Icfai 047R

TEAM CODE : 047
Page 1 of 39
FIRST VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
being organised by THE ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, JAIPUR
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTERS OF
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. -______of 2021
PRAVAH CHAKRA……………………………………..……………………… Petitioner

v.
UNION OF INDIANA & ORS.………..……………………….….………….. Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. -______of 2021
ARYAN FOUNDATION…………………………………………….………… Petitioner

v.
CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS.………………………..….. Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. -______of 2021
GOVERNMENT OF PURVA PRADESH…………….………………………… Petitioner

v.
UNION OF INDIANA……………….………………………….......….……….. Respondent
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
All these petitions have been clubbed by The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana.
~ Written Submission on behalf of the Respondents ~

THE ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, JAIPUR –FIRST VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... X
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 1
ISSUE [1] : WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PRAVAH CHAKRA IS

MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
................................................................................................................................................1
[1.1] The Petitioner in the instant case had access to alternative and efficacious remedies
under CrPC which it failed to exercise. ..................................................................................... 1
[1.1.1] Remedy under Section 154 of CrPc, 1973. ........................................................2
[1.1.2] Remedy under Section 156 (3) of CrPc, 1973. ...................................................3
[1.1.3] Remedy under Section 200 of CrPc, 1973. ........................................................4
[1.1.4] Remedy under Section 482of CrPc, 1973. .........................................................4
[1.2] The Petitioner has access to remedy under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. ........ 4
[1.3] Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana was
also accessible to the Petitioner as an alternative remedy.......................................................... 5
[1.4] Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is a
measure of Last Resort ............................................................................................................... 6
[1.5] PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs ...................................................................... 7
ISSUE [2] :WHETHER THE VIDHAN SABHA ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF

VRIHADH PRADESH CAN BE POSTPONED DUE TO COVID-19? .........................8
Page | I
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] TABLE OF CONTENTS

[2.1] The contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated. ................................... 8
[2.2] There has been no evidence to show that a rise in Covid-19 cases are a direct effect of
conduction of Elections. ............................................................................................................. 9
[2.3] Conduction of election is an exclusive Jurisdiction of the election commission. ............. 9
[2.3.1] Duties of Election Commission ........................................................................10
[2.4] The present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner as no locus standi. ................. 10
ISSUE [3] :WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA

PRADESH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? ...........................................................11
[3.1] President’s Rule was imposed in view of the deteriorating law and order condition in the
State of Purva Pradesh posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of Indiana....................... 11
[3.2] President’s Rule was imposed in accordance with Articles 355 and 356 of the
Constitution. ............................................................................................................................. 12
[3.3] President’s satisfaction in the instant case is based on objective material ...................... 14
The State Government which acts against the ideal of “Secularism can be dismissed by
the President” ..............................................................................................................14
[3.4] Alternative option of the deployment of Army cannot be justified in a State where there
is a case of gross violation of Fundamental Rights of the citizens .......................................... 15
Loss of majority in the State Assembly of Purva Pradesh can become a valid ground to
continue the President’s Rule................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE [4] : WHETHER THE DEFECTING MEMBERS OF THE RULING PARTY IN

THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH CAN BE DISQUALIFIED ON GROUND OF
DEFECTION? ....................................................................................................................17
[4.1] The power to disqualify the members on ground of defection lies exclusively with the
Speaker of the House under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule. ..................................................... 18
[4.2] The Judiciary is restricted in respect of any matter concerned with the disqualification of
members of a House. ................................................................................................................ 19
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Page | II
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
• Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation (1969) 2 AC 147 ................................................... 20
• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 .................................. 16
• Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC349 ....................................... 11
• Avinash Thakur v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 875/2020
.................................................................................................................................................. 9
• Badri Narayan Singh v. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India,

through the Home Secretary and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 1293, AIR 2021 (NOC 480)
177 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
• Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Ors. v. B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 1. .............. 17
• Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333................................. 11
• Champa Devi v. State Of H.P. And Anr., LNIND 2015 HP 2493........................................... 2
• Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 ..................... 16
• Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All.E.R. 935 ... 17
• Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) CriLJ 4709 (SC). ................................................... 2, 4
• Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, : 1996 CriLJ 3983 .................................................... 7
• Forum, Prevention of Environmental & Sound Pollution v. Union of India & Anr., (2005) 5
SCC 733 ................................................................................................................................. 16
• Hallu & Ors. v. the State of M.P. 1974 AIR 1936, 1974 SCR (3) 652. .................................. 3
• Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors., CW PIL NO. 6 of 2020...7
• Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd v.Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors, AIR.2008 SC 913 ..................... 10
• Janata Dal v. HS Chowdhary, (1992)4SCC305 ..................................................................... 11
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 ................................................................. 16
• K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand, (1994)6SCC620................................................................ 11
Page | III
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207. ............ 5
• K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 ........................ 6
• KeishamMeghachandra Singh v. Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 5521
• Keshav Singh v Speaker, Legislative Assembly, AIR 1965 All 349, 1965 CriLJ 170.......... 20
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) AIR 1295: 1964 SCR (1) 332 .................... 16
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 ...................................... 19
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 651 .................................................... 20
• Kushum Lata v Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180 ............................................................... 11
• L. Chandra kumar v. Union of India, (1997)3 SCC 261. ......................................................... 5
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1........................................................... 3
• M. Krishna Swami v.Union OfIndia&Ors.,AIR1993SC1407 ............................................... 11
• M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. vs. State of H.P. and ors., CWP No.4779 of 2014 ..... 2
• Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381 ............................................................ 20
• Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, 2006 (2) ALJ 8 ......................................................................... 3
• Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653 ........................................... 6
• Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1875) ....................................................................................... 16
• Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 ................................. 2
• N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422 ............................................... 6
• Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1. .................................................................................................... 20
• Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547. ............................................... 16
• National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 342 .......... 12
• National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742
........................................................................................................................... …….12, 15, 16
• National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742....... 5
Page | IV

• Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and others, (2011) 14 SCC 337 2
• Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) SCC (1) 242, JT 1994 (7) 652................................... 8
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ...................................... 12
• Puhlhofer v. Hillingdon, London Borough Council, (1986)1 All.E.R.467............................ 15
• Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 ............................................................... 6
• Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270 ..................................... 20
• Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Chief Election Commissioner And Ors., Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.
437/2020................................................................................................................................... 9
• Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Chief Election Commissioner And Ors., Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.
437/2020................................................................................................................................. 10
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 ......................................................... 17
• Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38. ........................................ 8
• Ramjas Foundationv.UnionofIndia,AIR1993SC852 ............................................................. 11
• Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 SCC 134 ............................. 8
• Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR 566 ................................................. 2
• Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558 .............................................................. 18
• S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v. Non Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union
(1981) AC 363 ....................................................................................................................... 20
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) 3 SCC 1 ................................ 16
• S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572 ............................................................... 6
• Sachidanand Pandey v State of W.B., (1987) 2 SCC 295 ..................................................... 11
• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425 ......................................................... 5
• Seema Sapra v. General Electric Co & Others LNIND 2015 DEL 1600 ................................ 7
• Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436. ................................................... 6
• SN Sharma v. Bipin Bihari Tiwari, AIR 1970 SC 786 ............................................................ 3
Page | V

• Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi, (2015) 12 SCC 381 .......................... 20
• Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal KeshariParida (2013) 11 SCC 794 ............. 20
• State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) (1) SCC 55 .............................................................. 3
• State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan 2011 (7) SCC 639................ 8
• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)3 S.C.C. 592 ...................................................... 14
• State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 .......................................................................................................... 12
• Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others (2016) SCC 277 ............ 3
• Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433. ..................................... 1
• Umedsinh P Chavda v. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No.- 346/2020. ........... 6
• Union of India and another v. Guwahati Carbon Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 651 ...................... 2
• Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another 2015 AIR SCW
2497 .......................................................................................................................................... 2
• Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396 .................................................... 20
• Union of India v. Shantiranjan Sarkar (2209) 3 SCC 90 ......................................................... 8
• Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ................................................................... 6
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 ............................................................. 20
• Vijay Kumar Singh v. The Election Commission of India & Ors., CWJC No. 7308 of 2020.11
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
• INDIANA CONST. art. 32 ...................................................................................................... 6
• INDIANA CONST. art. 324 .................................................................................................. 10
• INDIANA CONST. art. 356, amended by The Constitution (Forty-Eighth) Amendemnet Act,
1984 ........................................................................................................................................ 14
• INDIANA CONSTITUTION, art 21 ..................................................................................... 16
• INDIANA CONSTITUTION, art 226 ..................................................................................... 5
Page | VI

STATUTES
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 154 ........................................................................ 3
• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, § 12 .................................................................... 5
BOOKS
• DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 832 (Central Law Agency 2020).
................................................................................................................................................ 16
• DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (LexisNexis

2019 ........................................................................................................................................ 19
• JAGDISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Modern Publications) ...................... 19
• L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2013) ................................................... 13, 17
• M. V. PYLEE, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN INDIA (S. Chand & Company)14
• M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LexisNexis 2014). ................................ 18
• N.A. PALKHIVALA, INDIA’S PRICELESS HERITAGE (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 2003)13
• P. M. BAXI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Universal Law Publishing 2017) ........... 15
• PROF. M. P. SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Eastern Book

Company) ............................................................................................................................... 14
• PROF. M. P. SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Eastern Book

Company). .............................................................................................................................. 15
• R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Eastern Book Company 2018). ...................... 3
• RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (LexisNexis

2017) ........................................................................................................................................ 4
• S.N. MISRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Central Law Publications 2018)4
Page | VII

OTHER AUTHORITIES
• DELHI ASSEMBLY, http://delhiassembly.nic.in/antidefection.htm (last visited Sep. 6, 2021)

................................................................................................................................................ 18
• LIVE LAW, https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/sc-agrees-to-hear-plea-seeking-president-

rule-in-bengal-over-post-poll-violence-deploy-armed-forces-1821677-2021-07-01(last visited
Sep. 7, 2021) .......................................................................................................................... 16
• LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/columns/the-tenth-schedule-in-rajasthan-dissidence-to-

defection-the-dynamics-of-power-160333 (last visited Sep. 7, 2021). .................................... 7
• LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/public-interest-litigation-is-not-a-pill-or-

panacea-for-all-wrongs-and-cant-be-used-for-suspicious-products-of-mischief-himachal-
pradesh-hc-161308?from-login=320815 (last visited Sep. 8, 2021)........................................ 7
• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics (last visited Sep. 7, 2021).7
ONLINE LEGAL DATABASES
• SCC ONLINE • LEXISNEXIS
• MANUPATRA • WESTLAW INDIA
• HEIN ONLINE • JSTOR
Page | VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
¶ Paragraph
& And
AIR All India Reporter
All E.R. All England Law Report
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Co. Company
Corpn. Corporation
CrPC The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ker Kerala
LDP Liberal Democratic Party
Ltd. Limited
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
Ors. Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
RHD Rashtra Hith Dal
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
U.S. United States
v. Versus
WHO World Health Organization
Page | IX
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana. The respondents humbly reserve the right to contest the same.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.”
The present memorandum on behalf of the respondents sets forth the facts, contentions and
arguments in all the three writ petitions which have been clubbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Indiana.
Page | X
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1. A global pandemic named Covid-19 hit the world in 2019 which resulted in lakhs of deaths all
across the globe. On the recommendation of WHO, various guidelines were issued to prevent
the contagious disease, which included inter alia the wearing of a mask, washing of hands and
using hand sanitizer frequently, maintaining social distancing.
2. An Asian Country named Indiana which was severely affected during Covid-19 first wave had
imposed strict national lockdown like many other countries to restrict mass movement and
public gatherings. In 2021, the second wave of Covid-19 massively hit Indiana which was even
more dangerous and due to which several states of Indiana had completely imposed lockdown in
their respective states.
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH

3. Amid all the chaos and national crisis, general elections to elect members of the Legislative
Assembly of Purva Pradesh were scheduled during the peak of the second wave. Consequently,
all the contesting political parties conducted huge election campaigns, calling for thousands and
thousands of people but no guidelines were issued by Purva Pradesh to prevent Covid-19.
4. During the campaign, no norms of social distancing, wearing masks, etc. were followed. Due to
this, within few days of the election campaign, there was a spike in the number of Covid cases
across the State of Purva Pradesh.
ELECTION RESULTS AND POST-POLL VIOLENCE

5. Purva Pradesh Vidhan Sabha consists of 250 seats, out of which 130 seats were secured by LDP
and 112 seats were secured by Rashtra Hith Dal (RHD), the major opposition party. The results
were announced on 2nd June 2021 and soon after that violence erupted on a large scale in the
state. It was alleged by the major opposition party that their leaders, workers and supporters
were the prime victims of post-poll violence and that many citizens had to leave their native
place and had to take refuge in the nearby State of Prag Pradesh to save their lives.
6. They presented some pieces of evidence showing that such violence had created a greater
impact on economic activities, demographic balance and communal harmony in the state and
had resulted in the situation of lawlessness which led to the internal displacement of the people.
Whereas it was alleged by the winning party that such violence was sponsored by the major
Page | XI
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] STATEMENT OF FACTS

opposition party, which was having government at the Centre to create instability in the state for
creating the grounds of imposition of State Emergency. Mr. Bisham Singh, of the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) who lost the election from his constituency was chosen to be the Chief
Minister of the State of Purva Pradesh by LDP.
PIL AGAINST POST-POLL VIOLENCE

7. On 10th June 2021, an NGO named Pravah Chakra, visited the violence-affected areas for
conducting a preliminary survey and prepare a report but were allegedly attacked by the locals.
The NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court against such violence.
PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH

8. On 18th June 2021, Bisham Singh took oath as the Chief Minister of Purva Pradesh and his
government came into power. But even after having a regular government, the law-and order
situation in the state continued to suffer. Subsequently, having regard to the massive outrage and
violence, the President of Indiana imposed President’s Rule in Purva Pradesh on 30th June
2021. During the President’s rule, 15 members of LDP joined RHD, the major opposition party.
PETITION TO POSTPONE THE ELECTIONS IN VRIHADH PRADESH

9. Another NGO named Aryan Foundation filed a petition to postpone the election process in the
State of Vrihadh Pradesh where the Vidhan Sabha elections were scheduled to take place in
September 2021 while a similar situation of Pandemic has been prevailing in the State.
PETITION FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PURVA PRADESH

10. The Government of Purva Pradesh filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
President’s Rule and the defection of the members of the ruling party as due to the State
Emergency, the Legislature of the State is suspended and the Speaker of the House cannot
decide on the disqualification of the defecting members.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana clubbed all these petitions and decided to hear them
jointly.
Page | XII
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues have been placed before this Hon’ble Court to adjudicate upon:-
~ ISSUE [1] ~
WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PRAVAH CHAKRA IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
~ ISSUE [2] ~
WHETHER THE VIDHAN SABHA ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF VRIHADH

PRADESH CAN BE POSTPONED DUE TO COVID-19?
~ ISSUE [3] ~
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
~ ISSUE [4] ~
WHETHER THE DEFECTING MEMBERS OF THE RULING PARTY IN THE STATE

OF PURVA PRADESH CAN BE DISQUALIFIED ON GROUND OF DEFECTION?
Page | XIII
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
~ ISSUE [1] ~
WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PRAVAH CHAKRA IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has failed to exercise all the
alternative and efficacious remedies against violence provided under Section 154 of CrPc, 1973
to file an FIR; or under Section 156 (3) of CrPc, 1973, to approach the Judicial Magistrate; or
under Section 200 of CrPc, 1973 to file a criminal complaint for the purpose of examination by
the Magistrate; or under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana. The
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1934 provides that National Human Rights Commission of
Indiana can hold enquiry even on reference of a complaint to it by the Court, hence the
petitioners also had this alternative remedy to bring to their assistance. On exhaustion of all the
above-mentioned remedies, the Petitioner should have approached the apex court under the writ
jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana and not by the means of Public Interest
Litigation. It is therefore, most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble court that, the present
Public Interest Litigation under Art. 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable before this court
for the purpose of hearing.
~ ISSUE [2] ~
WHETHER THE VIDHAN SABHA ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF VRIHADH

PRADESH CAN BE POSTPONED DUE TO COVID-19?
It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the Vidhan Sabha
elections in the State of Vrihadh Pradesh cannot be postponed due to covid-19 pandemic as the
contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated. The increase in number of cases
can be attributes to increase in testing in the state. The petitioner’s assessment of the increase in
the spread of the disease and increased loss of lives is completely unsubstantiated. There has
been no evidence to show that a rise in Covid-19 cases are a direct effect of conduction of
Elections. Moreover, conduction of election is an exclusive Jurisdiction of the election
commission. It is further submitted that the present petition filed by the NGO Aryan Foundation
Page | XIV
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

is not maintainable Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana as the petitioner has no locus standi.
The main essence of a PIL is a violation of fundamental rights which has caused injury to a
party. However, in this case this is no such violation of fundamental rights as the petitioner has
filed this writ petition in order to gain publicity. Lastly, the Election Commission submits that
the conduct of elections is done keeping in view the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and that
every possible decision being explored is taken into account only after analysing all factors
relating to conduct of elections.
~ ISSUE [3] ~
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that President’s Rule in the State of Purva
Pradesh is legally and constitutionally valid because President’s Rule was imposed in
accordance with Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution in view of the deteriorating condition
in the State of Purva Pradesh posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of Indiana. The
situation in the State of Purva Pradesh was extraordinary and there was a gross failure of
Constitutional Machinery in the State. Some pieces of evidence were presented to show that
such violence had created a greater impact on economic activities, demographic balance and
communal harmony in the state and had resulted in the situation of lawlessness which led to the
internal displacement of the people. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the Government
of Indiana to take appropriate action under Article 355 and 356 of the Constitution. Thus, in the
instant case the central government has exercised its power conferred by Article 355 and Article
356 keeping in view the deteriorating condition posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of
India.
~ ISSUE [4] ~
WHETHER THE DEFECTING MEMBERS OF THE RULING PARTY IN THE STATE

OF PURVA PRADESH CAN BE DISQUALIFIED ON GROUND OF DEFECTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that vide the present factual matrix at hand, the
situation of President’s rule has nothing to do in regard of the power of court to deliver any
decision in the light of defection of members. Time and again it has been reiterated by the court
Page | XV

that the exclusive power of decision on disqualification of members of the legislative assembly
lies with the speaker. In the present case, when the assembly is suspended there has been no
decision made by the speaker and therefore there lies completely null ground for the judiciary to
exercise its limited power of judicial review vide Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. It is
therefore, most respectfully submitted that, the decision on defection should clearly lie with the
speaker of the assembly at the time of the commencement of the assembly and the members
should be entitled to fully function subject to the final decision that may be rendered by the
Speaker in the disqualification filed under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution.
Page | XVI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE [1] : WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PRAVAH CHAKRA IS MAINTAINABLE

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?
[¶1.] It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present public interest
litigation filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is not maintainable before this
court for the purpose of hearing since the petitioner has failed to exercise all the alternative
and efficacious remedies available against violence which are provided under various
provisions of CrPC or under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 or under the writ
jurisdiction of High Courts. The submissions in this regard have been presented by the way
of a five-fold argument:
under CrPC which it failed to exercise.
[1.1.1] Remedy under Section 154 of CrPc, 1973.
[1.1.2] Remedy under Section 156(3) of CrPc, 1973.
[1.1.4] Remedy under Section 482of CrPc, 1973.
[1.2] The Petitioner has access to remedy provided under Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993.
[1.3] Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana was
also accessible to the Petitioner as an alternative remedy.
[1.4] The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana
is a measure of Last Resort.
[1.5] PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs.
under CrPC which it failed to exercise.
[¶2.] It is contended that, in the presence of right or liability is created by a statute which gives a
special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must be availed. 1In
other words, existence of an adequate alternate remedy is a factor to be considered by the
1
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433.
Page | 1
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

court before exercising its writ jurisdiction.2

[¶3.] The apex court has reiterated that, when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by
an assessment there under, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a
particular way3, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner and all the -other forums
and modes of seeking remedy are excluded.4
[¶4.] It has been established that, where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, the party
must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief.5
[¶5.] In the present case at hand, the public interest litigation has been brought before this Hon’ble
Court before proceeding in the hierarchical manner of remedies provided under the Criminal
Procedure Code of Indiana, 1973 for the cognizable offence of violence.
[¶6.] It is pertinent to note that, any petition brought before the High Court or Supreme Court
under the writ jurisdiction is not maintainable6 if any alternative efficacious7 remedy is
available8 for the said issue.
[¶7.] Special emphasis is to be laid on the judgment where the apex court after discussing its
various earlier decisions, held that the High Court had committed error in entertaining the
writ petition without noticing and referring to the relevant provisions of law applicable in
that case, which contained statutory remedy of appeal and accordingly set aside the order of
the High Court in terms of which the writ petition was entertained.9
[¶8.] Therefore, in the light of the above-mentioned argument, laying importance of the presence
of an alternative or efficacious remedy, it is humbly submitted that this present petition in
hand is not maintainable for the purpose of hearing.

[¶9.] FIR means ‘First Information Report. ‘FIR is the first document prepared in criminal
proceedings. FIR is a document that places on record the victim's side of the story. FIR10
acts as a tool on which police authorities base and start their investigations. Hence, it is
evident clear that an FIR plays a vital role in criminal proceedings.11
[¶10.] Section 154(1) Cr.P.C elucidates that any information relating to the commission of a
2
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR 566.
3
Union of India and another v. Guwahati Carbon Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 651.
4
Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250.
5
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337.
6
Champa Devi v. State Of H.P. And Anr., LNIND 2015 HP 2493.
7
Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another2015 AIR SCW 2497.
8
M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. vs. State of H.P. and ors., CWP No.4779 of 2014.
9
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and others, (2011) 14 SCC 337.
10
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) CriLJ 4709 (SC).
11
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
Page | 2

cognizable offence12 if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be

reduced to writing by himself or under his direction, and all such information, whether in
writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person who furnishes it.13
[¶11.] This is the first remedy provided to a citizen in case of any cognizable offence. The
petitioner’s in the present case did not proceed to file any FIR for the said offence when such
an alternative and efficacious remedy was present in the statue itself for the parties
aggrieved.
[¶12.] Section 154 does not require that the Report must be given by a person who has personal
knowledge of the incident reported.14 The section speaks of information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offense given to an officer in charge of a police station.15
[¶13.] In the present case at hand, the NGO had the remedy under Section 154 of the CrPc to file
an FIR against the act of violence done on them failed at bringing such remedy to work.16
[1.1.2] Remedy under Section 156 (3) of CrPc, 1973.

[¶14.] Alternatively, if an informant remains unsatisfied even after pursuing the remedy under
section 154(3), he/she can further pursue the remedy mentioned under section 156(3). 17
[¶15.] if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, proper
investigation is not being done, then the remedy available to the aggrieved person is not to
go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the
Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.18
[¶16.] Section 156(3) entails that any Magistrate empowered19 under Section 190 may order an
investigation by a police officer performing its duties under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C20
[¶17.] The Hon’ble Court clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and the police have
made the investigation, or is making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is
not satisfactory, or have even submitted the report,21 such a person can approach the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a
proper investigation and may take other appropriate actions.22
12
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
13
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 154 .
14
R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Eastern Book Company 2018).
15
Hallu & Ors. v. the State of M.P. 1974 AIR 1936, 1974 SCR (3) 652.
16
Moot Proposition.
17
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 156.
18
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others (2016) SCC 277.
19
SN Sharma v. Bipin Bihari Tiwari, AIR 1970 SC 786.
20
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, 2006 (2) ALJ 8.
21
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) (1) SCC 55.
22
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) CriLJ 4709 (SC).
Page | 3


[¶18.] The remedy for the offence of violence lies under Sections 154(3) before the concerned
police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate
or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C which lays down as 23, “. A
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall
be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by
the Magistrate”24
[¶19.] The above-mentioned sections highlight the chronology/series of remedies available to a
person. Firstly, filing a complaint before the police official and secondly, in the event of
failure of the registration of the complaint by the official, one shall approach the SSP/SP for
the said purpose. However, if the complaint is not registered even after that, then the next
remedy is to seek help from the Judicial Magistrate.
[1.1.4] Remedy under Section 482of CrPc, 1973.

[¶20.] Alternatively, if the affected persons were still aggrieved by the Judicial Magistrate’s order,
they still had a right to move the High Court by filing an application under Section 482
CrPC which says, “Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may
be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”. 25
[¶21.] The High Court should not encourage this practice and should generally refuse to intervene
in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy under Section 154(3)
and Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer
referred to in Section 36, his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.26
[1.2] The Petitioner has access to remedy under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
[¶22.] Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 199327 provides that the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC)28 of Indiana can hold enquiry even on reference of a complaint
23
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (LexisNexis 2017).
24
25
26
S.N. MISRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Central Law Publications 2018).
27
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, § 12.
28
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742.
Page | 4

to it by the Court. According to Section 12 of 1993 Act, the Commission29 shall inquire,
suo-motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf (or on a
direction or order of any court), into complaint of (i) violation of human rights or abetment
thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant. NHRC
shall also intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights
pending before a court with the approval of such court.30
[¶23.] Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner in the instant case, had access to an alternative
remedy under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which it did not exercise.
[1.3] Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana
was also accessible to the Petitioner as an alternative remedy.
[¶24.] A Writ Petition could have been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution upon
exhaustion of the above remedies. The power of judicial review vested in the High Court
under Article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the Constitution. 31
[¶25.] Article 226 empowers High Court to issue prerogative writs. The said Article reads as
under:
“Article 226.Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate
cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.”32
[¶26.] Article 226 confers very wide powers33 in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court34,
the remedy of writ35 is absolutely discretionary in character.36The Court, in extraordinary
circumstances,37 may exercise the power38 if it comes to the conclusion39 that there has been
29
National Human Rights Commission of India.
30
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, § 12.
31
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997)3 SCC 261.
32
INDIANA CONSTITUTION, art 226.
33
K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207.
34
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425.
35
Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.
36
K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089.
37
N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422.
38
Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653.
Page | 5

a breach of the principles of natural justice40 or the procedure required for decision has not
been adopted.41
[¶27.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the petitioners, in the present case, in
case of exhausting the remedies mentioned under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
should have moved to the High Court of Purva Pradesh under the jurisdiction of Article 226.
[¶28.] The petitioners were to exercise the remedy provided to them after the said unfortunate
incident of the breakout of violence upon them as a collaborative offence of post poll
violence by registering a FIR under Section 154 of the CrPc, 1973. Alternatively, if the
police did not lodge their FIR or declined to conduct proper investigation then either an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC could have been moved before the Judicial
Magistrate or a Complaint could have been moved regarding the offences under Section 200
CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate. Alternatively, if the affected persons were still
aggrieved by the Judicial Magistrate’s order, they still had a right to move the High Court by
filing an application under Section 482 CrPC, inter alia, invoking the inherent powers of the
High Court in order to direct the police to conduct proper, free and fair investigation in the
matter. A Writ Petition could have been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution upon
exhaustion of the above remedies.
[1.4] Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is
a measure of Last Resort
[¶29.] The Indian judiciary is witnessing a spike in misappropriation at the hands of litigants, who
erroneously invoke this jurisdiction under Article 32 and thus, add to the mounting pile of
pending matters. Recently, the Hon’ble Court came down heavily on the Petitioner for
erroneously invoking such jurisdiction in the case of Umedsinh P Chavda v. Union of India
and Ors.42 and imposed cost of Rs. 5 lakhs upon him.
[¶30.] Constitutional remedies such as Article 3243 encompass a wide ambit of power and it has
been regarded as a weapon to be used with great care and caution. Though the Article
upholds a person’s fundamental rights to their highest regards, there is a fine line which
prevents it from encroaching upon the constitutional duties of the State. The route of Art. 32
shall be regarded as a speedy remedy for bona fide cause and not as a tool to cause
39
Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436.
40
S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572.
41
Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75.
42
Umedsinh P Chavda v. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No.- 346/2020.
43
INDIANA CONST. art. 32.
Page | 6

unnecessary vexation and delay justice in significant matters when the Supreme Court
already faces a backlog of 69,956matters (as on September 04, 2021)44 and physical hearing
being suspended to battle the pandemic of COVID-19, the time of Judiciary demands
utilisation in the most judicious manner possible.
[1.5] PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs45
[¶31.] It is contended that, the Supreme Court has specifically observed that there is value to be
placed on the time of courts and serpentine queues of genuine litigants should not be
overlooked on account of so called PILs, which results in wastage of precious judicial
time.46No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in
order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes.47
[¶32.] Highlighting the purpose of a PIL, the Supreme Court in Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission &Ors.48 held that
“Public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to
protect the basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged. Public interest litigation is a
weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the Judiciary has to
be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or public interest seeking is not lurking.”49
[¶33.] PIL is a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person50 files a petition in
effect on behalf of such person who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and
social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief.51 However, in recent times, there
have been increasingly instances of abuse of. PIL.52 Therefore, there is a need to re-
emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and
entertained by the Court.
[¶34.] Whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused,53
44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics (last visited Sep. 7, 2021).
45
Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors., CWPIL NO. 6 of 2020.
46
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 349.
47
Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, : 1996 CriLJ 3983.
48
Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors., CWPIL NO. 6 of 2020.
49
LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/public-interest-litigation-is-not-a-pill-or-panacea-for-all-
wrongs-and-cant-be-used-for-suspicious-products-of-mischief-himachal-pradesh-hc-161308?from-
login=320815 (last visited Sep. 8, 2021).
50
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333.
51
Seema Sapra v. General Electric Co & Others LNIND 2015 DEL 1600.
52
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan 2011 (7) SCC 639.
53
Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38.
Page | 7

the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter54. This rule has
been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of
the Court by deceiving it. 55
The legal maxim “Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur” means that a
right cannot arise out of wrong doing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this.56
[¶35.] It is hereby contended that, only after the exhaustion of all the alternative and efficacious
remedies, the petitioner should have moved to the apex court under the writ jurisdiction of
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, as filing a Public Interest Litigation is nothing but
a burden on the court tampering the court’s time and delaying the genuine litigation.
Therefore, this public interest litigation is not maintainable.
ISSUE [2] :WHETHER THE VIDHAN SABHA ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF

VRIHADH PRADESH CAN BE POSTPONED DUE TO COVID-19?
[¶36.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the Vidhan Sabha
elections in the State of Vrihadh Pradesh cannot be postponed due to covid-19 because of
the following averments:-
[2.1] The contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated.
[2.2] There has been no evidence to show that a rise in Covid-19 cases are a direct effect
of conduction of Elections.
[2.3] The present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi.
[2.4] Conduction of election is an exclusive Jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
[2.1] The contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated.
[¶37.] We find that the contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated. We see that the
increase in the number of cases may be attributed to the increase in testing in the
State.57ThereisnothingtoshowthattheElectionCommissionisrefusingtotakestockofthecoronavi
russituation in the State. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Election Commission,
they have categorically assured to the Court that the guidelines formulated for the conduct of
elections are done keeping in view the prevailing Covid-19pandemic and that every possible
decision being explored is taken into account only after analysing all factors relating to
54
Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) SCC (1) 242, JT 1994 (7) 652.
55
Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 SCC 134.
56
Union of India v. Shantiranjan Sarkar (2209) 3 SCC 90.
57
Badri Narayan Singh v. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary and
Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 1293 : AIR 2021 (NOC 480) 177.
Page | 8

conduct of elections. There is nothing to show that the Election Commission is failing to
take the responsibility of the spread of the disease.58
[¶38.] The petitioner’s assessment of the increase in the spread of the disease and increased loss of
lives is completely unsubstantiated. There is nothing to show that development schemes
would cease on the announcement of elections. There is nothing on record to substantiate the
claim that ‘less than50%’ofpersonswouldcomeoutforvotingorthat'nomorethan 30%' would be
allowed to vote while following social distancing guidelines. The assertion that elections
during the prevailing disease would be a mockery of democracy is
utterlyandcompletelyunsubstantiated.Also,nomalafidesstandalleged.59
[2.2] There has been no evidence to show that a rise in Covid-19 cases are a direct effect of
conduction of Elections.
[¶39.] It is contended that the petitioner's assessment of the increase in the spread of the disease
and increased loss of lives is completely unsubstantiated. There has been no corroborative
report to show the increase in coronavirus cases an immediate effect of conduct of the
elections.60
[¶40.] The present petition filed in public interest on behalf of a practicing advocate is shorn of
particulars and facts, apart from there being no basis supporting the submissions which in
any case based on mere presumptions and suppositions.
[¶41.] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court, that there is nothing to show that the
Election Commission is refusing to take stock of the coronavirus situation in the State. The
assertion that elections during the prevailing disease would be a mockery of democracy is
utterly and completely unsubstantiated. Also, no mala fides stand alleged.
[2.3] Conduction of election is an exclusive Jurisdiction of the election commission.
[¶42.] Article 324 of the Constitution61vests the exclusive superintendence, direction and
control of elections in the Election Commission:
“324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election
Commission
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls
58
Avinash Thakur v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 875/2020.
59
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Chief Election Commissioner And Ors., Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 437/2020.
60
Moot Proposition.
61
Page | 9

for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State
and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President held under this Constitution
shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election
Commission)”
[¶43.] It is a settled position of law that the Election Commission has exclusive authority with
respect to framing laws regarding the conduct of elections and where there is no law to
cope with some situation within the enacted rules, the Commission has plenary powers to
exercise their discretion.
[2.3.1] Duties of Election Commission

[¶44.] The State Election Commission submits that the conduct of elections is done keeping in
view the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and that every possible decision being explored is
taken into account only after analysing all factors relating to conduct of elections. There is
nothing to show that the Election Commission is failing to take responsibility/ the possibility
of spread of the disease.
[¶45.] The Hon’ble the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. the Andhra Pradesh State
Election Commission declined to interfere in the decision of the Election Commission in
postponing the elections due to Covid-19.
[¶46.] In a recent judgement of a plea seeking postponement of elections, Justice Bhushan stated
that the plea was “misconceived” and could not be allowed under Article 32 of the
Constitution as the election was yet to be declared, and therefore, the Petitioners could not
cite the pandemic as the reason to seek for the postponement of the elections. “COVID is not
a ground for postponement of elections. This court cannot tell CEC what to do. It will
consider everything”, Justice Bhushan remarked.62.
[2.4] The present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner as no locus standi.
[¶47.] PIL is an avenue that must be utilized with great care and caution 63.Ordinarily, it is the
aggrieved person who approaches the Court unless they are unable to do so 64. Further,
PILshavetobenecessarilyfiledforsomeinfringementoffundamentalrights. 65More
importantly, the Petitioner must have clean hands66and must be acting in a bonafide
62
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Chief Election Commissioner And Ors., Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 437/2020..
63
HolicowPicturesPvt.Ltd v.PremChandraMishra &Ors, AIR.2008SC913.
64
M. Krishna Swami v.Union OfIndia&Ors.,AIR1993SC1407.
65
Balco Employees’ Union v Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333; Sachidanand Pandey v State of W.B.,
(1987) 2 SCC 295.
66
RamjasFoundationv.UnionofIndia,AIR1993SC852;K.R.Srinivasv.R.M.Premchand,(1994)6SCC620.
Page | 10

manner in genuine public interest. PILs must not be utilized to generate publicity, or be
utilized for frivolous litigation for an oblique motive.67
[¶48.] It is submitted that in the present case there have been no violations of fundamental
rights. Moreover, the NGO Aryan Foundation has instituted this writ petition by way of
PIL without clean hands in an endeavor to generate publicity. This is evident from the
fact that they immediately instituted the PIL after the election schedule was announced
without even waiting for the exact date of the elections to be announced. It was simply a
race to file the PIL the earliest to gain publicity. Thus, they have no locus standi.
[¶49.] “From the averments made, we find the petition to be wholly misconceived and not
maintainable. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that the reasons assigned seeking a
postponement, to our mind, do not warrant interference, particularly when the record is
conspicuously silent indicating non-application of mind by the appropriate authorities.
Further, there is nothing on record indicating that the relevant authorities are not likely to
account for all factors in determining the feasibility of conducting the Vidhan Sabha
elections of Vrihadh Pradesh.”68
ISSUE [3] :WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA

PRADESH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
[¶50.] It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the President’s Rule imposed in
the State of Purva Pradesh is legally and constitutionally valid because of the following
averments:
[3.1] President’s Rule was imposed in view of the deteriorating condition in the State of
Purva Pradesh posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of Indiana.
Constitution of Indiana.
[3.3] President’s satisfaction in the instant case is based on objective material
[3.4] Alternative option of the deployment of Army cannot be justified in a State where
there is a case of gross violation of Fundamental Rights of the citizens.
[3.1] President’s Rule was imposed in view of the deteriorating law and order condition in
the State of Purva Pradesh posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of Indiana.
[¶51.] It is most humbly submitted that situation in the State of Purva Pradesh was extraordinary
67
Kushum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3
SCC349;Janata Dalv.HS Chowdhary(1992)4SCC305.
68
Vijay Kumar Singh v. The Election Commission of India & Ors., CWJC No. 7308 of 2020.
Page | 11

and there was a gross failure of Constitutional Machinery in the State. Following
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding Constitutional values and duties of
each organ of State, as made in Nandini Sunder and others v. State of Chhattisgarh69, are
quite relevant in the facts of the present case. It dealt with a gap between the promised
principled exercise of power in a Constitutional democracy and the reality of the situation in
Chhattisgarh, where gross violation70 of human rights71 was alleged against the State. Modes
of State action were found to be seriously undermining the Constitutional values, which may
cause grievous harm to the national interest.72
[¶52.] The assembly election results of the Sate of Purva Pradesh were announced on 2nd June
2021 and soon after that violence erupted on a large scale in the state.73 It was alleged by the
major opposition party that their leaders, workers and supporters were the prime victims of
such post-poll violence74. It was also alleged that many citizens had to leave their native
place and had to take refuge in the nearby state of Prag Pradesh to save their lives. Such
violence had created a greater impact on economic activities, demographic balance and
communal harmony in the state and had resulted in the situation of lawlessness which led to
the internal displacement of the people.75 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that President’s
Rule was imposed in the State of Purva Pradesh in view of the deteriorating condition in the
State posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of Indiana.
Constitution.
[¶53.] The President of India can overtake the legislative and executive power of the state by
imposing the emergency in a state in case of “failure of Constitutional machinery”. The role
of the state has been beautifully captured in the following words by one of the most eminent
jurists of India Nani Palkhivala in his book “India’s Priceless Heritage”:
“It would be hard to improve upon the sense of values which made ancient India so great.
Our old sages judged the greatness of a State not by the extent of its empire or by the size of
its wealth, but by the degree of righteousness and justice which marked the public
69
Nandini Sunder and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547.
70
71
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
72
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 342.
73
Moot Proposition ¶4.
74
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC
571.
75
Page | 12

administration and the private lives of the citizens.”76

[¶54.] Article 355 in The Constitution reads as
355. “Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal
disturbance- It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external
aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is
carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”.77
[¶55.] Article 356 states that “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 Proclaim emergency in a state”. With the proclamation of President rule in a state,
the elected government is dismissed and legislative assembly got suspended and the
administration of the state is directly controlled by the President through his representative
governor.78
[¶56.] President’s Rule can be imposed if there is a ‘breakdown of the constitutional machinery in
the state’. What does this expression mean? Article 356 says that if any piece of advice is
given by the Centre and a state government does not comply with it, it shall be deemed that
‘there is breakdown of the constitutional machinery of the state’. It does not mean corruption
or misuse of powers by the Speaker. The President can exercise powers under Article 356
‘either on the report of the Governor or otherwise. On the inclusion of the word ‘otherwise’,
which means the President may act even without the governor’s report.
[¶57.] Justice Reddy in Bommai’s case has noticed, in so far as it was relevant, the ratio underlying
each of the six opinions delivered by Seven Judge Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Union of India79as under:
(i) The language of Art.35680 and the practice since 1950 shows that the Central Government
can enforce its will against the State Governments with respect to the question how the State
Governments should function and who should hold reins of power.
(ii)By virtue of Art.365(5) and Art.74(2), it is impossible for the Court to question the
satisfaction of the President. It has to decide the case on the basis of only those facts as may
have been admitted by or placed by the President before the Court.
76
N.A. PALKHIVALA, INDIA’S PRICELESS HERITAGE (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 2003).
77
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LexisNexis, 2014).
78
L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2013).
79
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)3 S.C.C. 592.
80
INDIANA CONST. art. 356, amended by The Constitution (Forty-Eighth) Amendemnet Act, 1984.
Page | 13

(iii)The language of Art.356(1) is very wide. It is desirable that conventions are developed
channelizing the exercise of this power.
[¶58.] It is submitted that the circumstances which was prevailing in the State of Purva Pradesh
after the election results, a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State cannot
be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is alleged that injustice
has been caused to the entire population of the State and their basic amenities have been
affected. Hence, there had been a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state due
to the violence. In these circumstances, imposition of President’s Rule is justified and it was
imposed in accordance with Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution of Indiana.
[3.3] President’s satisfaction in the instant case is based on objective material
[¶59.] The conditions precedent to the issuance of the Proclamation under Art. 356, are: (a) that the
President should be satisfied either on the basis of a report from the Governor of the State or
otherwise, (b) 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. In other words, the
President’s satisfaction has to be based on objective material. 81 That material may be
available in the report sent to him by the Governor or otherwise or both from the report and
other sources. Further, the objective material so available must indicate that the Government
of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.82
[¶60.] Thus, the existence of the objective material showing that the Government of the State
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is a condition
precedent before the President issues the Proclamation.83 Once such material is shown to
exist, the satisfaction of the President based on the material is not open to question.
The State Government which acts against the ideal of “Secularism can be dismissed by the
President”
[¶61.] “Secularism” is a basic feature of the Constitution and any State Government which acts
against that ideal can be dismissed by the government.84 It was held that in matters of
religion the State has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a religious party as
well as a political party.85
81
PROF. M. P. SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Eastern Book Company).
82
M. V. PYLEE, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN INDIA (S. Chand & Company).
83
Puhlhofer v. Hillingdon, London Borough Council, (1986)1 All.E.R.467.
84
PROF. M. P. SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Eastern Book Company).
85
P. M. BAXI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Universal Law Publishing 2017).
Page | 14

[¶62.] In the instant case, some pieces of evidence were presented showing that such violence had
created a greater impact on communal harmony in the state and had resulted in the situation
of lawlessness which led to the internal displacement of the people.86It was alleged by the
major opposition party that many citizens had to leave their native place and had to take
refuge in the nearby state of Prag Pradesh to save their lives.87Even after having a regular
government, the law-and-order situation in the state of Purva Pradesh continued to suffer.88
[¶63.] These evidences are sufficient to show that the Government of the State could not be carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which is a condition precedent
before the President issues the Proclamation. Therefore, it is submitted that in the instant
case, the satisfaction of the President is based on objective material.
[3.4] Alternative option of the deployment of Army cannot be justified in a State where
there is a case of gross violation of Fundamental Rights of the citizens
[¶64.] It is humbly submitted that there has been a gross violation fundamental rights89 of the
citizens of Purva Pradesh because of the violence erupted after the announcement of election
results. There has been a violation of citizens’ Right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indiana. Their right to shelter, livelihood and the right to live with dignity
has been seriously affected therefore, it completely possesses the interest of the public at
large in the State of Purva Pradesh.90
[¶65.] The Supreme Court of Indiana has expounded the various facets of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India through its various judgements.91 The Supreme Court has held that
Article 2192 of the Constitution of India does not guarantee mere animal93 existence94 or
continued drudgery through life but has a much wider meaning which includes right to
livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. 95The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is
enjoyed.96The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity97 and all that goes
86
87
88
89
90
Moot Proposition. ¶4
91
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
92
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.
93
Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1875).
94
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547.
95
Forum, Prevention of Environmental & Sound Pollution v. Union of India & Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 733.
96
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) AIR 1295: 1964 SCR (1) 332.
Page | 15

along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter
over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms,
freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include
the right to basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.98
[¶66.] It is further alleged that the State of Purva Pradesh had been proceeding and working in an
illegal, arbitrary, high handed, whimsical and unfair manner for a long time, and is
constantly abusing its authority, against the Principles of Natural Justice. Such
discrimination amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the same shall
not be inconformity Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India.
[¶67.] In certain circumstances, Centre’s intervention99 in a situation of deteriorating law and order
could be justified through the deployment of Army in the affected areas.100However, in the
present case, there has been a gross violation fundamental rights101 of the citizens of Purva
Pradesh, hence, immediate intervention of the Government of Indiana was required to
protect the rights of the people of Purva Pradesh.102 Thus, in the instant case the central
government has exercised its power conferred by Article 355 and Article 356 keeping in
view the deteriorating condition posing a threat to sovereignty and integrity of India.
Loss of majority in the State Assembly of Purva Pradesh can become a valid ground to
continue the President’s Rule.
[¶68.] In the Union of Indiana, there have been many instances in the past when President’s Rule
was imposed in several States on the ground that no party had the required majority in the
Assembly.103In the present case, during the President’s rule, 15 members of LDP joined
RHD. Due to this, the LDP’s ability to form government became questionable as it lost the
majority in the State Assembly. So, ultimately, loss of majority in the State Assembly of
Purva Pradesh can become a valid ground to continue the President’s Rule in the State even
if the violence stops.
97
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454.
98
INDIANA CONSTITUTION, art 21.
99
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994) 3 SCC 1.
100
DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 832 (Central Law Agency 2020).
101
102
LIVE LAW, https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/sc-agrees-to-hear-plea-seeking-president-rule-in-bengal-over-
post-poll-violence-deploy-armed-forces-1821677-2021-07-01 (last visited Sep. 7, 2021).
103
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
Page | 16

ISSUE [4] : WHETHER THE DEFECTING MEMBERS OF THE RULING PARTY IN

THE STATE OF PURVA PRADESH CAN BE DISQUALIFIED ON GROUND OF
DEFECTION?
[¶69.] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the defecting members of the ruling
party in the State of Purva Pradesh cannot be disqualified on ground of defection during the
President’ Rule in the State because of the following averments:
[4.1] The power to disqualify the members on ground of defection lies exclusively with
the Speaker of the House under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule.
[4.2] The Judiciary is restricted in respect of any matter concerned with the
disqualification of members of a House.
Rules for the disqualification of the members on defection in the Constitution of Indiana
[¶70.] ‘Defection’ means floor-crossing by a member of one political party to another party.104 To
discourage the practice of defection of members from one party to another after their
election, the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 was enacted by the
Parliament.105 The Amendment to Article 102(regarding Members of either Houses of
Parliament) and 191 (regarding Members of state legislatures) seeks to put an end to the evil
of political defections106 that undermines the basic principle of democracy.107 Amendment
had been made in Article 191 to provide that a person shall be disqualified for being a
member of the State Legislature if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.108
[¶71.] The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act changed four Articles of the Constitution,
i.e.,101(3)(a), 102(2), 190(3)(a) and 191(2), and added the Tenth Schedule thereto. This
Amendment is often referred to as the ‘Anti-defection law’.109 Under Art. 102(2), a person
is disqualified to be a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified under the
Tenth Schedule.110
[¶72.] The new Tenth Schedule added in the Constitution contains provisions as to
disqualification111 on the ground of defection. The question whether a member has become
subject to the disqualification will be decided by the presiding officer of the House. The
104
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LexisNexis, 2014).
105
L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2013).
106
Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Ors. v. B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 1.
107
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All.E.R. 935.
108
DELHI ASSEMBLY, http://delhiassembly.nic.in/antidefection.htm (last visited Sep. 6, 2021).
109
Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha and Others v. Kuldeep Bishnoi and Others, (2012) 7 MLJ 392.
110
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LexisNexis 2014).
111
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558.
Page | 17

Speaker/Chairperson has been empowered to make rules for giving effect to the provisions
of the Schedule.112
[¶73.] The reasons for the addition of Tenth Schedule were explained by the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Fifty-second Amendment (1985) to the constitution in the following
words, “The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not
combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles
which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the address by the President to
Parliament that the government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament
an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above
assurance.”
[4.1] The power to disqualify the members on ground of defection lies exclusively with the
Speaker of the House under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule.
[¶74.] The grounds of decisions on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection have

been mentioned under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule which follows as,
“(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House has become subject to
disqualification under this Schedule, the question shall be referred for the decision of the
Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his decision shall be final:
Provided that where the question which has arisen is as to whether the Chairman or the
Speaker of a House has become subject to such The Constitution Of Indiana (Tenth
Schedule) 351 disqualification, the question shall be referred for the decision of such
member of the House as the House may elect in this behalf and his decision shall be final.
(2) All proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in relation to any question as
to disqualification of a member of a House under this Schedule shall be deemed to be
proceedings in Parliament within the meaning of article 122113 or, as the case may be,
proceedings in the Legislature of a State within the meaning of article 212114.”
112
DELHI ASSEMBLY, http://delhiassembly.nic.in/antidefection.htm (last visited Sep. 6, 2021).
113
114
Page | 18

[4.2] The Judiciary is restricted in respect of any matter concerned with the
disqualification of members of a House.
[¶75.] In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others115, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 110
of the judgment, held thus:
“In view of the limited scope of judicial review that is available on account of the finality
clause in Paragraph 6 and also having regard to the constitutional intendment and the status
of the repository of the adjudicatory power i.e. Speaker/Chairman, judicial review cannot be
available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman and a
quiatimet action would not be permissible.116 Nor would interference be permissible at an
interlocutory stage of the proceedings. Exception will, however, have to be made in respect
of cases where disqualification or suspension is imposed during the pendency of the
proceedings and such disqualification or suspension is likely to have grave, immediate and
irreversible repercussions and consequence.”
[¶76.] Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule is as follows,117
Bar of jurisdiction of Courts-“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no court shall
have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a
member of a House under this Schedule.”118
[¶77.] Where Article 212 of the Constitution of Indiana is laid as, “Courts not to inquire into
proceedings of the Legislature119 -
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or
under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for
maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in
respect of the exercise by him of those powers”120
[¶78.] It is thus contended that the Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disqualification
questions that are referred to him.121The Speaker has to decide the question of
115
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651.
116
Rajendra Singh Rana and others vs Swami Prasad Maurya and others, (2007) 4 SCC 270.
117
DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (LexisNexis 2019).
118
However, Paragraph 7 was declared invalid for want of ratification in accordance with the proviso to clause (2)
of article 368 as per majority opinion in Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and others, (1992) 1 S.C.C. 309.
119
JAGDISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Modern Publications).
120
121
NabamRebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1.
Page | 19

disqualification122 with reference to the date it was incurred.123

[¶79.] The deeming provision in Paragraph 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule attracts an immunity
analogous to that in Article 212(1)124 of the Constitution125 to protect the
validity of proceedings from mere irregularities of procedure.126
[¶80.] The Speakers/Chairmen while exercising powers and discharging functions under
the Tenth Schedule act as Tribunal adjudicating rights and obligations under
the Tenth Schedule. 127
[¶81.] In view of the limited scope of judicial review that is available on account of the finality
clause in Paragraph 6 and also having regard to the constitutional intendment128 and the
status of the repository129 of the adjudicatory power i.e. Speaker/Chairman,130 judicial
review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the
Speaker/Chairman131 and a quiatimet action132 would not be permissible. Nor would
interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings.133
[¶82.] The Speaker and the Chairman in relation to the exercise of the powers under
the Tenth Schedule shall not be subjected to the jurisdiction of any
Court.134The Tenth Schedule seeks to and does create a new and non-justiciable
area of rights, obligations and remedies to be resolved in the exclusive manner envisaged by
the Constitution and is not amenable to, but constitutionally immune from, curial
adjudicative processes.
[¶83.] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that vide the present factual matrix at hand
and the situation of President’s rule has nothing to do in regard of the power of court to
deliver any decision in the light of defection of members. Time and again it has been
reiterated by the court that the exclusive power of decision on disqualification of members
of the legislative assembly lies with the speaker.
122
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641.
123
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270.
124
Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi (2015) 12 SCC 381.
125
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, AIR 1965 All 349, 1965 CriLJ 170.
126
Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal KeshariParida (2013) 11 SCC 794.
127
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation (1969) 2 AC 147.
128
Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396.
129
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398.
130
S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v. Non Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union (1981) AC 363.
131
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381.
132
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 651.
133
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592.
134
KeishamMeghachandra Singh v. Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 55.
Page | 20

[¶84.] In the present case, when the assembly is suspended there has been no decision made by the
speaker and therefore there lies completely null ground for the judiciary to exercise its
limited power of judicial review vide Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule.
[¶85.] It is pertinent to note that the present case also does not qualify as the ground to be
considered as a matter of urgency as there are more urgent matters than in the case at hand to
be dealt by the Court of law. It is hereby submitted that the decision on defection should
clearly lie with the Speaker of the assembly at the time of the commencement of the
assembly and the members should be entitled to fully function subject to the final decision
that may be rendered by the Speaker135 in question of disqualification of the members on
ground of defection under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
135
Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi & Others, LNIND 2012 Sc 592.
Page | 21

PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED:
1. To declare that the PIL filed by Pravah Chakra is not maintainable under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of Indiana.
2. To declare that the Vidhan Sabha elections in the State of Vrihadh Pradesh cannot be
postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the petition filed here is not maintainable
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana.
3. To declare that the President’s Rule in the State of Purva Pradesh is constitutionally valid.
4. To declare that the defecting members of the ruling party in the State of Purva Pradesh
cannot be disqualified on ground of defection by this Hon’ble Court during the President’s
Rule in the State.
And/Or
Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Respondents as in duty bound shall forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Respondents
Page | 22
[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] PRAYER

Icfai 047R

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

Icfai 047R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE : 047

FIRST VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

being organised by THE ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, JAIPUR

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. -______of 2021

PRAVAH CHAKRA……………………………………..……………………… Petitioner

Writ Petition (Civil) No. -______of 2021

ARYAN FOUNDATION…………………………………………….………… Petitioner

Writ Petition (Civil) No. -______of 2021

GOVERNMENT OF PURVA PRADESH…………….………………………… Petitioner

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

~ Written Submission on behalf of the Respondents ~

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... X

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................XI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... XIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ XIV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 1

ISSUE [1] : WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PRAVAH CHAKRA IS

[1.1.1] Remedy under Section 154 of CrPc, 1973. ........................................................2

[1.1.2] Remedy under Section 156 (3) of CrPc, 1973. ...................................................3

[1.1.3] Remedy under Section 200 of CrPc, 1973. ........................................................4

[1.1.4] Remedy under Section 482of CrPc, 1973. .........................................................4

[1.5] PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs ...................................................................... 7

ISSUE [2] :WHETHER THE VIDHAN SABHA ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF

[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] TABLE OF CONTENTS

[2.1] The contentions of the petitioner are completely unsubstantiated. ................................... 8

[2.3] Conduction of election is an exclusive Jurisdiction of the election commission. ............. 9

[2.3.1] Duties of Election Commission ........................................................................10

ISSUE [3] :WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE OF PURVA

ISSUE [4] : WHETHER THE DEFECTING MEMBERS OF THE RULING PARTY IN

[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation (1969) 2 AC 147 ................................................... 20

• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 .................................. 16

• Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC349 ....................................... 11

• Badri Narayan Singh v. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India,

• Champa Devi v. State Of H.P. And Anr., LNIND 2015 HP 2493........................................... 2

• Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) CriLJ 4709 (SC). ................................................... 2, 4

• Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, : 1996 CriLJ 3983 .................................................... 7

• Janata Dal v. HS Chowdhary, (1992)4SCC305 ..................................................................... 11

• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 ................................................................. 16

• K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand, (1994)6SCC620................................................................ 11

[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• KeishamMeghachandra Singh v. Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 5521

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 651 .................................................... 20

• Kushum Lata v Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180 ............................................................... 11

• L. Chandra kumar v. Union of India, (1997)3 SCC 261. ......................................................... 5

• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1........................................................... 3

• M. Krishna Swami v.Union OfIndia&Ors.,AIR1993SC1407 ............................................... 11

• Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381 ............................................................ 20

• Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, 2006 (2) ALJ 8 ......................................................................... 3

• Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653 ........................................... 6

• Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1875) ....................................................................................... 16

• Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 ................................. 2

• N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422 ............................................... 6

• Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547. ............................................... 16

[MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENTS] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ...................................... 12

• Puhlhofer v. Hillingdon, London Borough Council, (1986)1 All.E.R.467............................ 15

• Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 ............................................................... 6

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 ......................................................... 17

• Ramjas Foundationv.UnionofIndia,AIR1993SC852 ............................................................. 11

• Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR 566 ................................................. 2