--MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

TC-
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, 1ST INTRA MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIGO

W.P /2012
INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIGO

JARVIS AND KRANE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PETITIONER)

V.
UNION OF INDIA (RESPONDENT)

_______________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER

i
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[A]. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................iii

[B]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................iv

[C]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................v

[D]. STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................................vi

[E]. ISSUES RAISED............................................................................................................xiv

I. Whether scrapping of article 370 and 35(a) is valid or not?

II. Whether the internet shutdown and communication blockade is valid or not?

III. Whether House arrest of prominent political leaders of the state of Jarvis & Krane
valid or not?

XI. Whether the reorganization of the State of Jarvis & Krane into Union Territories of
Wakanda and Jarvis & Krane valid or not?

[F]. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS........................................................................................xv

[G]. P LEA D ING S ADVANCED...........................................................................................1

[A]. PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................................10

i
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

[A]. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. ¶ Paragraph

2. AIR All India Report

3. Anr Another
4. Art. Article
5. J&k Jarvis and Krane
7. Co Company

8. Ed Edition
9. ER England Reports
11. Ltd Limited
12. JKDP Jarvis and Krane democratic party
13. Ors. Others
14. Pvt. Private
15. OJP Odin Janta Party
16. SC Supreme Court
17. SCC Supreme Court Cases
18. SCR Supreme Court Reports
19. U.O.I Union of India
20. J&K Jarvis and Krane
22. v. Versus
23. Vol. Volume
24 PSA Public safety act
25. UT UNION TERRITORY

ii
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

[B]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

I. LIST OF STATUTES

1. INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT,1885

2. STATE REORGANISATION ACT,1956
3. PUBLIC SAFETY ACT,1978

II. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

S. CASES CITATION
NO.
1. K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2. Modern dental college &research center v .state of M.P (2016) 7 SCC 353

3. (1985) 1 SCC 641

Indian express v. union of India
4. Faheema Shirin v. state of Kerala 19716 of 2019 (l)

5. Sakal Papers ltd. V. union of India (1962) 3 SCR 842

6. Hukum Chand Shyam Lal V. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 128

7. Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India (2005) 3 SCC 618

8. Ram Jeth Malani V. Union of india 1 All ER 359 (366) CA

9. Dharam Dutt V. Union of india (2004) 1 SCC 712

10. P.L Lakhanpal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1982 1 SCC 71

11. Sampath Prakash v. state of Jammu & Kashmir (1970) AIR 1118 1970

12. Babulal parate V. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 51

13. Madhu Limaye v. Sub divisional Magistrate (1973) 3 SCC 746

14. National Investigation Agency v.Zahroor Ahmad Shah (2019) 5 SCC 1

15. Bhim Singh V. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1986 SC 494

16. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SCR 621

iii
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

17. AK Gopalan V. state of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27

18. Om Kumar v. union of india 2001 2 SCC 386

19. Enterprises v. union of india

1982 2 SCC 33

20 Hanif Qureshi v. state of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731

21. AIR 1950 SCR 594

Romesh thappar v. State of Madras
22. AIR 1950 SC 129
Brij Bhushan v. State of delhi

III. LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED

S.N BOOK TITLE ¶

O
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,VOLUME 4 42

2. CRMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE (CrPC) 14

3. INDIAN PENAL CODE 41

4. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 25

5. WEBSTORS DICTIONARY 2

6. Venkataramiya’s LAW LEXICON-VOLUME 1, (HUMAN RIGHTS) 18

iv
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honorable Supreme Court of India can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits to the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indigo.

v
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

STATEMENT OF FATS

1. Krane, Himalayan region, once a princely state J&K which further joined Indigo in 1947 at
the end of British rule is a topic of heated debate and a subsequent topic of war b/w Indigo &
Paxia. Two permanent religions were there: Sindhuism & Wislam. Sindhuism was in majority
in Indigo whereas the later was in majority in Paxia.

2. J&K which shares boundaries with Indigo & Paxia chose to be independent. Ruler of princely
state was Sindhu & moreover the majority was of the other religion. Soon there was an attmt of
annexation by Paxia to the princely state. The ruler sought to take help from Indigo which
further led to signing of the Instrument of Accession on October26,1947. This led to first war
over J&K b/w Indigo & Paxia.

3. Indigo, a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic which follows division of powers
among union & state. Due to accession of J&K inclusion of Article 370 in part XXI of the
constitution of Indigo with the heading: Temporary, Traditional &Special Province. This is the
reason why the residents live under separate laws. Further there were criticism of Article 35A as
it creates ‘’class within a class” which was added by the executive head without consulting the
Parliament. According to legal experts’ article cannot be revoked as it is in exercise of power
given by Article 370(1). This article was supposed to be temporary, but it was the other way
round.

4. Due to all the above-mentioned happenings, there was an outburst, unstable govt. arrests &
violence all over. OJP, a permanent political party in Indigo came to power in 2014, there main
focus was scraping special status of J&K. a coalition govt. was been form b/w OJP & JKPD in
J&K .During their tenure ship they wanted to scrap Article 370 & 35A Winning again OJP
made it a point to fulfil their main focus of abrogation of articles. On 25 July, Howard Singh
withdrew its support in JKPD & assertion of terrorist connections of Gamora Mufti due to
which the party lost its majority & the supports started mass rebellion. The governor sent to the
president for imposition of President rule in state under Article 370. OJP from the beginning
opposed special status & in 2019 called for bifurcating the state into union territories i.e.
Wakanda by introducing J&K Reorganization Bill,2019.

5. Prominent leaders like CM Gamora Mufti and Thanos Abdullah were house arrest after
President rule. Section 144 of CRP, 1973 was imposed and a mass protest by opposition parties
was also there. Also, the state was locked down by imposing Sec.144. The govt. claimed that
what they did was necessary as J&K was underdeveloped and this will welcome new
opportunities for them & further stated that the reason why the state was in a ground for
terrorists only becz of the special status being given. The status also discriminated b/w the
citizens with the rest of the citizens of Indigo. Moreover, although J&k being a part of Indigo
but still the former had a separate flag with different set of rules.

vi
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

6. Therefore the fundamental rights of J&k were in contrast with that of Indigo. Gamora Mufti
approached the court against her detention. Thanos Abdullah filed a writ against the president
rule. The decision to replace the “Governor” as the authority & to change the legal status of the
state was said to be “illegal” & “unconstitutional”.

7. The issue of violation of press was also being made by Sakaar State Vision NGO & imposing
Section 144. They further pointed out the unavailability of ambulances, police & fire services
due to curfews. Government in its favour stated that all the facilities were not being banned like
telephone booths were being established and at many places medical and other essentials were
provided & also mentioned the reason for the shutdown of internet due to mass rebellion.

8. Many questions are being raised as to whether federal unit can be downgraded from state to
UT. The constitutional morality decided the future of the state without the consent of the
citizens.

HENCE, THE PRESENT M ATTER B EFORE THIS HONORABLE

COURT.

vii
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

ISSUES RAISED

4. Whether scrapping of article 370 and 35(a) is valid or not?

II. Whether the internet shutdown and communication blockade is valid

or not?

IV. Whether House arrest of prominent political leaders of the state of

Jarvis & Krane valid or not?

XII. Whether the reorganization of the State of Jarvis & Krane into
Union Territories of Wakanda and Jarvis & Krane valid or not?

viii
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

SUMMARY OF PLEADING.

1.THE SCRAPING OF ART.370 AND 35(A) IS NOT VALID.

Scraping of art.370 &35(a) is not valid, yet unconstitutional and the violation
of the terms of IOA. Art. 356 of the constitution of Indigo is also violated,
Art.370 and 35(a) was introduced to ensure the protection of rights and
security of the citizens of J&K. Abrogation of which leads to violation of
various articles, rights and provisions of the constitution. Also, the Scraping of
article 370 is done with an unconstitutional method and breached the
fundamental rights of the citizens of J&K. Art.370 and 35(a) was there for
some purpose and after the abrogation of articles that purpose was remained
unfinished.

2.INTERNET SHUTDOWN IN JARVIS & KRANE IS NOT VALID.

The freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any
profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium
of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 19(1)(g) . The restriction upon such fundamental rights should be
in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the
Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality. The freedom of
speech and expression through the medium of internet is an integral part
of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same must be
in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution

3 .HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE

JARVIS&KRANE IS NOT VALID

HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT LEADERS OF STATE

JARVIS&KRANE IS NOT VALID .This lead to violation of human
rights , without any commission of crime they were put to house arrest,
no hearing was incurred by them .Many leaders were put to house arrest
without any official order or authority. Violation of article 21 of the
constitution ,which provides that “no person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” .
access by security forces ,especially by J&k police abusing their power
under the PSA.

4.REORGANISATION OF STATE OF JARVIS&KRANE INTO

UNION TERRITORY OF JARVIS&KRANE AND WAKANDA IS
INVALID

The reorganization of state Jarvis&krane into union territory of J&k and

wakanda is not valid. The decision will have far reaching and dangerous
ix
 --MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER--

consequences .this is an aggression against people of the state as had

been warned by an all-parties meetings. The times of indigo headed the
argument with inability of indigo government to keep its promise and
acted as unilateral interest. The constitutional morality of the rest of the
country deciding the state without the consent or participation of its citizens
is also a serious issue brought before the courts.

x
 [E]. PLEAD I N GS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER SCRAPPING OF ARTICLE 370 AND 35(A) IS VALID OR NOT?

The scraping of article 370 is not valid.

1. The Article contained only temporary provisions which ceased to effective after
the Constituent Assembly of the State had completed its work by framing a
Constitution for the State;

2. Under Art.370(2) the power of the President, depending

on the concurrence of the State Government, must be exercised before the dissolution
of the Constituent Assembly
of the State;

[F]. Under Art. 370(1), at the time of applying any provision

of the Constitution to the State, the President was competent to make modification
and exceptions, but after a provision of the Constitution had been applied the power
under the Article ceased;

4. Since Art. 368 relating to amendment of the Constitution with proviso added to it
is 'applied to the State Art.370 was no longer applicable for amending or modifying
the provisions of the Constitution applied to the State;

5. The power of making modifications under the Article Should be limited to

making minor alterations and not to abrogate an Article applied to the State; and

6. The modifications made by the Presidential orders under Art. 370 had the effect
of abridging the fundamental rights of citizens of 366.

7. Krane under Art. 22 and other Articles of Part III, after they had been applied to
the State and so were void under Art. 13 of the Constitution.

8. also, The Article 370 of the Constitution is as follows .--

"370. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of J&K;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to-
 (i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with
the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters
specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the
Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature
may make laws for that State; and

(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of
the State, the President may by order specify.

9. Article 370 and 35(a) is the was the result of “IOA” with fixed terms and
conditions, it is declared in the “IOA” that the consent of the citizens is must for the
abrogation or changes. Although, the president rule is imposed on the state of J&K
unethically. It is cleared in Article 356 in The Constitution of Indigo that The
President rule can be Imposed on a state if government of a that state fails to prove
the majority in the ‘Floor Test’. But no floor test was performed at all.

All the facts of the petition clearly show the unconstitutionality of the abrogation of
article 370 and 35(a). It is humbly submitted the the abrogation of Art.370 and
art.35(a) is not valid.

WHETHER INTERNET SHUTDOWN IN JARVIK&KRANE IS INVALID?

1. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 1 speaking for four Judges, laid down
the tests that would need to be satisfied under our Constitution for violations of
privacy to be justified. This included the test of proportionality: (SCC p. 509, para
325) “325. … A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the
touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights.

2. in Modern Dental College & Research Centre [Modern Dental College &
Research Centre v. State of M.P., has held that no constitutional right can be claimed
to be absolute in a realm where rights are interconnected to each other,

3. The development of the jurisprudence in protecting the medium for expression

can be traced to the case of Indian Express v. Union of India2, , wherein this Court
had declared that the freedom of print medium is covered under the freedom of
speech and expression.

1
K.S Puttaswamy V. Union Of India (2017)10 SCC 1.
Modern Dental College &Research Centre V. State of M.P (2016) 7 SCC 353.
Indian Express V. Union Of India (1985) 1 SCC 641
Article 19(1)(a) , Article 19 (1)(g)
Faheema Shirin V. State of Kerela

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 SCR 842

Article 21 of Indian constitution
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India, (1976)
2
4. Internet shutdown in indigo suffers $1.3 billion economic loss..3rd most
affected country .source :the global cost of internet shutdowns in 2019 report. social
media channels, websites are one of the biggest communication [channels] to send
news quickly to audiences. So when you say Internet is shut down, it’s a two-way
problem for both the audience and the business. For the audience, they are not able to
get live news, and as businesses, our entire monetary part is totally dependent on ads
and campaigns, which again, get shut down.” He added that essential functions of
news organizations, like dispelling rumours that can cause tensions to flare, are also
disabled by Internet shutdowns.

5. the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any
profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet
enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) . The
restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate
under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of
proportionality. the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of internet
is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same
must be in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Faheem shirin v. state
of Kerala The allegation of the aforementioned Petitioner is that the cumulative
effect of various other restrictions, was an unreasonable infringement upon the right
to access the internet, the right to privacy and right to education. , Sakal Papers (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India, have expounded on the right of freedom of press and have
clearly enunciated the importance of the aforesaid rights in modern society

6. mobile phone networks, internet services, and landline phones were all
discontinued in the Krane valley and in some districts . No formal orders under which
such action was taken by the Respondents were communicated to the affected
population, including the residents of the Krane Valley.This meant that the people of
Krane were plunged into a communication blackhole and an information blackout.
The actions of the respondents have had a debilitating and crippling effect on
newsgathering, reporting, publication, circulation and information dissemination, and
have also resulted in freezing of web portals and news websites. It would amount to
individual liberty being subsumed by social control. Curtailment of the internet, is a
restriction on the right to free speech, should be tested on the basis of reasonableness
and proportionality.

7. Violation of Article 21A of the Constitution, which is a positive right that

requires an active effort by the concerned government to ensure that the right to
education is provided to all children up to the age of 16 years. Faheem shirin v. state
of kerela.it was opinion of the court that there were innumerable advantages to online
learning and it facilated the exchange of ideas ,downloading of data or e groups as
well as participating in online courses.
 8. The procedural mechanism contemplated for restrictions on the Internet, is
twofold: first is contractual, relating to the contract signed between Internet Service
Providers and the Government, and the second is statutory, under the Information
Technology Act, 2000, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Telegraph
Act. In the present case, we are concerned only with the statutory scheme available,
particularly under the Telegraph Act, Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India,
.mobile services and telecommunications were supposed to be shut down for specific
periof not for longer durations .

WHETHER THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT LEADERS IN THE

NATION IS INVALID ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that house arrest is a very violent step,
gives birth or steady rise of militant outfits, several unstable government, arrest and
violent killing. Movements are severally restricted under house arrest. It violates the
human rights and also become the cause of mass rebellion. Due to these causes house
arrest is invalid.

1. Violation of human rights.

Under the house arrest means that your movements are severally restricted. We have
to required to stay inside our house all night even much of the day. We cannot
perform simple activities like stepping outside for fresh air. This violates the article
21 of the constitution3. There is also violation of article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

In the case Bhim Singh V. State of Jammu and kashmir4 the court
awarded him 50,000/- compensation to the Bhim Singh whose fundamental rights
were infringed by state. Article 21 of the constitution was violated here in this case.

2. Mass Rebellion.

Many of the leaders were detained under house arrest. The supporters of the leaders
broke

into a mass rebellion. There is continuous stone pelting and attack on the army
personnel of

the state.

Under mass rebellion force is misused by the cops, militants. This result is
torturing the

public and also booked the innocent people. It leads to inhuman treatment.

3. Another issue or potential issue with house arrest is that there is cost
attached to it.

3
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUITON TALKS ABOUT RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY
4
AIR 1986 SC 494
 4. In most cases where house arrest is granted, you will wear an electronic
monitoring device on your ankle (which you cannot submerged into water) that
tracks every move.

WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE JARVIS&KRANE INTO

UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND JARVIS & KRANE VALID?

ITS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE

REORGANISATION OF STATE OF JARVIS&KRANE INTO UNION
TERRITIORIES OF WAKANDA AND JARVIS &KRANE IS IVALUD AS IT
questioned the Centre’s right to alter the status quo in J&k without consulting
stakeholders. The constitutional morality of the rest of the country deciding the state
without the consent or participation of its citizens is also a serious issue brought
before the courts.

1. “According to the Indigo Constitution, before altering the boundaries of any State,
concurrence of the Legislative Assembly of the State is mandatory. Andhra Pradesh
and Telangana bifurcation was done with complete concurrence of the State
Legislative Assembly by the UPA government. “The process of consultation will be
in shreds...You have changed the constitutional relationship of the people of J&K to
Indigo without consulting them. Under the Reorganization Act, bifurcation was

2. "Government of Indigo‘s unilateral and shocking decisions today are a total

betrayal of the trust that the people of J&k had reposed in indigo when the state
acceded to it in 1947. The decision will have far reaching and dangerous
consequences .this is an aggression against people of the state as had been warned by
an all-parties meetings. The times of indigo headed the argument with inability of
indigo government to keep its promise and acted as unilateral interest.

3. on October 22, 1947, thousands of armed men backed by Pakistan’s army attacked
the state from the north, forcing Howard Singh to seek help from India and then
accede to it. the IoA mentions ancillary subjects that include elections to the
dominion legislature and offences against laws.

4. Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be repealed in exercise of powers

under the Article, which gave special status to erstwhile state. orders issued under
Article 370 (1) and (3)5, all provisions of the Indian Constitution have been applied
to Jammu and Kashmir. “This virtually abolishes the Constitution of J&K. It’s a case
of implied repeal where a Constitution has been repealed by an executive exercise of
powers. the Centre has limited powers to legislate when it comes to J&K by virtue of
the Instrument of Accession.6 Article 370 was the only tunnel of light connecting the
Centre to erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Article 370 required that action
5
Article 370 (1)(3) of Indian constituion
6
Instrument of Accession, 1947
of government of India should have concurrence of J&k constituent assembly, which
was dissolved in 1957 after framing the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir,
therefore bifurcation of the Jarvis&krane into two union territories unjust the
constitutional morality of people as without public’s opinion the powers were
exercised .
 [A]. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and
pleadings advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honorable Court that it may
be pleased to:

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Issue a direction or writ in nature of mandamus, whichever is appropriate, to the

District Magistrate of Patna to give the oath of office to the council members
nominated by appellant.

And pass any other order that it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and
good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: s/d 1. .........................

Place: New Delhi, India Harish.N
Counsel ID: 12IP60009
(COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)