Memorials P 53 PDF

TEAM CODE: 53
3RD SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATH NADU
IN THE MATTER OF
UNITED NATIONAL CONGRESS PARTY AND OTHERS…..........PETITIONER
VS
UNION OF BHARATH NADU AND OTHERS....................................RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATH NADU
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATH NADU
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page |2
RD
3 SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENT...............................................................................................................02
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................03
i) CASE LAWS....................................................................................................................03
ii) STATUTES.......................................................................................................................04
iii) DATABASE AND WEBSITES......................................................................................04
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................05
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................06
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................07
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................08
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…..................................................................................................09
1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable or not?
2. Whether section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of
Freedom of Conscience or not?
3. Whether section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article
19 (1)(c) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?
4. Whether section 123(9) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article
19(1)(a) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?
PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................24
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Page |3
RD
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
1) Smt. UjjamBai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963]1SCR778
2) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR1967SC 1
3) Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar Vs. The State of Madras and Ors,
AIR1959SC 725
4) Ram ManoharLohia v State of Maharashtra. AIR1966SC 740
5) I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. V. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , AIR2007SC 861
6) D.A.V. College, and Ors. V. State of Punjab and Ors. , AIR1971SC 1737
7) CSTS Retires' and Pensioners' Association and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors,
2017(2)C LJ(CAL)492
8) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs S.U.T.N.I Sangam and Ors, AIR2010SC112
9) Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors Vs Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors, AIR2007SC 1305
10) Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. , AIR2006SC 980
11) Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, [1954]1SCR1055
12) Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103
13) Filipe Nery Rodrigues Vs. Sadanand Mhalu Shet and Ors., 2006(2)BomC R424
14) S.P. Mittal Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (AIR1983SC 1)
15) M.P. JAIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6TH EDITION, 46
16) Damyanti Naranga and Ors Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors , AIR1971SC 966
17) Dharam Dutt and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR2004SC1295
18) V.G. Row vs The State of Madras, AIR1951Mad147

Page |4
RD
19) All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, (1961) IILLJ385SC
20) AsomRastrabhasaPracharSamiti and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors. , AIR1989SC 2126
21) K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR2011SC 3430
22) Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR2015SC 1523
23) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors., AIR1986SC 515
24) Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 605
25) Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103
STATUTES
1) Constitution of India, 1950
2) The Representation of People’s Act, 1951
DATABASE AND WEBSITES
1) www.manupatra.com
2) www.airwebworld.com
3) www.supremecourtcases.com
BOOKS REFERRED
1) M.P. Jain, The Constitutional Law, 6th Edition.

Page |5
RD
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court under “Article 32”1 of the Constitution of
Bharat Nadu, 1950.
1
(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 clauses (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

Page |6
RD
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Bharat Nadu is a federal country with a multiparty system and has adopted parliamentary form of
government. The farmer’s suicide is on the rise and has become a national ignominy. From last
two decades, the country is facing political instability due to defections, corruptions, split in the
political parties, etc. Many jurists, scientist have opined that Bharat Nadu is a country with
highest potential to become a world leader provided it effectively addresses its political crisis.
Under the Chairmanship of former Justice Radhakrishnan Supreme court constituted a
committee where it suggested reforms to be bought in electoral law. The parliament enacted the
constitution (104th amendment)Act, 2019 inserting the provisions. Article 172(2) states that “the
parliament may extend or curtail the term of any of the state assemblies for a period it deems
necessary, strictly for the purpose of synchronisation of elections to the legislative assemblies of
the states with lower house of the parliament. It further inserted the provisions in the
Representation of Public Act, 1951, those were: 1)Section 29(d) – Leadership of a political party
shall, at all levels, be duly elected by the members of political party. 2)Section 29(e)- The
supervision of the elections to all the leadership positions of a political party shall be vested in
the Election Commission. 3)Section 123(9)- Promise by a political party of any gainful benefits
like freebies, loan waivers etc., in its election manifesto solely with a view to secure votes.
4) Section 168(a)- Any member of parliament or legislative Assembly who resigns from his
office and intends to contest election from another party before completion of the term shall be
liable to pay an exemplary cost as may be determined by the election commission. Therefore,
Writ petition is filed by UNCP, BNYP, Belliyappa and Raith Mitra against the amendment.

Page |7
RD
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
2. Whether section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Freedom of
Conscience or not?
3. Whether section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19
(1)(c) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

Page |8
RD
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Yes, the writ petition that is been filed by United National Congress Party and others is
maintainable under Article 32. Here the petitioner’s fundamental rights are infringed so, same
can be filed under writ petition.
Conscience or not?
Yes, the petitioner’s right to freedom of conscience is been violated because he is not allowed to
shift parties and if he does the section would put an exemplary cost on him which infringes his
right.
Yes, section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19 (1)(c) of
Constitution of Bharath Nadu because it does not allow the framing of associations to elect the
members of the political party.
Yes, freedom of speech and expression is an essential fundamental right because not even the
government stop any party or association to not speak, they cannot likewise consider that to be
corrupt practice.

Page |9
RD
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu that the present
writ petition should be held maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Bharath Nadu ,
which provides Supreme Court with the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors, stated that, “the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with writ
petitions under Art. 32 it was examined by a Special Bench of this Court in “Smt. UjjamBai v.
State of Uttar Pradesh”2. This decision would show that it was common ground before the Court
that in three classes of cases a question of the enforcement of the fundamental rights may arise;
and if it does arise, an application under Art. 32 will lie. These cases are : (1) where action is
taken under a statute which is ultra vires the Constitution (2) where the statute is intra vires but
the action taken is without jurisdiction; and (3) where the action taken is procedurally ultra vires
as where a quasi judicial authority under an obligation to act judicially passes an order in
violation of the principles of natural justice.” 3, therefore in the present case section 29D, 123(9),
168A of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 is violating the fundamental rights under Article
19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and freedom of conscience of The Constitution of Bharath Nadu.
2
Smt. UjjamBai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963]1SCR778
3
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR1967SC 1

P a g e | 10
RD
The main element to file a writ petition to Supreme Court is the fundamental rights as given in
part III should be violated. In the same case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors, the honorable court mentioned that “Art. 32 is concerned with fundamental
rights and fundamental rights only. It is not concerned with breaches of law which do not involve
fundamental rights directly. The ordinary writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition can only
issue for enforcement of fundamental rights. A clear-cut case of breach of fundamental rights
alone can be the basis for the exercise of the power.”4Violation of fundamental right cannot have
any excuse and the action of political parties has not affected the country of Bharat Nadu nor its
disturb the decency or morality or the public interest.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni MoopilNayar
Vs. The State of Madras and Ors, stated that, “In such a case the infringement of the fundamental
right is complete ‘eoinstanti’ the passing of the enactment and, therefore, there can be no reason
why the person so prejudicially affected by the law should not be entitled immediately to avail
himself of the constitutional remedy under Art. 32. To say that a person, whose fundamental
right has been infringed by the mere operation of an enactment, is not entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32, for the enforcement of his right, will be to deny him the
benefit of a salutary constitutional remedy which is itself his fundamental right. The decisions of
this Court do not compel us to do so.”5
In the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni MoopilNayar Vs The State of Madras and Ors,
it was stated that, “We are not unmindful of the fact that the view of this Court is bound to
entertain a petition under Art. 32 and to decide the same on merits and may encourage litigants
to
4
Supra Note 3.

P a g e | 11
RD
5
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar Vs. The State of Madras and Ors, AIR1959SC 725

P a g e | 12
RD
file many petitions under Art 32 instead of proceeding by way of a suit. But that consideration
cannot, by itself, be a cogent reason for denying the fundamental right of a person to approach
this Court for the enforcement of his fundamental right which may, prima facie, appear to have
been infringed.”6
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ram ManhorLohia v State of Bihar and Ors , stated
that, “The right under Art. 32 is one of the fundamental rights that the Constitution has
guaranteed to all persons and it cannot be take away except by the methods as provided in the
Constitution, one of which is by an order made under Art. 359. The contention that an
orderunder that article has not taken away the constitutional right to personal liberty must be
examined.”7
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs State of Tamil Nadu
and Ors. , stated that, “The Fundamental Rights Chapter was incorporated providing in detail the
positive and negative rights. It provided for the protection of various rights and freedoms. For
enforcement of these rights, unlike Constitutions of most of the other countries, the Supreme
Court was vested with original jurisdiction as contained in Article 32.” 8 If the constitution is
providing with all the fundamental rights and if it treats as the basic feature of the constitution
than it has to also ensure that the said right is not being infringed on any grounds and hereby, if
the fundamental rights are violated Article 32 comes into play and helps in giving remedy if the
fundamental rights are infringed.
6
Supra Note 5.
7
Ram ManoharLohia v State of Maharashtra. AIR1966SC 740
8
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. V. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , AIR2007SC 861

P a g e | 13
RD
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V. College, and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and
Ors., stated that, “It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that in a petition under Article 32
once it is alleged and a prima facie case is made out that the fundamental rights of a citizen are
threatened or violated this Court is not only bound to entertain it for determining to what extent
the allegation is valid but is also bound to go into the question, if raised, that the law under which
it is alleged that his fundamental right is infringed is invalid on the ground of want of legislative
competence.”9
The Honorable court in case of CSTS Retires and Pensioners Association and Ors Vs The State
of West Bengal and Ors, Stated that “However, in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 49, 50 and 53 of the judgment that a
registered association could file a writ application representing its members.” 10 The Honorable
Supreme Court also supported this view by stating that, “the Association, therefore, could file a
writ application representing its members.”11
Henceforth when any of the fundamental right is been infringed and so is in the present case
where the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression i.e Article 19(1)(a), freedom to
form associations and unions i.e Article 19(1)(c) and freedom to conscience is being violated so
writ petition can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Bharat Nadu.
9
D.A.V. College, and Ors. V. State of Punjab and Ors. , AIR1971SC 1737
10
CSTS Retires' and Pensioners' Association and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , 2017(2)C
LJ(CAL)492
11
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs S.U.T.N.I Sangam and Ors, AIR2010SC112

P a g e | 14
RD
Conscience or not?
It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu, that in the present
case Section 168A of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 is violative of Freedom of
Conscience, which is guaranteed under Article 25, which states that:
“Freedom of Conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion” Section 168(A) of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 states that:
Section 168(A): Any Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly who resigns from his office
and intends to contest election from another party before completion of the term shall be liable to
pay an exemplary cost as may be determined by the Election Commission.
The honorable bench in case of Rajendra Singh Rana and ors V Swami Prasad Maurya and ors
stated that, “One thing is clear that defection is a ground for disqualifying a member from the
House. He incurs that disqualification if he has voluntarily given up his membership of his
original political party, meaning the party on whose ticket he had got elected himself to the
House.”12 Here it can be established that the constitution already provides the law i.e anti
defection law where it mentions about the disqualification of member on shifting the parties so
there is no need of bringing the punishment of exemplary cost.
The Honorable court in case of Rameshwar Prasad and ors V Union of India and Ors mentioned
that, “That there was no material available or in existence to indicate that any political defection
12
Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors Vs Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors, AIR2007SC 1305

P a g e | 15
RD
was being attempted through the use of money or muscle power.” 13 Here, in the present case,
Belliyappa is known for shifting sides for political benefits, now it cannot be proved that he is
shifting his sides for the money and power.
In the case of Rameshwar Prasad and Ors Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, the honorable court
has stated that “It is true as has been repeatedly opined in various reports and by various
constitutional experts that the defections have been a bane of the Indian Democracy but, at the
same time, it is to be remembered that the defections have to be dealt with in the manner
permissible in law.”14
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ozair Hussain vs Union of India, by referring to the
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs State of Bombay case, state that, In “Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v.
State of Bombay,”15 “it was held that freedom of conscience connotes a person’s right to
entertain beliefs and doctrine concerning matters, which are regarded by him to be conducive to
his spiritual well-being.”16 It is important for the court to recognize and respect the belief of an
individual here if he is not satisfied with the new policies that his party is framing than he has all
right to change the party and work accordingly. Hence it cannot be said that the act that is been
done by belliyappa is morally wrong.
The honorable court in case of Filipe Nery Rodrigues Vs. Sadanand Mhalu Shet and Ors, stated
that, “The provisions of Paragraph 2(1)(a) proceed on the premise that political propriety and
morality demand that if such a person, after the election, changes his affiliation and leaves the
13
Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. , AIR2006SC 980
14
Ibid.
15
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, [1954]1SCR1055
16
Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103

P a g e | 16
RD
political party which had set him up as a candidate at the election, then he should give up his
membership of the legislature and to go back before the electorate.” 17 Here the petitioner is
giving up his affiliation and is leaving the party, he is not doing anything wrong. In the case of
S.P Mittal v Union of India, the honorable court stated that “the Preamble does promise to secure
to its citizens &Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.” 18 Preamble is
considered to be basic feature of constitution and it itself mentions the liberty of thought and
expression. The things mentioned in the preamble are considered to be essence of constitution
and henceforth it cannot be violated. “The general definition of freedom of conscience includes
knowledge or sense of right or wrong.”
“It is one thing for a member to change his political affiliation out of conviction because he may
be conscientiously disagree with the policies of the party to which he belongs. In such a case, if
he leaves the party with whose support he has been elected to the House, he ought to resign his
membership of, and seek fresh election to the House.”19
The honorable court in case of Dharam Dutt and Ors v Union of India and Ors states that, “In
“Smt. Damyanti Naranga's case”20 (Supra) the Constitution Bench ruled that the right to form an
association includes not only a right of forming an association to begin with, but also the right to
continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association.” 21
Henceforth the petitioner’s freedom of conscience is been violated and hence can seek remedy
for the same.
17
Filipe Nery Rodrigues Vs. Sadanand Mhalu Shet and Ors., 2006(2)BomC R424
18
S.P. Mittal Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (AIR1983SC 1)
19
M.P. JAIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6TH EDITION, 46
20
Damyanti Naranga and Ors Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors , AIR1971SC 966
21
Dharam Dutt and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR2004SC1295

P a g e | 17
RD
It is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of Bharat Nadu that Section 29(d) of
the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 violates Article 19(1)(c) . Section 29(d) of
Representation of People’s Act, 1951 states that Leadership of a political party shall, at all levels,
be duly elected by the members of the political party. The Article 19(1)(c) states Freedom to
form association and Union.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Damyanti Naranga and Ors Vs Union of India
(UOI) and Ors, stated that, “If we were to accept the submission that the right guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(c) is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the
right to continue the Association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated
by rules made by the Association itself, the right would be meaningless because, as soon as an
Association is formed, a law may be passed interfering with its composition, so that the
Association formed may not be able to function at all. The right can be effective only if it is held
to include within it the right to continue the Association with its composition as voluntarily
agreed upon by the persons forming the Association.”22
“Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application to the
Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact that all citizens, including Government servants, are
entitled to claim the rights guaranteed by Article 19.”23
22
Supra Note 20.
23
Ibid.

P a g e | 18
RD
In the case of Damyanti Naranga and Ors Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, the honorable bench
states that “That case, thus, supports our view that the right to form an Association includes the
right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily
will be a breach of the right to form the Association.”24
“That decision was given in an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madras reported-in
“V.G. Row v The State of Madras”25. In the High Court, this principle was clearly formulated by
Rajamannar, C.J., in the following words:
The word "form" therefore, must refer not only to the initial commencement of the association,
but also to the continuance of the association as such.
The Act, insofar as it interferes with the composition of the Society in constituting the
Sammelan, therefore, violates the right of the original members of the Society to form an
association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c).”26
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Dutt and Ors. Vs Union of India (UOI) and
Ors, stated that, “The test of reasonableness, according to the Constitution Bench, should be
applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of
reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have
been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the
24
Supra Note 20.
25
V.G. Row vs The State of Madras, AIR1951Mad147
26
Supra Note 20.

P a g e | 19
RD
evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions
at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.”27
“A right to form unions guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) does not carry with it a fundamental right
in the union so formed to achieve every object for which it was formed with the legal
consequence that any legislation not falling within Clause (4) of Article 19 which might in any
way hamper the fulfillment of those objects, should be declared unconstitutional and void.” 28
“It was further urged that where the object of the association is lawful, the citizens, through that
association, and the association itself, are entitled by virtue of the guaranteed right to freedom
from legislative interference in the achievement of its object, except on grounds germane to
public order or morality. In other words, the freedom guaranteed should be read as extending not
merely to the formation of the association as such, but to the effective functioning of the
association so as to enable it to achieve its lawful objectives.”29
In the case of Dharam Dutt and ors v Union of India and ors, the honorable court established
that, “the validity of the submission that the right of citizens to form associations or unions
within the meaning of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution should be given the widest operation
and any law which infringes upon the wide sweep of the right must satisfy the test of Article
19(4), which saves only such laws which impose in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity
27
Supra Note 21.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.

P a g e | 20
RD
of India or public order or morality the reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by arts 19(1)(c).”30
In the case of Dharam Dutt and Ors v Union of India and Ors, the court stated that “Reliance was
placed on “All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal” 31, and the
Court concluded, that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) does not carry
with it a further guarantee that the objects or purposes or activities of an association so formed
shall not be interfered with by law except on grounds as mentioned in Article 19(4). In sum, the
Court rejected the contention on behalf of the society that because of the acquisition of the
institute the society lost its right of management over the institute, and as the institute was the
main or the only activity of the society, the impugned legislations interfered with the right of the
society to form and continue the association and are as such unconstitutional and void.” 32 It is
important that the associations that are formed should have continuance existence.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Asom Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti and Ors. vs.
State of Assam and Ors. , stated that, “By the provisions of this Act virtually the Samiti which
was a public body constituted by its members having elected By abasthapikaSabha and
Karyapalika were substituted by Board appointed by the Government and all the functions,
properties and affairs of the Samiti were taken over by this Board and it is this action taken under
the Ordinance and the Act and ultimately the Act which is the subject-matter of challenge in this
writ petition. As this infringes the fundamental rights of the members who constitute the Samiti
their rights under Article 19(1)(c) and by this process of taking over the Samiti has been deprived
30
Supra Note 21.
31
All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, (1961)IILLJ385SC
32
Supra Note 21.

P a g e | 21
RD
of its assets and properties and even as alleged by the petitioners Government has gone to the
extent of changing the name of the institution also.”33
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka, stated that, “Ratio Decidendi:
Court shall not invalidate legislation on ground of delegation of essential legislative functions or
on ground of conferring unguided, uncontrolled and vague powers upon the delegate without
taking into account the preamble of the Act as also other provisions of the statute.” 34
“The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the actual conduct of elections to the
House of Parliament and to the State Legislatures; the qualification and disqualification of the
membership of the Houses, the corrupt and the illegal practices and other elections offences and
the decision of election disputes. The Act makes detailed provisions in regard to all matters and
all stages connected with elections to the various legislatures in the country.”35
Henceforth from the above mentioned arguments clearly proves that the fundamental rights of
the political parties is been violated and hence section 29D of the Representation of People Act,
1951 should be held unconstitutional.
33
Asom Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors. , AIR1989SC 2126
34
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR2011SC 3430
35
M.P. JAIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6TH EDITION, Pg. No. 53

P a g e | 22
RD
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that section 123(9) of the
Representation of people’s Act, 1951 states that Promise by a political party of any gainful
benefits like freebies, loan waivers, etc. in its manifesto solely with a view to secure votes would
be considered as corrupt practice and is infringing the very basic fundamental right of freedom to
speech and expression which is mentioned in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Bharat
Nadu. It states that all the citizens have right to freedom of speech and expression.
In the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India the honorable bench states that “The preamble of
the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship. It also says that India is a sovereign democratic republic. It cannot be over emphasized
that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of
paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.” 36The preamble of the constitution
itself mentions in the preamble regarding expressing one beliefs and opinion. When the promise
is made by political party, we cannot describe the intention of that party, they can freely express
their opinions.
The honorable court in case of Indian Express Newspapers mentioned the article regarding the
essence of human rights and freedom of speech and expression to be an important discussion.
“Frank C Newman and KarelVasak in their article on 'Civil and Political Rights' in the
International Dimensions of Human Rights (Edited by KarelVasak) Vol I state at pages 155-156
thus: Freedom of opinion, expression, information and communication. A preeminent human

36
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR2015SC 1523

P a g e | 23
RD
right, insofar as it allows everyone to have both an intellectual and political activity, freedom of
expression in the broad sense actually includes several specific rights. What is primarily involved
is the classic notion of freedom of opinion that is to say, the right to say what one thinks and not
to be harassed for one's opinions.”37 Freedom to speech and expression is very broad term and it
allows each and every person to share their opinions and they can even help in promoting that
part of society which requires attention, so even the members of political party have this
fundamental right to express their opinions about their schemes mentioned in election manifesto.
When a political party makes any promise in its election manifesto it is not compulsory that a
party would be able to fulfill that promise but bringing reformative provisions for not fulfilling
the promise is not fair. The basic meaning of election manifesto is “A manifesto is a statement
published by a person or group of people, especially a political party, or a government, in which
they say what their aims and policies are.”38
The honorable bench in case of “Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,( AIR 1950 SC 124) and
“Brij Bhushan's case”39 (AIR 1950 SC 129) (supra) this Court firmly expressed its view that
there could not be any kind of restriction on the freedom of speech and expression other than
those mentioned in Article 19(2) and thereby made it clear that there could not be any
interference with that freedom in the name of public interest Even when Clause (2) of Article 19
was subsequently substituted under the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951 by a new
clause which permitted the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State, friendly
37
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR1986SC 515
38
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/manifesto
39
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 605

P a g e | 24
RD
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality in relation to contempt of Court
defamation or incitement to an offence, Parliament did not choose to include a clause enabling
the imposition of reasonable restrictions in the, public interest.”40
In the case of Ozair Husain v Union of India the honorable Supreme Court mentioned that
“Articles 19(1) and 10(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares
that every one shall have the right to hold opinions without interference, and every one shall
have the right to freedom of expression, and this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and
impart information of ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. It needs to be noted that India
is a signatory to the aforesaid convention.”41
In the very renowned case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India the bench stated that “Various
judgments of this Court have referred to the importance of freedom of speech and expression
both from the point of view of the liberty of the individual and from the point of view of our
democratic form of government. For example, in the early case of “Romesh Thappar v State of
Madras (1950) S.C.R. 594 at 602, this Court stated that freedom of speech lay at the foundation
of all democratic organizations.”42 “It is well settled by several judgment of the Supreme Court
that while interpreting constitutional provisions dealing with fundamental rights the courts must
not forget principles embodied in the international conventions and instruments and as far as
possible the courts must give effect to the principles contained in those instruments.” 43
40
Supra Note 37.
41
Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103
42
Supra Note 37.
43
Supra Note 41.

P a g e | 25
RD
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for Petitioner humbly submits that the Supreme Court of Bharat Nadu be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:
1) The present Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Bharat
Nadu.
2) Section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Freedom of
Conscience.
3) Section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19 (1)(c) of
Constitution of Bharath Nadu.
4) Section 123(9) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of
Constitution of Bharath Nadu.
And pass any other relief, that this Honourable Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall be duty bound forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of Petitioner

Memorials P 53 PDF

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

Memorials P 53 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 53

LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATH NADU

UNITED NATIONAL CONGRESS PARTY AND OTHERS…..........PETITIONER

UNION OF BHARATH NADU AND OTHERS....................................RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATH NADU

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATH NADU

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

iii) DATABASE AND WEBSITES......................................................................................04

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable or not?

2. Whether section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of

Freedom of Conscience or not?

3. Whether section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article

19 (1)(c) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

4. Whether section 123(9) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article

19(1)(a) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1) Smt. UjjamBai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963]1SCR778

4) Ram ManoharLohia v State of Maharashtra. AIR1966SC 740

8) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs S.U.T.N.I Sangam and Ors, AIR2010SC112

11) Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, [1954]1SCR1055

12) Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103

14) S.P. Mittal Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (AIR1983SC 1)

15) M.P. JAIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6TH EDITION, 46

18) V.G. Row vs The State of Madras, AIR1951Mad147

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

22) Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR2015SC 1523

Ors., AIR1986SC 515

24) Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 605

25) Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India (UOI) , AIR2003Delhi103

1) Constitution of India, 1950

2) The Representation of People’s Act, 1951

DATABASE AND WEBSITES

1) M.P. Jain, The Constitutional Law, 6th Edition.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Bharat Nadu, 1950.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Under the Chairmanship of former Justice Radhakrishnan Supreme court constituted a

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable or not?

2. Whether section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Freedom of

3. Whether section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19

(1)(c) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

4. Whether section 123(9) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article

19(1)(a) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable or not?

can be filed under writ petition.

2. Whether section 168(A) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Freedom of

3. Whether section 29(D) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article 19

(1)(c) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

members of the political party.

4. Whether section 123(9) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is violative of Article

19(1)(a) of Constitution of Bharath Nadu or not?

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable or not?

19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and freedom of conscience of The Constitution of Bharath Nadu.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

disturb the decency or morality or the public interest.

this Court do not compel us to do so.”5

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

fundamental rights are infringed.