State
is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. But,
in given situation, the President may come to the view that that is not
enough to save the situation but action under Article 356 is necessary.
There is nothing to prohibit the President from proceeding to act under
Article 356 in cases of internal disturbance.72
3.3.5. The counsel would like to further refer to some decisions of
Privy Council and the Supreme Court which support this view. In
Bhagat Singh v. The King Emperor.73 The question arose whether the
Court could go into the question whether a state of emergency existed
justifying the Proclamation of the Governor General of India under
Section 72 of the Government of India Act, 1919. The Privy Council
said. “That raises directly the question who is to be the Judge of
whether a state of emergency exists. A state of emergency is
something that does not permit of any exact definition : it connotes a
state of matters calling for drastic action. Which is so be judged as such
by someone. It is more than obvious that that someone must be the
Governor General and he alone. Any other view would render utterly
inept whole provision. Emergency demands immediate action and that
action is prescribed to be taken by the Governor-General in fact the
contention is so completely without foundation on the face of it that it
would be idle to allow an appeal to argue about it.
3.4. Article 356 talks about Provisions in case of failure of Constitutional
Machinery in State-
(1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the
State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which
the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with
the provisions of this Constitution, the President may be
Proclamation-74
Here also we can see that the constitutional machinery of the
state was on failure and without that it is not possible for any state
to continue accordance with the constitution so at the end central
government has to come in front to impose the president rule so that
state can be run if there is any authority over it.
And there is no any report by the governor even then it is up to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the discretion of the president to impose president rule and the

remedy is it is under judicial review but it was for the integrity of the
state and also to preserve the basic principles of our constitution i.e.
“India that is Bharat shall be union of states.”75
ISSUE 4:
WHETHER THE STATE OF KALOSHIA CAN BE GIVEN THE RIGHT
TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION OF INDIANA?
that the state of Kaloshia can be given the right to secede from the
union of Indiana. The issue of secession of the state of Kaloshia is a
matter of relevance and grave importance to be decided by the Hon'ble
court. It is well established that the state of Kaloshia is a part of union
but has right to self-determination and can secede from the union of
Indiana as the 106th constitutional amendment itself states that every
state in Indiana shall have right to secede from the union and inserted
Article-3A.
The right to self-determination amounting in secession can easily be
considered one of the most controversial principles of international law.
It has been the subject of much debate throughout the 20th and 21st
centuries and has governed a large amount of the changing state
relations within this period, particularly during decolonization. There are
currently only seventeen non-governing territories globally which are
left to assert their right to self-determination and become decolonized,
yet the right is still a highly relevant and frequently discussed element
of international law.
4.1. Kaloshia fulfills all the criteria under the traditional test set to
claim self-determination
Even without the United Nations recognition of the Kashmiri's the
Kashmir claim right to self-determination, under the traditional test set
out as:
i. a definable territory with a history of independence or self-
governance;
ii. a distinct culture and
iii. The will and capability to restore self-governance.
The people of Kaloshia also do full fills all the tests—
i. A definable territory with a history of independence or self
governance : -
State of Kaloshia was initially an independent territory. It had a
long history of self-governance. Infact the state did not intend to
be part of the territory of either of the countries. It was capable of
having its own government. The king of Kaloshia was pressurized
to sign the Instrument of Accession the army of Indiana was sent
to the state to threaten the ruler.76 Hence, pass the essential of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
having a definable territory with a history of independence or self-

governance.
ii. A distinct culture : -
Kaloshia is an exception state in the country of Indiana. The
majority population practices the Drakism religion here. It had a
distinct culture and religion of Drakism.77
iii. The will and capability to restore self-governance : -
Kaloshia has the highest literacy rate within Indiana and
contributes around 10% of the country's total GDP (Gross
Domestic Product). It has the highest per capita income within
Indiana and is a complete state. The state of Kaloshia is popularly
known as Rhine Valley of Indiana due to the abundance of natural
resources in the state. 78 The state has its state political party and
ISP(Indiana Samaj Party).
Hence, through these facts it is argued that the state of Kaloshia had
a will and was capable to retore self-governance.
Hence, since Kaloshia fulfills all the essentials of the above test, it
has right to secede.
4.2. India ratified right to ICCPR, which gives to right of self-
determination.
Article-1(1) of ICCPR which says that : (1) all peoples have the right
of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their
development.
4.2.1. Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide
their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core
principle of international law, arising from customary international law,
but also recognized as a general principle of law and enshrined in
several international treaties. For instance, self-determination is
protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples”.
Article I of the Charter of the United Nations explains the principle of
self-determination. 79 The principle was first incorporated under the
1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which
subsequently evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in
the United Nations Charter marks the universal recognition of the
principle of self-determination as fundamental to the maintenance of
friendly relations and peace among the states. It is a right which is
recognized in the first article common to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976.
Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that every person has the right to
self-determination. By virtue of the said right, people can freely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
determine their own political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development.
4.2.2. Criteria for the right to self-determination
It can be said that an individual has realized his right to self-
determination when he either:
(1) establishes a sovereign and independent state;
(2) Freely associates with another state; or
(3) Have freely integrated with another state after expressing their
will to do so. The definition of realization of self-determination was
confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations.
4.3. Impact of Self-Determination Claims on Other Human Rights
Whenever self-determination is involved, confusion between political
goals and basic human rights norms, humanitarian issues evolve. There
is also a potential impact of self-determination that it claims to
encourage violent conflict. Although it is a truism, it also needs to be
reiterated that more human rights are violated during the time of wars
than at any other time. If the policymakers do not come to a better
understanding of how to respond to the claims for self-determination,
then such claims are likely to increase. It is also possible that the
number of violent conflicts increases and if the conflicts will increase
then it will have a direct impact on the entire gamut of international
human rights. At the same time, if human rights alone are
concentrated upon then it is possible that all the human rights that we
want to protect can be protected and violence can be curbed. By doing
so it is not possible that the disputes over self-determination will
disappear, but they can be resolved by the countries.80
4.3.1. However, the lack of definition and detail as to what self-
determination entails provided in the Charter left little ability for the
right to be applied, particularly in relation to secession. But, the 1966
International Covenants transformed that, by providing a substantive
definition about what is encompassed in the right to self-
determination; ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By
virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. This therefore
incorporated self-determination as a human right, however this
incorporation was not intended to provide a right to individuals, but
rather to peoples. The main purpose of granting this right was to
provide a meaningful vehicle for decolonization. Between 1945 and
1970 fifty-five states had become independent through the application
of self-determination, displaying the value of the principle in this
context. This intended use was also clearly displayed in the Namibia
case, in which the ICJ held that the right to self-determination had
become applicable to non-self-governing territories, making South
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa's presence in Namibia illegal under international law.

Decolonization had therefore been the prime purpose of the
advancement of a right to self-determination amounting to secession.
Yet, as countries increasingly utilized the principle and became post-
colonial states, the international community became increasingly wary
of the ramifications of self-determination amounting to secession being
considered a right in a post-colonial world.81
4.4. In verdict of the Canadian Supreme Court in the Quebec case
brought a valuable new legal definition to the principle of self-
determination, as the Court legally distinguished between ‘internal’ and
‘external’ self-determination and the different rights each term entails.
Although the case was not heard in the ICJ and the Court
acknowledged, ‘it remains unclear whether this actually reflects an
established international law standard’, this case implied that the
principle of self-determination can still encompass a right to
secession.82
4.4.1. The lack of specificity in this statement has led scholars to
interpret it to apply not only in colonial situations, but also in those of
other extreme denials of internal self-determination. This has only been
furthered by other ambiguous pieces of international legislation, such
as the Helsinki Final Act, which states, ‘all people always have the
right, in full freedom, when and as they wish, to determine their
internal and external political statuses, but that this should be
exercised with regard to the territorial integrity of states. Scholars have
therefore argued that where a state fails to provide, ‘government
representing the whole people belonging to a territory without
distinction as to race, creed or color’, as required under international
law, it cannot invoke the principle of territorial integrity to limit peoples'
right to self-determination. This therefore suggests, that where a
territorial group within a state is denied meaningful access to self-
determination, it can assert a right to self-determination externally,
through secession from that state.83
4.5. If one creates a genuinely democratic rights-respecting regime,
it is less likely that people will want to leave it. If, however, they do
leave it, it is also more likely that any separation will occur peacefully.
This approach suggests that even when self-determination is
purportedly the issue, it is better to try to address denials of human
rights before trying to address the denial of so-called self-
determination.
4.6. This has been enhanced by recent legal judgements, particularly
in the 1990s, as courts paid increasing attention to the developing
concept in their judgements, most notably in the Quebec case.
Significantly, the Court held that, ‘when a people are blocked from the
meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession’. This was also

upheld in Judge Yusuf's dissenting opinion in the Kosovo case, in which
he considered that, ‘under such exceptional circumstances, the right of
peoples to self-determination may support a claim to separate
statehood’.84 Accordingly, there can be considered to be strong
international legal opinion believing that the right to secession based
upon the right to self-determination is applicable beyond cases of
colonial rule, in circumstances considered to amount to being
‘exceptional’.
4.7. Instruments protecting the right to self-determination.85
4.7.1. The right to self-determination of the people is also recognized
under other international and regional instruments. The Declaration of
Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation among States adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1970, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe in the year 1975, the African
Charter of Human and Peoples Rights of 1981, the CSCE Charter of
Paris for a New Europe adopted in the year 1990 and the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993 also includes the concept
of the right to self-determination. Furthermore, the scope and content
of the right to self-determination have been elaborately explained by
the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
4.8. The right to self-determination which has been included in the
International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action emphasizes that the right to self-
determination is an integral part of human rights law and it has a
universal application. At the same time, the right of self-determination
can be said to be a fundamental right which is necessary for the
enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms which
include their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
4.9. One at power and political roles pursue their individual goals
vigorously with deadly force where citizens of Kaloshia get pummeled
among the political parties who have no concerns about people of
Kaloshia and what they think or what they want? But this is not the
question to be asked; the main question arises is- whether people of
Kaloshia want to be a part of Indiana or not? Which also includes the
portion held by Belina is an integral part of Indiana hereby the will of
people of Kaloshia as implicit in Right of Self- determination was not
seen into effect which is of grave concern.86
Crapping down Kalsohia's status is also scrapping down Kaloshia
Leaders out of equation and the real fear in Kaloshia is that this step
will cause a demographic change and Kaloshia's will be outnumbered
by outsiders.
4.10. In this conflict between two nations conquering over Land of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paradise has robbed millions of basic Human Rights of people of

Kaloshia and continues to this day to inflict untold sufferings of people
here. Government at power in a surreal move took consent from itself
by consulting its own appointee the Governor; such acts are clear
violation of Right of Self Determination which is to be practiced by each
individual of a state.
4.10.1. Wherever in Kaloshia their people form an opinion it is
murdered by bullets or ballots, bullets as a gift to them when they
protest being co-opted into the big country which is not their
homeland and ballots if they agree to being co-opted into the big
country which is again not their homeland. Now the question arises
how can a Kaloshia reside under this perpetual erasure of his or her
identity? And the answer to this comes as the same way that every
colonized people have survived through ages and beyond : by
interpretation and by insurrection.87
4.11. The Roar of “AZAADI” Precisely the real answer here should
always be under the words of an ultimate Right of Self Determination
which goes in vain. What Kaloshia wants has never been a topic of
discussion as their demand is ‘Azaadi’ Freedom to be them, to choose
their national destiny. They claim that they are not part of any other
nationality they have their own language, culture that demands
separate recognition instead of recognizing this gut-wrenching,
existential cry from Kaloshia and their individuals they receive more
guns, more troops, more rolls of barbed wire, more bribes and more
bullets but when this too fails and Kaloshia's demand their rights of self
-determination they receive battery of words like- development,
employment, laws, security and curfew.88
4.12. Kashmir on daily records is witnessing an attribution of its own
modesty, culture, literature, architecture; psychology. Abrogation is
just a revision of the policy of the king under modern era to annex more
states which is an appropriate example of excess use of power by the
government at majority. What was once suffered by India is now being
suffered by Kashmir the only difference here is once the sufferer is now
making the other suffer, where history should repeat itself in a positive
way 89
4.12.1. We witness the whole negative aspects of ancient times.
India has betrayed Kashmir as the journey which started as a promise
to protect Kashmir, but ended as the devourer of their dignity. India's
decision to revoke Article 370 is just another chapter in Kashmir's long
history of imperial oppression moreover - Abrogation of Article 370 is a
Constitutional sin as citizen has absolute right to freely determine their
development but due to this vicious step ‘Self Determination has been
brutally murdered.’ Same scenario was in the Kashmir where the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
people also want self determination and an independent state.

4.13. The UN, Self-Determination and Jammu & Kashmir Today
As the case of Kashmir demonstrates, the UN's deference to state
sovereignty over the principle of self-determination was demonstrated
early in its history. Whilst there was the possibility for the UN to have
strengthened the principle of self-determination during its earlier years,
that moment has well and truly passed. By the 1970s, the debates
within the UN General Assembly and Security Council established the
principle that only colonized peoples had an explicit right to self-
determination. This position has led supporters of India's position,
especially to point out that Kashmir is not a colony and therefore the
arguments for Kashmiri self-determination do not apply (Hingorani
2016, 166-171; Saini 2001, 72-73).
4.13.1. Although the UN Security Council has largely accepted this
logic and disengaged from the Kashmir conflict, it does continue to
maintain a formal interest in the form of the UN Military Observer Group
in India and Pakistan, which continues to monitor activities on both
sides of the Line of Control.90
4.14. These exchanges are characteristic of the UN's conduct towards
issues of self-determination more generally; the UN's inherent
preference over upholding state sovereign rights ensures that it
remains reluctant to act or even pressure an existing sovereign state
over issues of self-determination. Generally speaking, this stance by
the UN has helped maintain international peace by establishing the
state's post-colonial borders as a clear and workable template for
resolving interstate disputes. However, the UN's commitment to non-
interference and the principle of uti possidetis also means that the UN
remains far from being a friend of self-determination as such.
Hence, all are arguments have the relevant advancement and proved
that the state of kaloshia has a right to secede as a right to self-
determination and also under the amendment.
4.17. Furthermore, it is argued that in the case of Vexas secession
Supreme Court of Czar also held that Vexas is a part of federal state of
USC and can secede from the union as an independent state.
4.17.1. The Supreme Court of Czar observed that the Union of States
never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the
colonies and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindre
principles, similar interests and geographical relations. It was
confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war and received
definite form, character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.
The court finally held that the State of Vexas will continue to be a
federal state of USC and can secede from it.91
4.17.2. Out of many different human rights provided under the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
above conventions, Article 1 of the ICCPR states that ‘All peoples have
the right of self-determination. Under that right, they freely determine
their political status and pursue economic, social and cultural
development.’ Instead of this, many Countries, such as United Soviet
Socialist Republic had provided for the right to secede from the Union
without any Condition.92
According from the argument advance it is clear that any state can
secede from the union as history also states the same and it is also
stated that any amendment in the constitution can give effect to the
amendment. So accordingly, every state has right to self-determination
and it is an international declaration that is important to give effect to.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, may this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
• Declare that the Wearing of Hijab is not a fundamental right
under Article 19 (1)(A) and Article 25 of the constitution of
Indiana and it is not an essential religion practice under
Islam. Also pleased to upheld the judgement passed by the
high court of Kaloshia.
• Declare that 106th constitutional amendment act, 2022 of
the government of Indiana will be not void as it does not
violate the basic principles of the Constitution of Indiana
• Declare that the imposition of presidents rule in the state
was a valid imposition on the state and hence not be void.
• Declare that the state of Kaloshia can secede form the union
of Kaloshia
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
———
1
Gulam Abbas v. state of uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198; also, Supra,
footnote 18 : also, infra.
2
HH Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. state of Tamil nadu, (1972) 2 SCC
11 : AIR 1972 SC 1586, at 1593.
3 (2004) 12 SCC 770 (Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta-II)
4 Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, Para 91
5
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282
6
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 RAJALAKSHMI, T.K. “Understanding the Supreme Court Split Verdict on Hijab Ban.”
KARNATAKA HIJAB BAN, Oct. 2020, frontline.thehindu.com/news/understanding-the-split-
verdict-on-hijab-ban/article66014782.ece.
8
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
9 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of

10 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of

11
(1964) 1 SCR 332
12 Powers of Government to give directions-(1) The State Government may, subject to the
other provisions of this Act, by order, direct the Commissioner of Public Instruction or the
Director or any other officer not below the rank of the District Educational Officer to make an
enquiry or to take appropriate proceedings under this Act in respect of any matter specified
in the said order and the Director or the other officer, as the case may be, shall report to the
State Government in due course the result of the enquiry made or the proceedings taken by
him.
(2) The State Government may give such directions to any educational institution or
tutorial institution as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the
purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein or of any
rules or orders made thereunder and the Governing Council or the owner, as the case may
be, of such institution shall comply with every such direction.
(3) The State Government may also give such directions to the officers or authorities
under its control as in its opinion
13 ‘11. Provision of Uniform, Clothing, Text Books etc., (1) Every recognised education
institution may specify its own set of Uniform. Such uniform once specified shall not be
changed within the period of next five years.
14
Mustafa Plumber Holy Quran Does Not Mandate Wearing Of Hijab; Islam Does Not Cease To
Exist If Hijab Is Not Followed : Karnataka High Court Available on https://www.livelaw.in/top-
stories/holy-quran-does-not- mandate-wearing-of-hijab-islam-does-not-cease-to-exist-if-
hijab-is-not-followed-karnataka-high-court- 194223 Last seen 24/2023 2 : 30 AM
15
Quran does not mandate women to wear hijab : A-G, The Hindu, Available at
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/quran-does-not-mandate-women-to-
wear-hijab-a-g/article65074307.ece Last seen 16/2023 14 : 20 P.M
16 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2002
17 Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka, (2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394 : AIR
2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
Fatima Hussain Syed v. Bharat Education Society, AIR 2003 Bom 75
19 Prescribing uniform in schools does not violate fundamental rights, students cannot object
to it : HC The Hindu, Available at
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/prescribing-uniform-in-schools-does-not
-violate- fundamental-rights-students-cannot-object-to-it-hc/article65228215.ece Last seen
26/23 09 : 17 pm IST
20 M.P Jain, Indian Constutional Law, 1297 (8th ed., 2018)
21
AIR 1963 SC 1638
22 Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji v. The State of Rajasthan and Others on 21 January, AIR 1963 SC
1638, (1964) 1 SCR 561
23 Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji v. The State of Rajasthan and Others on 21 January, AIR 1963 SC
1638, (1964) 1 SCR 561
24
(1999) 7 SCC 580
25 S.A. Rishikesh, The IR Coelho case analysis, ipleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/ir-coelho-

case-analysis/ Last seen 25/01/2023
26 AIR 1967 SC 1910
27 Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, (1968) 1 SCR 111.
28
The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation And Prescription Of
Curricula ETC.,) RULES, 1995, Rule 11
29 THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983
30 (2016) 7 SCC 353
31 Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353.
32 Aishat Shifa v. The State Of Karnataka, (2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394 : AIR
2022, Para 82.
33 Aishat Shifa v. The State Of Karnataka, (2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394 : AIR
2022.
34
Aishat Shifa v. The State Of Karnataka, (2023) 2 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394 : AIR
2022.
35
Art. 51, the Constitution of India.
36 M.P Jain, Indian Constutional Law, 314 (8th ed., 2018)
37 Art. 253, the Constitution of India.
38 Art. 51(c), the Constitution of India.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
40 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, available at
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf, last seen on
29/01/2023
41 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, available at
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf, last seen on
29/01/2023
42 Castellino, pp. 34-35.
43 Predrag Zenović, “Human Rights Enforcement via Peremptory Norms - A Challenge to Sate
Sovereignty”, Riga Graduate School of Law Research Papers, No. 6, 2012, p. 33. See also
Karen Parker, “Jus Cogens : Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International and
Comparative Law Review, Vol. 12, 1989, p. 440.
44 Ibid., para 73. See Jerzy Sztucki, Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties : A Critical Appraisal, Springer-Verlag, 1974, p. 119
45 United Nations,United Nations Human Rights Office of High Commission, International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant- civil-and-political-rights, last seen on
29/01/2023
46 India Today web desk, Seventh Schedule : State, Union and Concurrent lists explained,
available at https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-&-current-affairs/story/seventh-
schedule-state-union-and-concurrent-lists-explained-1872091-2021-11-01, last seen on
29/01/2023
47
Art. 246, the Constitution of India
48 Art. 249(1), the Constitution of India
49 https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%
20Humanities%20and%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2016-7-1-9
50
51 https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%
20Humanities%20and%20Social %20Sciences;PID=2016-7-1-9
52 Art. 252, the Constitution of India
53
54 Poonam Sonwani. Distribution of Legislative Powers under the Indian Constitution. Research
J. Humanities and Social Sciences 2016; 7(1), available at
https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%
20and%20Social% 20Sciences;PID=2016-7-1-9, last seen on 29/01/2023
55 Art. 356, the Constitution of India

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 Poonam Sonwani. Distribution of Legislative Powers under the Indian Constitution. Research
J. Humanities and Social Sciences 2016; 7(1), available at
https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%
20and%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2016-7-1-9, last seen on 29/01/2023
57 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The History of Utilitarianism, available at

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/, last seen on 29/01/2023
58 Moot proposition, Annexure - 1, pp 13
59
Deepshikha Gautam, Times Of India, The nature of Indian Constitution, Available at
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/the-girl-who-writes/the-nature-of-indian-
constitution-9537/ Last seen 26/01/2023.
60 Ruchika, State emergency : Article 356 Indian Constitution, Legal Service India Available at
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1175-state-emergency-article-356-indian-
constitution.html Last seen 1/02/2023
61 Deepshikha Gautam, Times Of India, The nature of Indian Constitution, Available at

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/the-girl-who-writes/the-nature-of-indian-
constitution-9537/ Last seen 26/01/2023.
62 NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION A Consultation

Paper* on ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION Available at
https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Article%20356%20of%20the%20Constitution.pdf
Last seen 2/02/23.
63 M.P Jain page 753 (8th ed.) 2022.
64
NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION A Consultation
Last seen 2/02/23.
65 Devadatt Kamat, An Unconstitutional Demand For President's Rule in the Name Of Covid
19, Available at https://www.livelaw.in/columns/an-unconstitutional-demand-for-presidents-
rule-in-the-name-of-covid-19-159175 Last seen 17/01/2023.
66
NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION A Consultation
Last seen 2/02/23.
67 Article 355 of Indian Constitution -Duty of the Union to protect States against external
aggression and internal disturbance, indianconstiution.guru, Available at
https://indianconstitution.guru/ Last seen 24/01/2023.
68 Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana,AIR 1964 SC 648, (1964) 5 SCR 294
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69 Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648, (1964) 5 SCR 294
70 The Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. The Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295, 1966 Supp SCR
311
71 Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433 (1939), 59 S.Ct. 972 (1939).
72 The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr v. The Company Law Board And Others, AIR 1967 SC
295, 1966 Supp SCR 311
73
Bhagat Singh v. Emperor, (1930-31) 58 IA 169, (1931) 33 Bom LR 950
74 M.P Jain, page 743, (8th ed), 2022.
75 V.N Shukla, The Constitution of India, (12th ed.) 2022
76
Moot Proposition, para 24, pg 7
77
Moot Proposition, para 29, pg 8
78 Moot Proposition, para 29, pg 8
79
Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995 4 at
102, para 29
80 ISHITA CHAKRABARTY, SELF-DETERMINATION : WHAT LESSONS FROM KASHMIR? Vol. 31

available at file :///C : /Users/hp/Downloads/benkeele,+vol31p35%20(2).pdf
81 Hurst Hannum Legal Aspects of Self-Determinationm, Princeton University, available at

https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511
82
See, for example, Summers, Peoples and International Law : How the Right of Self-
Determination and Nationalism Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations (Leiden : Brill, 2007) at
3724, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the question of whether ‘Article 1 [ICCPR] has
developed into a distinct peoples' right to democratic government.’
83 See Sheeran, ‘International Law, Peace Agreements and Self-Determination : The Case of
the Sudan' (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 423 at 458. For a critical
account of how the indeterminacy of external self-determination has been dealt with by
scholars of international law and international judicial bodies, arguing that indeterminacy has
emancipatory potential, see Knop, Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law
(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002).
84 Summers, Supra n 5 at 292.
85
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res 2625,
24 October 1970.
86 Matthew Saul, the Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law : A

Formula for Uncertainty in the Scope and Content of the Right? available at
https://corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27634.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87 Self-Determination in Regional Human Rights Law : From Kosovo to Cameroon', (2011) 105
American Journal of International Law 60 at 61 and ‘Kosovo Symposium’ (2011) 24 Leiden
Journal of International Law
88
Mia Abel, Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?, E- International Relations,
available at https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/18/is-there-a-right-to-secession-in-international-
law/
89 Article 370, The Constitution of India, 1949.
90 7 Noelle Higgins, “The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors : Promoting the Application of
the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements,” HR Brief 17, no. 1
(2009) : 2.
91
Moot Problem, Para-15. P.g. 4
92 Moot Problem, Para-20. P.g. 5
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.

Winner Team Memorial Respondents LCDNMCC National Moot 07 Muzzamil212393 Hnluacin 20230829 220809 1 39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winner Team Memorial Respondents LCDNMCC National Moot 07 Muzzamil212393 Hnluacin 20230829 220809 1 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, August 29, 2023

7th LCDNMCC National Moot Court, 2023

Law College Dehradun

fundamental right under Article -19 (1)(A)

4. Madras v. Shri L.T Swamiar of Shirur

3. Jagadish Swarup, Constitution of India, 2nd

“136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme

fundamental rights, right to religion (only to citizens), etc. The

(1)(a) and it is a part of their right to practice any religion freely

Court of Indiana stating that the Act of the Central Government

a fundamental right under Article- 25 of the Constitution of Indiana.

It's humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court Indiana

used in the judgements of Sabarimala and Triple Talaq

be an essential part of a religion is to be primarily decided by the

which a law can be made. A careful reading of Article 25(2)(a) indicates

restriction constitutionally permissible which the students

if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by, 2/3 of the

constitutional amendment act, 2022 states that the amendment of

to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to

the discretion of the president to impose president rule and the

having a definable territory with a history of independence or self-

Africa's presence in Namibia illegal under international law.

entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession’. This was also

Paradise has robbed millions of basic Human Rights of people of

people also want self determination and an independent state.

3 (2004) 12 SCC 770 (Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta-II)

4 Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, Para 91

Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282

9 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of

10 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar of

16 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2002

20 M.P Jain, Indian Constutional Law, 1297 (8th ed., 2018)

25 S.A. Rishikesh, The IR Coelho case analysis, ipleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/ir-coelho-

26 AIR 1967 SC 1910

29 THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983

30 (2016) 7 SCC 353

36 M.P Jain, Indian Constutional Law, 314 (8th ed., 2018)

37 Art. 253, the Constitution of India.

38 Art. 51(c), the Constitution of India.

39 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

42 Castellino, pp. 34-35.

45 United Nations,United Nations Human Rights Office of High Commission, International

48 Art. 249(1), the Constitution of India

52 Art. 252, the Constitution of India

55 Art. 356, the Constitution of India

57 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The History of Utilitarianism, available at

58 Moot proposition, Annexure - 1, pp 13

61 Deepshikha Gautam, Times Of India, The nature of Indian Constitution, Available at

62 NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION A Consultation

63 M.P Jain page 753 (8th ed.) 2022.

71 Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433 (1939), 59 S.Ct. 972 (1939).

74 M.P Jain, page 743, (8th ed), 2022.

75 V.N Shukla, The Constitution of India, (12th ed.) 2022

78 Moot Proposition, para 29, pg 8

80 ISHITA CHAKRABARTY, SELF-DETERMINATION : WHAT LESSONS FROM KASHMIR? Vol. 31

81 Hurst Hannum Legal Aspects of Self-Determinationm, Princeton University, available at

84 Summers, Supra n 5 at 292.

86 Matthew Saul, the Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law : A

89 Article 370, The Constitution of India, 1949.

92 Moot Problem, Para-20. P.g. 5

You might also like