TC-

B. M. SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL
th
5 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SELANDIA

DR.HARLEM KANANGA
(PETITIONER)
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF SELANDIA
(RESPONDENT)

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE. 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF SELANDIA

___________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SELANDIA

i|P age
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No CONTENT PG.NO

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES vi-x

3 STATEMENT OF FACTS xi

4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION xii

5 ISSUES ROUND xiii

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS xiv-xv

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS
1-5
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF SELANDIA?..................................................................
a. no violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed 1-2
under part III of the Constitution ……………………..
b. there is a requirement for the Petitioner to exhaust 2-3
local remedies ………………………………………...
c. the proclamation passed by the President cannot be
3-4
subjected to judicial review…………………………..
d. This Hon'ble Court does not have a constitutional duty 4-5
to entertain the instant petition

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | ii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

ISSUE 2
i.WHETHER THE RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 05, 2020
PASSED IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SAN
MONIQUE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE
LAW?................................................................................................... 5-9
A. Freedom of Speech of the members of the State assembly is
limited by State assembly rules and by Constitution……… 5-7

B. Resolution is in the nature of Quasi legal legislation which

Conflicts with the functioning of State Government……….
7-8

C. Assent of the Speaker will not make the resolution good in

8-9
law……………………………………………………………

ii. WHETHER PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE

ASSEMBLY OF SAN MONIQUE AMOUNTS TO
BREAKDOWN OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND
CONSTITUTES A BREAKDOWN OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 356 OF
10-17
THE CONSTITUTION?....................................................................

a) The Minister is a constitutional functionary of the State……..

10-11
b) The Nature of Amendment does not violate the Basic
Structure of the Constitution………………………………… 11-12

c) The resolution has disturbed the nature of federalism and

constitutional machinery in the State……………………….. 13-17

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | iii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF SELANDIA FOR DISSOLUTION OF
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SAN MONIQUE IS
PROPER IN LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW?....................................... 18-24

A. The proclamation of emergency issued by the president is 18-20

reviewable only on limited grounds………………………..
B. President can proclaim emergency when constitutional
20-22
machinery has failed ………………………………………..

C. The president and governor acted according to the provisions 20-24

of constitution…………………………………….

8 Prayer 25

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | iv

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Anr. Another

Art. Article

ASBUD All Selandia Bantu United Dal

A.I.R. All India Reporter

CAA Citizenship Amendment Act

CAB Citizenship Amendment Bill

Ed. Edition

Hon‟ble Honourable

NRSC National Register of Selandian Constitution

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

ROS Republic of Selandia

UPP Ubuntu People Party

US United States

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | v

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Name of the Case Appear on

Pages
A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 27 1
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 710 18
Arun Kumar v.sUnion of India (2007) 1 SCC 732 3

Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery, AIR 1979 SC 1889 2

A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906 2

Badrinath V. Govt of Tamilnadu (2000) 8 SCC 395 21

Bhajaman Bobera vs Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, AIR 1990 Ori 18 8

Consumer Action Group V. State of TN, (2000) 7 SCC 425 23

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 3 WLR 18
1174
Election Commission of india V. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, 1996 SCC (4) 1
104
Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union, of India ,(2003) 4 SCC 22
289

Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 13
1998
General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 11
205

Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851 1

Indra V. Rajnarayan, 1975 AIR S.C 2299 20

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | vi

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of W.B., (AIR 1968 Cal 407) 19

Jayanti Lal Amrat Lal v. F.N.Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648 19

John Vallamattom vs Union Of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 12

K.A. Mathialagam vs. P. Srinivasam, AIR 1973 Mad 371,376 9

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 2

Karnataka V. UOI ,AIR 1977 SC 1382 13

Kehar Singh V. Union of India, 1989 AIR 653 19,22

Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 18,12

Khaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim vs. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 Lahore 78 16
Kihota vs. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412 8

K.K.Aboo v. Union of India, AIR (1965) Ker.229 3

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. 2

M.A. Rashid v. State of Kerala, 1974 AIR 2249 22

Minerva Mills and Others v. Union of India ,AIR 1980 SC 1789 18

MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. 4

M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395 5

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | vii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960; 4

North Wales Police v. Evans, [1982] UKHL 10 18

Om Parkash Chautala vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 P&H 80 at 83 9

Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India, 1984 AIR 1420 13

Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCR 225. 19

Rao Birender Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1968) P. and H.441 4

8
Ravi S. Naik vs Union of India, 1994 SCR (1) 754

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 19,21

Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 14

Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322 1

Somawanti V. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR 151 23

S.R.Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, (1914) 3 SCC 1 3,14,18,20,22

Sri Surendra Mohanty vs Sri Nabakrishna Choudhury, AIR 1958 Ori 168 6

State of Karnataka V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68 23

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 SC 1361 18

State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 11

State Of W.B. V. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92,95 8

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | viii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Sunderlal Parwa v. Union of India,1993 Jab LJ 387 (FB) 23

Tej Kiran Jain vs. N. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR 1970 SC 1573 5

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments V. Madras Sri 21

Lakshmindra

Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri Shirur Mutt,AIR 1954 SC 282 21

Union of India vs M.V. Valliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259, 269 11

V. C. Shukla vs. State, AIR 1977 SC 1382 13

Veerabadran Chettiar v. E. V. Ramaswami Naicker, 1958 AIR 1032 20

Zoroastrian Corporation Housing Society Ltd. vs District Registrar, Coop 11

Societies, (2005) 5 SCC 632

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | ix

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Dr. Das, Durga , “Constitutional Law of India”, 8th Edn. 2008.

2. M.P Jain ,”Indian Constitutional Law”, 7th edition , 2014
3. D.D.Basu Commentry on Constitution of India, Justice S.S.Subramani, Vol 2, Lexis
Nexis. 9th Edition, 2014.
STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. West Law
4. Hein Online

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | x

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. The Republic of Selandia is a democratic Country. The Constitution of Selandia is in

Pari material to the Indian Constitution. It is a secular nation bordered around certain
theocratic States. It has its own Citizenship Act and rules. The majority of citizens in
Selandia follow Ubuntu, Bantu and other religions.
II. Currently the Ubuntu People Party forms the majority in the lower house of the
Parliament and forms the Central Government of India. During its election Campaign
UPP promised to amend Citizenship Act to allow certain persecuted minorities to get
Citizenship in Selandia. Subsequently in 2019 the Government presented a Bill,
Citizenship(Amendment) Bill, 2019' (“Bill”) which amended the Act to allow
minority communities Ubuntus, Sikhs,Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from
Ghanistan, East Mordor and Mordor to get Citizenship in Selandia easily.
III. The Bill was heavily opposed by the opposition (SNC and ASBUD), the bill was
criticized on the reason that it violated the secular feature of the Constitution by
discriminating Bantu population. Despite the dissent the bill received assent in the
Rajya Sabha. The SNC and ASBUD staged protest against the Citizenship
amendment Act. A writ petition was filed by the opposition party challenging the
Wires of the Act.
IV. Meanwhile the Central Government issued Gazette notification for the preparation of
population register. San Monique was ruled by the ASBUD party, the Chief Minister
Dr. Harlem kanaga vocally criticized the amendment Act. Subsequently a resolution
was passed in the State assembly of San Monique, Claiming the Citizenship
Amendment Act as Anti-Bantu and recorded that the State would not Cooperate with
the Union for implementation of the Act.
V. On receipt of this information the Governor of San-Monique prepared a report stating
that the passing of resolution by San Monique amounted to Constitutional breakdown
in the State and sent it to the President. The president on receiving the report
proclaimed emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution and dissolved the State
legislative assembly. The proclamation has got approval from the lower house of the
Parliament and yet to get approval from the upper house. Dr. Harlem Kanaga has
resisted the proclamation and filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Selandia,

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | xi

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A WRIT PETITION has been filed by the Petitioner in his individual Capacity. The
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Selandia has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution which reads as follows:

Art“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.”

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | xii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

ISSUES RAISED

DR. HARLEM KANANGA V. THE REPUBLIC OF SELANDIA

-ON MAINTAINABILITY–
-1-
WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SELANDIA?

-ON MERITS-
-2-
i.WHETHER THE RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 05, 2020 PASSED IN THE
ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SAN MONIQUE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE LAW?

ii. WHETHER PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE ASSEMBLY OF SAN

MONIQUE AMOUNTS TO BREAKDOWN OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND
CONSTITUTES A BREAKDOWN OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

-3-
WHETHER THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SELANDIA FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SAN MONIQUE IS
PROPER IN LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW?

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | xiii

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.) WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
SELANDIA?

The Respondent humbly submits that the jurisdiction under Article 32 cannot be
invoked by the Petitioner in this present case as there is no arbitrary exercise and
violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution;
there is a requirement for the Petitioner to exhaust local remedies and; the
proclamation passed by the President cannot be subject to judicial review since it
is passed without any mala-fide intention.

2.) I.Whether the resolution dated January 05, 2020 passed in the assembly of
the state of San Monique is in accordance with the applicable law?
No, the resolution passed on January 05, 2020 in house of session is against the
legal proceedings on applicable law, and the resolution which was approved by
speaker for session is not within in proprio vigore of speaker as the nature is
being aggressive for internal peace and national harmony, and the amendment is
in nature of public interest being in nature of relaxing condition for granting
citizenship to perceptive minorities and the resolution is considered as break
down due to political ethos and being in nature against Rule- 284.

II.Whether passing of the resolution by the assembly of San Monique

amounts to break down of cooperative federalism and constitutes a
breakdown of constitutional machinery for the purpose of Article 356 of the
Constitution of Selandia?
Yes, the resolution by the assembly of San Monique amounts to break down of
cooperative federalism and constitutional machinery for the purpose of Article
356 of the Constitution of Selandia. As state being violative of Article- 355, State
ministers violating Third Schedule which results in central government to enforce
action via Article- 356.

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | xiv

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

3.) WHETHER THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE

REPUBLIC OF SELANDIA FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF SAN MONIQUE IS PROPER IN LAW AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW?

YES the proclamation issued by the President is in accordance with the applicable
provisions of law. Because the State Legislative assembly is under an obligation to perform
under the directions of the State Government. However the State of San Monique has openly
passed an resolution revolting against the Centre. Further through the resolution the State
has tried to invoke internal disturbance. Hence forth this resulted in the failure of
Constitutional machinery of the State. As per the Constitutional norms the Governor of the
State has to act in this circumstance. Therefore the report of the governor and the satisfaction
of the president are valid. Hence the Proclamation issued by the President is in accordance
with law.

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | xv

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

1) WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
SELANDIA?

It is submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable as there is[A] no violation of
fundamental rights as guaranteed under part III of the Constitution [B] there is a
requirement for the Petitioner to exhaust local remedies [C].the proclamation passed by the
President cannot be subjected to judicial review D. This Hon'ble Court does not have a
constitutional duty to entertain the instant petition
A. There has been no violation of fundamental rights -Absence of arbitrary
exercise of power and violation of Article 14
1. It is submitted that Article 32 can be invoked only when there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right. The violation of a Fundamental Right is the sine qua non for
seeking enforcement of that right by the Supreme Court.1
2. The Apex Court in A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras 2, observed that, “in order to
attract the application of article 32, the person applying must satisfy that he has got a
right under Part III of the Constitution which has to be enforced under article 32.”
3. The respondent submits that the President and the Governor has not acted arbitrarily
at any point of time. The decision has been taken in consonance with the powers of
the President at extreme instances to preserve the constitutional machinery of
Selandia.
4. The policy decision of the government is based on, rule of necessity3 and reason and
is therefore not arbitrary and thus does not violate the provisions under Art. 14 of the
Constitution of India.
5. ‘Arbitrarily’ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at
pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in nature of things,

1
Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851
2
A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR
3
Election Commission of india V. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, 1996 SCC (4) 104

1|P a ge
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

nonrational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on will

alone. 4Since Maneka Gandhi’s case, 5 the Courts have adopted the Wednesbury
principle that if the classification was an arbitrary act of the State under Art. 12 of the
Constitution, Art. 14 would strike it down. 6 Art. 14 protect us from both legislative
and executive tyranny by way of discrimination.
6. The Proclamation was called in by the President of Selandia because it was against
the principle of cooperative federalism under the Constitution of Selandia. 7
7. The Proclamation was a well thought-out administrative action, detailed and planned
in its implementation. There was no element of whim or ambiguity which would
make it fall within the purview of definition of ‘arbitrarily’, as propounded by this
Hon’ble Court. Therefore, in the instant case of the Proclamation passed by the
President by dissolving the legislative assembly in the San Monique, Art. 14 would
not spring into action as its application has been limited by the legitimate and rational
administrative discretion exercised and it satisfies the test of arbitrariness.

B. There is a requirement for the Petitioner to exhaust local remedies

8. It is submitted that The High Courts are competent enough to hear this particular case
by the virtue of Art.2268. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete lack
of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned 9, however, the
existence of a competent body to hear this particular case questions the
maintainability of the writ petition filed.
9. It was by held this Hon’ble apex court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson
Hosiery10 where there is alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless
the alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the
respondents humbly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the
ground that alternative remedy has not been exhausted. As per the principle, all the
statutory remedies would have to be exhausted before approaching the SC under its

4
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322
5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
6
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992
7
Para 15, Moot Problem
8
Indian Constitution, Art.226,
9
A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906
10
Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery, AIR 1979 SC 1889

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 2

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

special jurisdiction, unless special circumstances can be shown to convince the court
that it must allow the appeal11.
10. Thus, the petitioner in the present case should have approached the High Court even
to contest his claim of violation of fundamental Rights. In the case of “Arun Kumar
v.sUnion of India12 the Court has held that the question of jurisdiction ought to be
decided at the outset and merits of the matter can be decided only after the
preliminary issue of jurisdiction is decided by the court or tribunal. Therefore it is
important to decide the maintainability of the issue before deciding the dispute.
Therefore the petitioner’s writ petition in the present case is not maintainable.

C. The proclamation passed by the President of Selandia was without malafide

intention and is not subjected to judicial review

11. In a federation, the States are not the subordinate units of the Central government. It
needs to be remembered that only the spirit of ‘co-operative federalism’ can preserve
the balance between the union and the States to promote the good of the people and
not an attitude of dominance or superiority. Under Indian constitutional system no
single entity can claim superiority.
12. Union and the units are the equal partners in the governance of the country. In
democracy the desire of the people expressed through the election process has to be
respected. Any misuse or abuse of the power by the central government will damage
the fabric of federalism13. This notion is visible from the fact that the Judiciary of
Selandia has favoured the preservation of the federal system and it is the basic
structure of the Indian Constitution.
13. The proclamation of President's Rule is subject to judicial review (as provided by 44th
Amendment 1978) on grounds of mala fide Intention. In the instant case neither the
Governor nor the President has acted with “malafide intention”. The President while
acting under Art.35614 exercised power in his own right and the only sanction against
him can be an impeachment.15

11
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR 1964 SC
1451
12
Arun Kumar v.sUnion of India (2007) 1 SCC 732
13
S.R.Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, (1914) 3 SCC 1
14
Art.356, The Constitution of India, 1950
15
K.K.Aboo v. Union of India, AIR (1965) Ker.229

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 3

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

14. The Court cannot go into the validity or the legality or propriety of the Proclamation
because the President had issued the same in pursuance of his Constitutional powers
under Art.356 (1) which is not an exclusive action of the Union. And the President
himself is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court in view of Art. 361(1). The
consideration of the Proclamation has been specifically vested by the Constitution in
Parliament and this excludes the jurisdiction of the Courts.16
15. The conclusions reached by the Governor in his Report to the President cannot be
questioned in the Court as those are matters for the consideration of the President and
Parliament. The Court has no jurisdiction to require disclosure of material in the basis
of the President's satisfaction. 17
16. In the instant case also, the Governor’s Report could not be questioned because the
President acted in his satisfaction along with the advice of the Council of Ministers. 18
17. The 'material' in question before the President should be such as would induce a
reasonable man to come to the conclusion in question. Once such 'material' is shown
to exist, 'the satisfaction' of the President based on such 'material' will not be open to
question. 19
18. Therefore the Proclamation passed by the President of Selandia is without malafide
intention and was passed in accordance to prevent the breakdown of constitutional
machinery in the State of Selandia.

16
Rao Birender Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1968) P. and H.441
17
Ibid
18
Supra 7
19
Supra 18

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 4

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

D. This Hon'ble Court does not have a constitutional duty to entertain the instant
petition
19. The Constitutional obligation of this Hon'ble Court as the guarantor of fundamental
rights has been interpreted broadly20 and as one that exists independent of any other
remedy that may be available.21This is particularly true in cases of where there is
grave importance, on the breakdown of constitutional machinery and its relief under
technical grounds. Consequently, it is submitted that willing to hear such a petition
shall be waste of this Hon’ble Court’s time.
20. Therefore the petition does not stand maintainable and competent to be heard under
Art.32 of the Constitution of Selandia.

ISSUE 2

2) I.WHETHER THE RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 05, 2020 PASSED IN

THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SAN MONIQUE IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW?

No, the Counsel humbly submits that the resolution passed in assembly is not in
accordance with the applicable law and amounts to the act of illegality. Because
A.Freedom of Speech of the members of the State assembly is limited by State assembly
rules and by Constitution B. Resolution is in the nature of Quasi legal legislation which
Conflicts with the functioning of State Government. C. Assent of the Speaker will not make
the resolution good in law

A.Freedom of Speech of the members of the State assembly is not unlimited

21. It is submitted that the Freedom of speech and expression granted to the members of
assembly is different from that of availed by common citizen, and the reason, being
the representative of people there exist the need for extended recognition. The

20
MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.
21
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960;

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 5

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

freedom of speech is granted to members via Article- 194(4)22 and nature of this
Article is in way that Article- 19(2)23 would not circumscribe the freedom of speech
of members within the walls of the assembly. 24And the important point is that with
regard to complete immunity, members enjoy immunity for anything said in the
assembly, and the term anything is interpreted in a way literally means everything
which is done in the course of business.25

Freedom of Speech does not include Dissent:

22. The Preamble to the Constitution of India promises liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship. Clauses (a) to (c) of Article- 19(1) promise:

 freedom of speech and expression;

 Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms;
 And the freedom to form associations or unions;

These three freedoms are vehicles through which dissent can be expressed. The
right of freedom of opinion and the right of freedom of conscience by themselves
include the extremely important right to disagree. The right to disagree, the right to
dissent and the right to take another point of view would inhere inherently in each
and every citizen of the country. But this is the general clause which includes
dissent for freedom enjoyed by common citizens but the same is not in case of
freedom exercised by house members.

23. It was rightly conceded by Sir S. M. Bose in a case that the freedom of speech
referred to in Clause (1) of Article 194 is subject to the restrictions imposed by
Article 211. He also conceded that the Rules made by the State Legislature may

22
Indian Constitution, Article- 194(2)
23
Indian Constitution Art- 19(2)
24
M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395
25
Tej Kiran Jain vs. N. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR 1970 SC 1573

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 6

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

further restrict that freedom of speech. 26And the state rule referred in this case is
state of Orisa, the similar Rule is also available in Kerala legislation which read as,
A member while speaking shall not - (i) refer to any matter of fact on which a
judicial decision is pending; (ii) 1[make a personal charge by way of making an
allegation imputing a motive to or questioning the bona fides of other members of
the House unless it be imperatively necessary for the purpose of the debate being
itself a matter in issue or relevant thereto;]… 27 with respect to this particular issue
the writ petition have been filed before Supreme Court 28 and the decision is yet to
be decided, hence the matter is not within the ambit for discussion in house.

Clause (i) of Rule 284 is intended to prevent discussion of any matter which is sub
judice in law Courts and Clause (iv) is wider in its language than Article 211 of the
Constitution in as much as it prohibits any reflection on any Court of law (not only
of High Courts) in exercise of its judicial functions. It is thus clear that a member
of a Legislature does not enjoy absolute freedom of speech and that that freedom is
of a limited nature.

B.Resolution is in the nature of Quasi legal legislation which Conflicts with the
functioning of State Government.

24. It is submitted that in constitution the consideration was granted in favor of resolution
as form of expression in house session, the general other form were the discussion,
law making, expressing opinion. As per practice and in provisions the resolutions are
classified as legal, quasi legal and mere expression of opinion. In which the legal and
quasi legal covers within the mentioning of Constitution as, resolution with legal
effect under Articles- 169(i), 179(c), 183(c), 213, 312(1), 315(2), 368 and resolution
with quasi legal effect under Articles- 208 and 209.29 The resolution passed in this
case is not in mere nature of opinion but in nature of quasi legal, which is considered

26
Sri Surendra Mohanty vs Sri Nabakrishna Choudhury, AIR 1958 Ori 168
27
Rule 284, RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY
28
Para 12 of Moot Proposition
29
Appendix 1, A Study of the different Categories of resolution in parliament, The Parliament Secretariat, New
Delhi, December 1953

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 7

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

as action against central government and its against the basic federal structure of
Constitution.
Nature of Article- 208:

25. Article- 208 empowers state legislature to make rules and regulations for conduct of
its business30, State of San Monique have its own rule which govern the rules and
proceeding in house of session which is Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business
in the Kerala Legislative Assembly31, the major intention is for the conduct of
business which is in nature approved and instructed by constitution, this particular
rule was enacted via the empowerment granted under Article- 208 of Constitution
26. Further, In this rule of procedure, Rule-11832 make the provisional basis for passing
resolution the rule makes it’s clear that the resolution can be moved in house when the
subject matter is in nature of general public interest. And the nature of resolution
passed is considered as based on this particular point as its being against the public
interest, but the nature binds in itself the elements of public interest which is stated in
proposition as ‘the amendment is mainly for identification and grant of citizenship in
Selandia, to allow certain persecuted religious minorities in neighboring countries of
East Mordor, Mordor and Ghanistan to apply for citizenship in Selandia by relaxing
conditions for citizenship 33
27. It is also respectfully submitted that the framers of the constitution of India while
framing the fundamental rights, took caution as to what fundamental rights have to be
applied to foreigners and what rights have to be specifically reserved for the citizens 34
of Selandia35 . Therefore the Non-Citizens do not get fundamental rights to reside or
settle in any part of the State36. Therefore it is not the duty of the State to grant
fundamental rights to the Non- Citizens. The amendment in itself is for the benefit of
general public who were considered as persecuted minorities in neighbouring
countries and the amendment is for the rectification of the act in past, as the countries
mentioned were in nature of theocratic state37were the mentioned minorities were

30
Indian Constitution,Art. 208
31
As mentioned in Clarification.
32
Rule- 118 of Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative Assembly
33
Moot Proposition, 9th para
34
State Of W.B. V. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92,95
35
Indian Constitution, Article 19
36
Indian Constitution, Article 19(1) (e)
37
Moot Proposition, 3rd para

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 8

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

regarded as second class citizens, to balance the unethical past. Therefore the CAA do
not Violate the Basic Structure of Constitution and the resolution does in fact conflicts
with the functioning of the State government.

C. ASSENT OF THE SPEAKER WILL NOT MAKE THE RESOLUTION

GOOD IN LAW
28. The speaker power in house of session is considered as in proprio vigore, and such
nature being without any fetter being clamped on his power by the rules. 38 The
speaker enjoys unquestioned nature of power in session and the grant given by
speaker can’t be questioned if it’s in nature of procedural irregularity39, No immunity
can be claimed if the proceedings are held without jurisdiction, Example: contrary to
any mandatory constitutional or legal provision. 40 If the proceedings in the legislature
are attacked on the ground of illegality or unconstitutionality, judicial review thereof
is not barred by Art.212.41 In case of state of San Monique, the speaker gave approval
for such resolution to be discussed in floor, which is considered by the person as it’s
state duty to flag anti constitutional laws.
29. But the speaker is undoubtedly a servant of house not its master and the authority
transmitted to him by the house is the authority of house itself which he exercises in
accordance with the mandates, interest and well being of the house. 42And the
resolution is in nature of quasi legal and not mere opinion in nature. The federal
system obliges state government to bind with central rules, laws and regulations to
maintain the cooperative federal system. The State of San Monique is known for its
resolution in prior instances also, where its passes resolution against,
 Maintenance of Internal Security Act in 1971
 Provisions in IT Act in the year 2006 and 2009
But the current resolution is in nature of resulting into action of aggression, which
may result in inter- state disputes which in turn affect the basic structure of
construction of nation.

38
Bhajaman Bobera vs Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, AIR 1990 Ori 18
39
Ravi S. Naik vs Union of India, 1994 SCR (1) 754
40
Kihota vs. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
41
Om Parkash Chautala vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 P&H 80 at 83
42
K.A. Mathialagam vs. P. Srinivasam, AIR 1973 Mad 371,376

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 9

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Submission:

30. From the arguments advanced, it’s humbly submitted by the counsel that the
resolution passed on January 05, 2020 in house of session is against the legal
proceedings on applicable law, and the resolution which was approved by speaker for
session is not within in proprio vigore of speaker as the nature is being aggressive for
internal peace and national harmony, and the amendment is in nature of public interest
being in nature of relaxing condition for granting citizenship to perceptive minorities
and the resolution is considered as break down due to political eras.
 Article- 208: basis for rule of proceeding enacted by state legislature for
conduct of business in accordance with laws in force.
 Rule- 284 of Rule: Restriction on certain matters to be discussed in
house of session.
 Freedom of speech to parliamentarians being not absolute in nature.
 State governments have to enact the laws made by parliament.
2.II.WHETHER PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE ASSEMBLY OF SAN
MONIQUE AMOUNTS TO BREAK DOWN OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
AND CONSTITUTES A BREAKDOWN OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SELANDIA?

Yes, the Counsel humbly submits that the passing of resolution amount to break down of
cooperative federalism and constitutional machinery in Selandia.. Because A.The Minister
is a constitutional functionaries of the State B.The Nature of Amendment does not violate
the Basic Structure of the Constitution: C The resolution has disturbed the nature of
federalism and constitutional machinery in the State

A.The Minister is a constitutional functionaries of the State

31. The member of the assembly is considered as the representative of people and the
person is expected to in accordance with public interest. Article- 18843 elaborates the
oath procedure which usually done by practice by elected person before seat and the
oath read as “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, [that I will uphold the

43
Indian Constitution Art- 188

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 10

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

sovereignty and integrity of India,] … I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge

my duties as the minister for the state of … and that I will do right to all manner of
people in accordance with the constitution and the law without fear or favour,
affection or ill- will”44.
32. Therefore it is submitted that according to the oath of Constitutional functionaries of
States and according to the Constitution45, India is a union of States. Hence Chief
Minister is subject to the Constitutional provisions.In this particular issue, the minister
of the State passes resolution which is considered as against constitutional ethos and
against the greater interest of public. In this case the exercise of action by ministers of
state is against and in nature questioning the very standard framework of nation which
is sovereignty and integrity.

B.The Nature of Amendment does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution:

33. The amendment is in nature differentiation among the minorities which is completely
differ from that of discrimination, as in this case which is considered for giving
citizenship, the minority religion Bantu was completely left out of the amendment
being remarked as discrimination. ‘The amendment read as to allow certain
persecuted religious minorities in neighbouring countries of East Mordor, Mordor
and Ghanistan to apply for citizenship in Selandia by relaxing conditions for
citizenship46, and the communities which were mentioned were Ubundus, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians47’ the exclusion of bantu from the
consideration is the clear case of differentiation which is not being arbitrary in nature
and well within the reasonable classification of Article- 14.
34. The amendment in itself is for the benefit of general public who were considered as
persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries and the amendment is for the
rectification of the act in past, as the countries mentioned were in nature of theocratic
state48were the mentioned minorities were regarded as second class citizens, to
balance the unethical past.

44
Third Schedule, Constitution
45
Indian Constitution Art-1
46
Para 9
47
Para 10
48
Moot Proposition, 3rd para

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 11

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

35. It is settled law that differentiation is not always discriminatory. If there is a rational
nexus on the basis of which differentiation has been made with the object sought to be
achieved by particular provision, then such differentiation is not discriminatory and
does not violate the principles of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 49 And equality cannot be
applied when it arises out of illegality. 50As in this case being nature for citizenship to
illegal migrants, in element of illegality. And the act is within the ambit of equal
protection of law is the natural consequence of the term equality before law. 51Articles-
14 and 15 read in the light of the preamble to the constitution reflect the thinking of
our constitution makers and prevent any discrimination based on religion or origin in
the matter of equal treatment or employment and to apply the same even in respect of
a cooperative society. 52 All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both
in privilege and liabilities imposed.53But in this case the classification among public is
in nature of differentiation and those peoples were considered as not arise from
similar circumstance hence not in violation of provisions.
36. The preamble of the constitution read as “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:…”54 the country is
known in world population for its principle of unity in diversity, being the country in
such nature and acting veiled by secular principle is strictly against ethical ethos. The
preamble to the constitution is of extreme importance and the constitution should be
read and interpreted in the light of the grant and nobel vision expressed in the
preamble.55The actual issue in light is to provide justice to the unethical past
undergone by peoples who were considered and ill-treated as second class citizens.

49
Union of India vs M.V. Valliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259, 269
50
General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205
51
State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75
52
Zoroastrian Corporation Housing Society Ltd. vs District Registrar, Coop Societies, (2005) 5 SCC 632
53
John Vallamattom vs Union Of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611
54
Preamble of Constitution
55
Keshavnanda Bharathi case, AIR 1973 SC 1506

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 12

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

C The resolution has disturbed the nature of federalism and constitutional

machinery in the State

Federal Nature:

37. The constitutional law consists both of legal in the strict sense and of usages ,
commonly called as conventions, which without being enacted are accepted as
binding by all who are concerned in government. Chief essentials for a constitution to
be federal are:
 Dispersion of powers between the center and the unit states forming
federation among a number of co-ordinate bodies, controlled by
constitution.
 Rigidity – neither the center nor the state has power to amend the
provision of constitution relating separation of powers.
 A written constitution
 Domination of the constitution – neither of center or state have power to
nullify the constitution
 An independent body and unprejudiced authority
India is often also claimed to be non- federal in matter such as the Center can impinge
upon the areas earmarked only for the states in some cases. Therefore, it infringes the
principle of federalism as it makes the state hyponym to the center. Hence, it is also
said to be in a unitary form of government too56. A federal constitution establishes a
duple polity with Union at the center and the States at the fringe, each dowered with
autonomous powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the
constitution. Both are in a way co-ordinate to powers of each other.

38. Apex Court expressed a non-traditionalistic yet pragmatic opinion while explaining
the federal concept in the context of the unified legal system in India- India is not a
federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign State
which have come together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly federal
features.57 Indian Constitution is basically federal in form and is marked by the

56
Karnataka V. UOI ,AIR 1977 SC 1382
57
Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India, 1984 AIR 1420

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 13

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

traditional characteristics of a federal system, namely supremacy of the Constitution,

division of power between the Union and States and existence independent
judiciary. 58

Cooperative Federalism:

39. It needs to be remembered that only the spirit of "co-operative federalism" can
preserve the balance between the Union and the States and promote the good of the
people and not an attitude of dominance or superiority. Under our constitutional
system, no single entity can claim superiority. Sovereignty doesn't lie in any one
institution or in any one wing of the government. The power of governance is
distributed in several organs and institutions - a sine qua non for good governance.
Even assuming that Centre has been given certain dominance over the States, that
dominance should be used strictly for the purpose intended, nor the oblique
purposes59
40. More unitary then federal, in a sense therefore the Indian Union is federal. But the
extent of federalism in it is largely watered down by the needs of the progress and
development of the country which has to be nationally integrated, politically and
economically co ordinate, and socially, intellectually and spiritually
uplifted. 60Democracy and federalism are essential features of our constitution and are
part of its basic structure. The fact that under the scheme of our constitution, greater
power is conferred upon the centre vs the state do not mean that states are mere
appendages of the centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, states are supreme. The
centre cannot tamper with their powers. More particularly the courts should not adopt
an approach an interpretation, which has the effect of or tends to have the effect of
whittling down the power reserved to the state.61
Central Government Power:

41. Art 355- Imposes the two fold duty on the centre:
 To protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance, and

58
Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 1998
59
A Consultation Paper on Article 356 of the Constitution, National Commission to review the working of the
Constitution, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi- 1110 011, May 11, 2001.
60
V. C. Shukla vs. State, AIR 1977 SC 1382
61
Supra 13

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 14

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

 To ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with

the provisions of the Constitution
Under Art 355 mentioned about the obligation of the center to protect the state arises
in the following three situations,

 External aggression
 Internal disturbance, and
 When the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the
constitution.
42. The word ‘aggression’ has been construed to be a word of very wide import not
limited only to war but as comprising many other acts which cannot be termed as war.
A bloodless aggression from a vast and incessant flow of millions of human beings
forced to flee into another state could constitute aggression under Art.355. Thus it was
found that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance
on account of large scale illegal migrant of Bangladeshi nationals. 62
43. It is submitted that the Constitution ensures a duty on central government, to protect
state government from aggressions, and in case of aggression the right to pass
proclamation is in hand of central government which has its mentioning in Article-
352. In the Present Case by passing the resolution the State Government has explicitly
violated the directions of Centre. This is a clear case of Non-Cooperation by the State.

Constitutional Machinery:

44. The Constitution adopted the Canadian model of federation which tilts the balance in
favour of the Union. The constitutional provisions empower the Union to give
directions to the States in normal times as well, because Article 355 enjoins on the
Union the duty to protect States against any external aggression and the internal
disturbance. At the same time Article 365 ensures that if any State fails to comply
with or to give effect to the directions given by the Union , it shall be lawful for the
President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

62
Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 15

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Therefore under Article 356 of the President on the basic of a report from the
Governor of a State if satisfied that the administration of the State cannot be carried
on in accordance with constitutional provision may declare break down of
constitutional machinery of the State and assume all or any of the functions of the
State Government
45. The grounds considered proper for invoking article 356 are:
 Hung assembly scenario
 Corruption; maladministration
 Acting contrary to the Constitution of India/Union directives
 Failure to meet an extraordinary situation
 Security concern
The following elements in the list is in need of wide sense of interpretation, and the
act of proclamation is considered as serious action which may results in,

i. The President can assume the powers of the State Government or any other
executive authority in the State.
ii. Can take all other necessary steps including the suspension of the
constitutional provisions relating to anybody or authority in the State.
iii. The President can either suspend or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly.
During the State emergency the Parliament passes the State Legislative Bills and the
State budget.
46. Hence the satisfactory element for imposition is not in nature with mere status, in SR.
Bommai case the judges made mentioning about Pakistan case and made remark that
the Pakistan law in this regards are in pari matiria with that of India, and in that case
it was stated as ‘Unless a violation of a provision of the constitution was so grave that
the court could come to no other conclusion but that it alone directly led to the
breakdown of the functional working of the Government, it would not constitute a
valid ground’63. This decision expresses the nature of condition to prevail in state for
proclamation, mere chances or instance for aggression can’t be considered as ground
for proclamation. Which is not the fact in this case where there exists actual case of
aggression followed by serious question of national integrity, as clearly stated in
proposition, the act of proclamation was not done under the sue moto act of president,

63
Khaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim vs. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 Lahore 78

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 16

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

it’s done based on satisfactory report of governor and in accordance with advice of
council of ministers. 64
47. From the arguments advanced it is humbly submitted by the Counsel as, the
resolution by the assembly of San Monique amounts to break down of cooperative
federalism and constitutional machinery for the purpose of Article 356 of the
Constitution of Selandia. Reasons,
 The area of amendment regarding Citizenship is within Union list 65 and
central binds with supremacy to enact same.
 State bounds to follow central legislations.
 Central embedded with powers to maintain peace and harmony in State
by preventing internal aggression.
 State Ministers duty bound to maintain National Sovereignty and
integrity.

64
Moot Proposition, Para 15
65
Entry 17, List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 17

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

ISSUE 3
3)WHETHER THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SELANDIA FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
SAN MONIQUE IS PROPER IN LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW?

YES..the proclamation issued by the President is in accordance with the applicable

provisions of law. Because A.The proclamtion of emergency issued by the president is
reviewable only on limited grounds B.President can proclaim emergency when
constitutional machinery has failed C.The president and governor acted according to the
provisions of constitution.

A.THE PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT IS

REVIEWABLE ONLY ON LIMITED GROUNDS
48. It is submitted that emergency is a unique feature of Constitution that allows the
center to assume wide powers so as to handle special situations. Emergency
Provisions are contained in Part Eighteen of the Constitution of India. . Even though
there is a clear demarcation between the states and the union. There are certain
circumstances under the Constitution of Selandia which empowers the union to enter
the jurisdiction of the states. One such instance is the “Failure of Constitutional
Machinery of States”66.

49. It is humbly submitted that Article 356 empowers the Union government to take over
executive and legislative powers of any State by issuing a Presidential proclamation.
This Article is Placed on the Part XVIII under head of “emergency provisions” with
the marginal note of “Provision in case of Failure of Machinery”. Therefore it is clear
that the President on receiving a report from the governor that the Constitutional
machinery has been failed can proclaim emergency and do the following recourses

66
Indian Constitution . Article 356

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 18

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

 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 any body
or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State and
 declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by
or under the authority of Parliament.The President can make incidental and
consequential provisions necessary for giving effect to the objects of the
proclamation67.
50 It is submitted that the actions of the president are subject to judicial review. The
power of judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution68. Judicial
review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the
manner in which the decision was made". In other words, judicial review is concerned
with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision-making process itself69.
51 It is humbly submitted that Judicial review is not Concerned with reviewing of the
decision but reviewing the manner on which the decision was made 70,there are three71
grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review,
viz., (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality and (iii) procedural impropriety. This decisions
were also incorporated in the Supreme Court Verdicts. As long as there is a question,
whether the Constitutional authority has acted within its power or whether it has
exceeded its power the Court can always subject the presidential proclamation to
judicial review72.
52 The Courts are the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and it is the duty of the
Court to determine the limit of power Conferred on each branch of the Constitution.
The court has power to fix the limits of the authorities and to transgress such limits 73.
This has also been reiterated in the Case of S.R.Bommai V. Union of India74.
Therefore it is respectfully submitted that the acts of the President are subject to
judicial review. The Supreme Court, in the case of Minerva Mills and Others v. Union
of India75 and Others, dwelt extensively on its power to examine the validity of a

67
M.P.JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law 714-716 (7th ed 2016)
68
Supra 55
69
North Wales Police v. Evans, [1982] UKHL 10
70
IBID
71
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 3 WLR 1174
72
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 710
73
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 SC 1361
74
Supra 13
75
Minerva Mills and Others v. Union of India ,AIR 1980 SC 1789

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 19

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

Proclamation of Emergency issued by the President. The Supreme Court in this matter
observed, inter alia, that it should not hesitate to perform its constitutional duty
merely because it involves considering political issues. At the same time, it should
restrict itself to examining whether the constitutional requirements of Article 352
have been observed in the declaration of the Proclamation and it should not go into
the sufficiency of the facts and circumstances of the presidential satisfaction in the
existence of a situation of emergency

53 Therefore it is agreed that the presidential proclamation is subject to judicial review,

however the Scope of judicial review is limited. The president holds a highest
constitutional post but it doesn’t mean that the decision of the President Can’t be
questioned. But the decisions of the president Per se can’t be reviewed but the power
exercised by the President can be reviewed on the ground that it was wholly
irrelevant, irrational, and discriminatory or malafide 76. It is therefore respectfully
submitted that the Court can review the decision of the President only on limited
grounds

B.PRESIDENT CAN PROCLAIM EMERGENCY WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL

MACHINERY HAS FAILED
54 It is respectfully submitted that constitution imposes duty on the center to ensure that
the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution77. In case of Constitutional breakdown in a state the Center will take
charge under 356(1) of the Constitution. It is Contented that Executive Powers of
State be exercised in compliance with Union Laws78 and Article 256 lays down that
the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with
the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State79, and
the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a
state as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose 80.

76
Kehar Singh V. Union of India, 1989 AIR 653
77
Indian Constitution. Article 355
78
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831.
79
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCR 225.
80
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of W.B., (AIR 1968 Cal 407)

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 20

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

55 This is to ensure government of a State is carried on in accordance with the provision

of the Constitution: Union can direct the State Governments81 to ensure that the
government of a State is carried on in accordance with the provision of the
Constitution82. If any State failed to comply with any directions given by the Union in
exercise of its executive power, then President may hold that, a situation has arisen in
which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution83. Also the directions given must be lawful and their
disobedience must give rise to a situation contemplated by Article 356(1)84".
56 It is humbly submitted that the acts of the state government Which are calculated to
subvert or sabotage secularism85 as enshrined in our constitution, can lawfully be
deemed to give rise to a situation in which the government of the state cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution 86. No political party
can simultaneously be a religious party. Any state government which pursues
unsecular policies87 or unsecular course of action, acts contrary to the constitutional
mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.
57 It is respectfully submitted that citizens should not be targeted and divided on the
basis of religion. In the present Case the ASBUD party has openly passed a resolution
stating that the Amendment Act violated secular values and as anti-bantu88. Whereas
in reality it is a legislation passed to benefit the persecuted minorities from the
neighboring states89.
58 It is also humbly submitted that after the publishing of the Citizenship Amendment
Act 2019 in the official gazette, the protestors backed by SNC and ABSUD staged
protests90. Also a resolution was passed by State assembly of San Monique stating
non-cooperation with the union91. Therefore the State of San Monique has refused to
co-operate with the union and also has acted against the secular values of the
constitution, this is a clear case of breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State

81
Jayanti Lal Amrat Lal v. F.N.Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648
82
Indian Constitution.Article 256
83
Indian Constitution Article 365
84
Supra 13
85
Indra V. Rajnarayan, 1975 AIR S.C 2299
86
Supra 13
87
Veerabadran Chettiar v. E. V. Ramaswami Naicker, 1958 AIR 1032
88
Moot proposition para 14
89
Moot proposition Para 11
90
Moot proposition para 12
91
Moot proposition para 14

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 21

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

of San Monique. It is respectfully submitted that due to the resolution and protest the
union can’t sincerely carry out the provisions of constitution. Therefore it is humbly
contended that the State of San Monique couldn’t be carried out with the provisions of
the Constitution.

C.THE PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR ACTED ACCORDING TO THE

PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION
92
59 It is submitted that the Governor of a State is appointed by the President . He is
indeed a part of the Government of the State. The executive power of the State is
vested in him93 and is exercised by him directly or through officers subordinate to him
in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution94. The governor of a State is
under a Constitutional mandate to report the President the Commissions and
omissions of the Government of his of his State which according to him are creating
or have created a situation where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, it would be a case of his
reporting against his own Government but this may be a case of his wearing two hats,
one as the head of the State Government and the other as the holder of an independent
constitutional office whose duty it is to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution95.
60 Therefore the Constitution mandates Governor to report the president in case of
breakdown of constitutional scheme in the state. It is submitted that when a resolution
was passed in the State Assembly the Governor sent a report to the president
immediately96, such is the mandate required to be followed.
61 It is submitted that after the report is sent it is for the president to decide on the issue
of Proclamation of emergency. The president in this instance doesn’t act on behalf of
the "executive" of the Union but in a constitutional capacity. According to the
Supreme Court there are certain Conditions precedents which should be satisfied
before the issuance of the Proclamation of emergency, they are

92
Indian Constitution. Article 155
93
Badrinath V. Govt of Tamilnadu (2000) 8 SCC 395
94
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments V. Madras Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri Shirur
Mutt,AIR 1954 SC 282
95
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab supra
96
Moot Proposition Para 15

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 22

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

o that the President should be satisfied either on the basis of a report from the
Governor of the State or otherwise,
o that in fact a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot
be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution 97.
62 It is further submitted that the word “has to be satisfied” should be interpreted to
mean that the satisfaction should be subjective in nature. It is also submitted that the
material used for the satisfaction is also subject to judicial review. This examination
will necessarily involve the scrutiny as to whether there existed material for the
satisfaction of the President that a situation had arisen in which the Government of the
State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Needless to emphasise that it is not any material but material which would lead to the
conclusion that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution which is relevant for the purpose.
63 It has further to be remembered that the Article requires that the President "has to be
satisfied" that the situation in question has arisen. Hence the material in question has
to be such as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion in question 98.
In the present Case the President satisfaction is based on the Governors report and the
resolution passed by the State. Therefore any reasonable man could come to the
conclusion regarding the materials that state is openly revolting with the union.
Therefore the satisfaction of the president is in accordance with law.
64 It is further submitted that, "where powers are conferred on public authorities to
exercise the same when 'they are satisfied' or when 'it appears to them' or when 'in
their opinion' a certain state of affairs existed", the courts will find out "whether
conditions precedent to the formation of the opinion have a factual basis 99".Also when
technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all
those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in deciding the
matter, the Court should restrain from interfering with the same 100.
65 It is humbly submitted that the Governor and president holds a constitutional Position
and it entrusts him with performing functions in political nature and decisions with
respect to the same. Therefore the President is an active participant not merely acting

97
Supra 13
98
supra 76
99
M.A. Rashid v. State of Kerala, 1974 AIR 2249
100
Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union, of India ,(2003) 4 SCC 289

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 23

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

as a constitutional head under Article 73, but also active participant in the decision-
making process and the Proclamation was issued after due deliberations. The court
cannot, therefore, go behind the issue of Proclamation under Article 356 and
substitute its own satisfaction for that of the President.
66 It is also submitted that it is the discretion of the President to use any of the Powers
under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 356(1)thereof. It is for him to decide
which of the said powers he will exercise and at what stage, taking into consideration
the exigencies of the situation101. The discretion used by an authority should be
exercised reasonably in furtherance of Public Policy, Public good and Public Cause 102
67 It is submitted that after the Enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, there was an
honest dissent around the Union. A writ Petition has been already filed challenging
the Constitutional validity of the Act. 103 The same is posted for hearing on March
2020. The state could also have filed a petition challenging the vires of the Act. It is
submitted that the Constitution provides for a mechanism to resolve the issues
between state and the Union104. The Supreme Court has Power to give whatever
reliefs are necessary for the enforcement of the legal right claimed in the suit if such
legal right is established 105.
68 Therefore it is respectfully submitted that the state had the option of dissenting the
Legislation constitutionally. However it chose to pass a resolution and firmly revolted
against the Union. Another key problem is the State of San Monique is guilty of
performing non-secular acts by terming the legislation as Anti Bantu. The
Government has used the Resolution as a Colorable exercise of power106, it has
marketed politics by instigating communal violence among its citizens. Therefore the
President had to take immediate actions to bring back constitutional machinery in the
State. It is also submitted that the decision of the president was on relevant
considerations and rational considering the need of the hour.
69 Henceforth it is respectively submitted that the proclamation of President is in
accordance with the provisions of law.

101
Sunderlal Parwa v. Union of India,1993 Jab LJ 387 (FB)
102
Consumer Action Group V. State of TN, (2000) 7 SCC 425
103
Moot Proposition Para 12
104
Indian Constitution. Article 131
105
State of Karnataka V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68
106
Somawanti V. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR 151

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 24

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TC-

PRAYER

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the

Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

1. That, the Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable in the Supreme Court of
Selandia.

2. That, The Resolution passed by the State assembly of San Monique

 Is not in accordance with the law of Selandia

 It Does amount to breakdown of Constitutional Machinery or Co-operative federalism

3. That the Proclamation Passed by the President of Selandia dissolving the State Assembly
of San Monique is valid.

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

(S/d)

Counsel for the Respondents

5th BMSCL MOOT COURT COMPETITION PAGE | 25