YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR NO. HEADING PAGE NO

1 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 02

2 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 05

3 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS 06

4 THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES 07

5 THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 08

6 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

ISSUE I
ISSUE II
ISSUE III

7 THE PRAYER 16

1
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

1. Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix V. Deputy Speaker, (2017) 13 SCC 332

2. Krishnamachari v. State of Madras (1971) AIR 1971 SC 1573

3. State If Gujarat V. R A Mehta AIR 2013 SC 693

4. Pratap Singh Raojirao Rane V. Government of India AIR1999 Bom (91): 1999

5. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1961 AIR 1787

6. Shamsher Singh and Anr. V. State of Punjab 1974 AIR 2192, 1975 SCR (1) 814

7. Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafully Chandra Ghose 1969

8. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549

9. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) AIR 1994 SC 1918

10. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) AIR 1963 SC1241

11. Katar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569

BOOKS
1. The Constitution Of India (P.M Bakshi)
2. Constitutional Law Of India (Dr. J. N. Pandey)

3. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law

4. V.N.SHUKLA'S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th Edition, Publisher Easter Book

5. DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 13 Edition Publisher Wadhawa

Nagpur.

2
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

WEBSITES

1. http://www.aironline.in
2. http://www.sconline.com
3. http://www.judis.nic.in
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.scconline.com

STATUE
1. The Constitution of India

3
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF ABBREVATION

& And

AIR All India Report

W.P. Writ Petition

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ex. Example

SC Supreme Court

V. Versus

u/a Under Article

Gov Governor

Art Article

SCC Supreme court cases

Cx Constitution

Govt Goverment

JDX Jurisdiction

4
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly Humbly approaches the Hon’ble Supreme Court under art.131 of the, Shirsure
constitution which reads as follows:
Art. 131 Original jurisdiction of the supreme court –

Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the supreme court shall, to exclusion of any
other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute-

a) Between the government of Shirsure and one or more states, or

b) Between the government of Shirsure and any state or states on one side and one or
more others states on the other, or
c) Between two or more states,
If and in so far as the disputes involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which
the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

“The Petitioner humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.”

5
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In 1947, the state of Shirsure, having been governed by the Anglosaxans for 200 years, attained
independences from Anglosaxans.
2. Shirsure boasted a culturally diverse population with various races and languages. Post
independence, it maintained the pre-existing revenue and legal systems.
3. In 1951, Shirsure adopted a federal constitution based on socialist and secular principles,
employing a multi-party system for democratic governance.
4. The Constitution Shirsure establishes a federal structure with distinct legislative, executive and
judiciary branches, displaying the inclination towards central dominance as it is the part of
federal structure of the state. / The Constitution endows the central government with increased
authorities.
5. The state of Shirsure, embraced a power sharing provision between the Centre government and
provinces concerning executive and legislative powers.
6. Every province is headed by a governor (appointed by Centre) for maintenance of the
Constitutional sanctity and monitoring of Centre.
7. The provincial laws in state of Shirsure comes into effect following the governor’s assent.
8. Historically, various regional and national political parties governed the Centre and province of
Dadilon. In recent elections the Winwadi party pledged the public welfare legislation in its
manifesto.
9. After assuming power, the Winwadi party passed promised legislations, seeking the governor’s
assent.
10. The governor neither sent the bills for reconsideration nor signed them for the long time.
11. After demand from the legislative council for the assent, the said governor finally sent one bill
back for reconsideration and referred the rest of the bills to the President for his consideration.
Despite receiving the bills, the President delayed giving assent.
12. Following the prescribed duration in the Shirsure Constitution, Dadilon filed a petition against
the inaction of the governor and the President.
13. Dadilon alleged that central government is unduly interfering in the provincial subjects with the
political motives. Compromising, the power sharing arrangement and the federal structure
between the center and the provinces.

6
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the petition filed is maintainable or not?

2. Whether Supreme Court has power to give directions to the governor or President for giving
their assent to the bill?
3. Whether the bills submitted to the governor under article 200 can be kept pending without
an assent for indefinite period?

7
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. ISSUE I: Whether the petition filed by the state of Dadilon under Art.131 is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, it provided that giving assent to the bills passed by
the legislation of province of Dadilon comes under the discretionary power of the governor under art.
200.It can be clearly seen that no legal right is affected here. Also same for the bill reserved by the
governor for the President’s consideration comes under the ambit of art. 201 which gives the power to
the governor while bill presented for the assent. Hence the petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable.

2. ISSUE II: Whether the bill submitted to the governor under article 200 can be kept
pending without an assent for indefinite period?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, there are four discretionary powers provided to the
governor to whom the bill is passed by the province’s legislature and presented for the assent, the
governor can a) assent, or b) withholds assent, or c) reserves the bill for the consideration of the
President, d) returns the bill with his massage. Under art. 200 of the C

constitution of Shirsure. If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects
which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the
Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be
called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. Governor
acts per the aid and advice of Council of Ministers. These powers are given to the Governor for
specific purpose.

3. ISSUE III: Whether the supreme court has power to give direction to the Governor or
President for giving their assent to the bill?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, the powers given to the governor under art. 163
(2) where the governor acts with or without aid and advice of the council of minister (headed by the
chief minister) and acts on his own discretion is not permissible for any kind of judicial scrutiny.

8
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Supreme court does not have power (a)doctrine of separation of power : The court cannot interfere
with the functioning of the other branches of government unless there is a clear violation of the
Constitution (b) Supreme Courts limit on Judicial Review (c) Lack of jurisdiction: The court cannot
hear cases that do not fall within its jurisdiction. Supreme Court do not have power the governor has
reserved the rest of the bill for the consideration of president and as provided by the art. 74(2) aid and
advice of the council of minister of Union or the state, bar the scrutiny of aid and advice tendered by
the council of minister to the president.

9
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 131 OF CONSTITUTION

OF SHIRSURE IS MAINTAINABLE?

As representatives of the Governor and the President, we assert that the petition filed by the State of
Dadilon under Article 131 is not maintainable. Our argument is grounded in the discretionary powers
vested in the Governor and the President by the Constitution, as well as the principle that they are not
bound to follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Firstly, the Governor holds discretionary powers under the Constitution, particularly regarding matters
concerning the grant of assent to bills. Article 163(1) explicitly states that the Governor shall exercise
their functions with their own discretion. This discretion is a cornerstone of the Governor's role in the
state's governance, allowing them to act independently in accordance with constitutional principles.

Furthermore, the Governor is not bound to follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Article
163(2) specifies that the Governor may act in their discretion in matters where the Constitution requires
or permits them to do so. This provision underscores the Governor's autonomy in decision-making, even
in matters advised by the Council of Ministers.

These principles have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various judgments. In the case of
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 1974 2 SCC 831 the Court held that the Governor's
discretionary powers are not subject to judicial review unless exercised in bad faith or with mala fide
intentions. This establishes the high threshold required for challenging the Governor's discretionary
decisions in court.

Similarly, in the landmark case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 1974 SC 7492, the
Supreme Court reiterated that the Governor's discretionary powers are immune from judicial
interference, except in cases of clear abuse of power or violation of constitutional provisions. The Court
emphasized the importance of preserving the Governor's discretion to ensure effective governance and
uphold constitutional principles.

10
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Therefore, based on the discretionary powers vested in the Governor and the President by the
Constitution, as well as the principle that they are not bound to follow the aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers, we contend that the petition filed by the State of Dadilon under Article 131 is not
maintainable. The Governor and the President must be allowed to exercise their discretionary powers
independently, in accordance with constitutional norms and principles, without undue interference from
the judiciary.

11
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

2. WHETHER THE BILL SUBMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 200 CAN BE KEPT PENDING
WITHOUT AN ASSENT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD?

The Respondent Humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that, the bill submitted to the Governor
under Article 200 of the Constitution can be held pending without assent for an indefinite period, and
this assertion is supported by robust legal principles and precedents.

First and foremost, Article 200 of the Constitution explicitly grants Governors the discretionary power
to either grant assent to bills, withhold assent, or reserve them for the President's consideration.

Article 200 of the Constitution explicitly vests Governors with discretionary powers regarding the grant
of assent to bills passed by the state legislature. This discretionary authority empowers Governors to
exercise independent judgment and consider the merits of proposed legislation in light of the state's
interests and constitutional framework. The absence of a prescribed time limit in Article 200
underscores the Governor's latitude to deliberate thoroughly on the implications of the bill before
rendering a decision. This discretionary authority is not circumscribed by any specific time frame within
which the Governor must act, thereby allowing for a thorough and deliberate consideration of proposed
legislation in the best interest of the state and its citizens.

Additionally, while the Governor may receive advice from the Council of Ministers, it is well-
established that such advice is not binding. Article 163(2) of the Constitution explicitly states that the
Governor may act in their discretion in matters where the Constitution requires or permits them to do
so. This constitutional provision underscores the Governor's autonomy in decision-making, independent
of ministerial advice. This principle was unequivocally affirmed by the Supreme Court in Nabam
Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1, wherein the Court reiterated the Governor's unfettered
discretion in exercising independent judgment on matters of legislative approval. The Court
underscored the Governor's pivotal role as a constitutional functionary entrusted with the responsibility
to act in accordance with the Constitution and the welfare of the state.

Moreover, legal precedents further solidify the Governor's discretionary authority in matters of assent to
bills. In the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 1974 SC 2192, the Supreme Court
emphasized the Governor's immunity from judicial interference in the exercise of discretionary powers,
unless such powers are exercised in bad faith or with mala fide intentions. This precedent underscores
the sanctity of the Governor's discretionary authority and the deference accorded to it by the judiciary.

12
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Furthermore, the principle of constitutional governance mandates that Governors act in the best interests
of the state and its citizens. By allowing Governors to withhold assent to bills for an indefinite period,
the Constitution acknowledges the need for careful deliberation and thorough consideration of proposed
legislation to ensure its compatibility with constitutional principles and the welfare of the state.

Therefore, based on the discretionary powers conferred upon Governors by Article 200 of the
Constitution, as well as legal precedents such Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 1974
SC 2192, Respondent contend that the Governor retains the authority to keep a bill pending without
assent for an indefinite period. This authority is essential for upholding the principles of constitutional
governance, ensuring effective decision-making, and safeguarding the interests of the state and its
citizens.

Furthermore, in the landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) AIR 1977 SC 1361,
the Supreme Court upheld the inherent discretionary authority of Governors in matters pertaining to the
grant of assent to bills. The Court categorically affirmed that Governors possess the prerogative to
withhold assent if they deem it necessary, provided such action is not arbitrary or motivated by
extraneous considerations. This precedent serves as a strong reaffirmation of the Governor's autonomy
and discretion in fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

Hence it is humbly submitted that based on the unambiguous provisions of Article 200 of the
Constitution, supported by the authoritative rulings of the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy
Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1 and State of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) AIR 1977 SC
1361, we assert that the Governor retains the authority to keep a bill pending without assent for an
indefinite period. This authority is not only constitutionally sanctioned but also indispensable for
ensuring the effective functioning of the executive branch at the state level and upholding the principles
of democratic governance and constitutionalism.

13
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAVE POWER TO GIVE THE DIRECTION TO

THE GOVERNOR OR THE PRESIDENT FOR GIVING ASSENT TO THE BILL?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Supreme Court does not have the power to
give directions to the Governor or the President for giving assent to a bill. It is supported by the
constitutional framework, which delineates the separation of powers between the judiciary and the
executive, and is fortified by legal precedents that affirm the autonomy of the executive in matters of
assent to bills.

Foremost, it is imperative to underscore that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction and authority to
issue directives to the executive branch regarding matters of assent to bills. The separation of powers
doctrine, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, mandates distinct roles for each branch of
government to prevent concentration of power. As such, the judiciary's purview is confined to
interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality, not dictating executive decisions. The landmark
case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) underscored this principle, emphasizing that while
judicial review is a vital check on executive and legislative actions, it is not boundless and must respect
the delineation of powers.

It is crucial to acknowledge that while the Supreme Court has the authority to review the
constitutionality of executive actions, this power is circumscribed by the principles of judicial restraint
and deference to the elected branches of government. The judiciary's role in reviewing executive
decisions is not to substitute its judgment for that of the executive but to ensure adherence to
constitutional norms. Any attempt to exceed the bounds of judicial review and dictate executive actions
would undermine the principle of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. The case of State of
Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) AIR 1977 SC 1361exemplifies this principle, affirming that the
judiciary's authority is subject to the constitutional framework and must respect the autonomy of other
branches of government.

The Constitution of India enshrines the principle of separation of powers, whereby the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches operate independently of each other. Article 74(2) explicitly states that
the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. Similarly, Article
163(2) confers discretion upon the Governor to act according to their own judgment. These provisions
underscore the autonomy of the executive in decision-making, particularly in matters concerning the

14
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

grant of assent to bills. Any encroachment upon executive autonomy would undermine the foundational
principles of democracy and constitutional governance. Therefore, it is imperative to respect the
constitutional boundaries of each branch of government and uphold the delicate balance of power
envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.

Moreover, legal precedents further affirm the independence of the executive in exercising discretion on
matters of assent to bills. In the case of ‘Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006) AIR 2006
2 SC, the Supreme Court held that the President is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers and
cannot withhold assent to bills passed by the Parliament without valid reasons. This judgment
underscores the constitutional principle that the President must act on the aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers, thus precluding any intervention by the judiciary in matters of executive discretion.

Any attempt by the Supreme Court to intervene in executive functions, such as granting assent to bills,
would undermine the delicate balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of powers
serves as a safeguard against tyranny and ensures accountability within the government. Granting the
judiciary unchecked authority to dictate executive actions would disrupt this equilibrium and lead to an
imbalance of power, contrary to the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court itself recognized the
limitations of its power in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) AIR 1977 SC 1361,
reiterating the importance of respecting the autonomy of the executive in exercising discretionary
functions.

Similarly, in the case ‘S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) AIR 1994 SC 1918’, the Supreme Court
reiterated the autonomy of Governors in exercising discretion on matters concerning the grant of assent
to bills. The Court held that Governors must act within the confines of the Constitution but emphasized
that their discretion is not subject to judicial interference, except in cases of clear abuse of power or
violation of constitutional provisions.

Therefore we humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that, based on the principles of separation of
powers, as enshrined in the Constitution, and supported by legal precedents such as ‘S.R. Bommai v.
Union of India (1994) AIR 1994 SC 1918’ and ‘Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006)
AIR 2006 2 SC, we contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to give directions to the
Governor or the President for giving assent to a bill. Any attempt to intervene in the discretionary
powers of the executive would undermine the constitutional framework and disrupt the delicate balance
of powers between the branches of government.

15
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent
 YASHWANTRAO CHAVHAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this HON’BLE
Court be pleased to:

1. Declare and adjudge the petition filed by the Province of Dadilon as non-maintainable.

2. Respectfully, the Governor is empowered to withhold his assent to bills indefinitely, in

accordance with constitutional provisions.

3. With due respect, the Supreme Court lacks the authority to direct the Governor or the
President on matters of assent to bills.

AND /OR

Pass any other order, as it deems fir, in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

16
Submission On The Behalf Of Respondent