TC – 12

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -1

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

KINDIA,1950

PETITION / / 2023

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

NESFF & MR.CLARK & OTHERS.......................................................................Petitioner

Versus

Union of Kindia......................................................................................................Respondent

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF Kindia

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................3

STAEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................6

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS............................................................................................................7

ISSUES RAISED......................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…............................................................................................12

I. WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE

NORTHEAST STATE IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 356?...........................12

II. WHETHER THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?..............................................................................................14

III. WHETHER 107TH CONTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?...............................................................................................17

PRAYER OF RELIEF….......................................................................................................30

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 1

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& and
S. Section
A.I.R. All India Reporter
Sec Section
Art. Article
GOVT Government
Hon'ble Honourable
i.e. That is
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 2

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 3

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble SC is vested with jurisdiction,to hear the present matter under
Article 356 of the COK.

Article 356 of the COK:

Petition to appeal by the SC.—

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other
court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute
between the Government of India and one or more States; or
between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States
on the other; or
between two or more States,

if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence
or extent of a legal right depends:
[Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement,
covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or
executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.]

Thereby, the Respondent submits this memorial which sets for the facts & the laws on which the
claims are based.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 4

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The Union of Kindia is the second most populous country in the world and the 7th largest in terms
of area. It gained independence from British colonial rule around 75 years ago and has since been
governed by a written constitution. The country has a diverse population divided along religious,
ethnic, caste, linguistic, and cultural lines

1. The Union of Kindia is the second most populous country in the world and 7th largest in
terms of area. It has a diverse population divided on the lines of religion, ethnicity, caste, language
and culture. Kindia, previously a British colony, gained
independence around 75 years back and is governed by a written constitution, structured to suit a
quasi-federal system. Kindia, a developing country, is an active member of the United Nations
Organization. It has a robust multi-party system instituted which caters to the needs of the citizens
from various states of the country and represents their interests to the Center. Due to the
multiplicity of parties within each state, claiming majority by a single party proved to be a
herculean task. These imbalances led to various coalition governments being formed between the
ruling party at the Center and the regional parties at the State level. With a renewed Cabinet, the
Union introduced new legislation catering to the most significant aspects of the economy. This
included the introduction of 3 Agricultural Reforms Bill, 2019, and Management of COVID- 19
Bill, 2020. However, due to growing differences within the coalition government, the Bills did not
see the light of day.

2. The Kindia Janta Party [KJP] had been in power at the Union level for the past

two decades and assumed a great deal of power and influence over most of the States. However,
they started losing support from most of their allies as the National

Democratic Party [NDP] had started gaining prominence in the country. The situation

was such that the KJP could only remain in power if they would align themselves with North
Eastern Alliance Party [NEAP], which was the strongest party consisting of MPs from the North-
Eastern area of Kindia. It consisted of 7 States which were inundated with political and economic
instability and turmoil.

3. During the general elections for the year 2019, the KJP and NDP were in a tussle, the only
way to achieve a majority was to align them with NEAP. After a tough battle, Chief of NEAP, Mr.
Clarke, declared that the party has decided to align themselves with KJP and formed a coalition
government in the Center. For a long time, everything went smoothly. Owing to the constant
turbulence in the North-East region of the country, a political organization called the North Eastern
States’ Federation Freedom [NESFF] had gained much prominence. Their objective had been to
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 5
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
improve their relations with the Center and work for advancing these states in terms of
infrastructure, technology, and industry. During the past decade, they had gained people’s
confidence, by being vocal about their disagreements with the Union with respect to the new Bills
which were introduced and how they didn’t benefit the North Eastern population. Fearing the loss
of their popularity in these states, NEAP had to cater to the opinions of NESFF. However, the
problems faced by these states were rarely ever covered by the media, and it was allegedly
claimed by the NESFF that the Central Executive had always discriminated against these states and
had led to a tainted perspective of citizens

towards the Central Government.

4. After a few months of the successful working of the coalition, the relationship between both
the Parties had deteriorated because of their different agendas. The KJP wanted to introduce a bill
to prohibit cow slaughter and a bill for Uniform Civil Code which, if passed, would oppose the
religious sentiments of the people belonging to the North East and affect certain immigrants from
neighboring nations respectively. The NESFF commenced protests in the North-Eastern States to
pressurize NEAP, to vote against the bills. Due to mounting pressure, the NEAP succumbed and
voted against the Bill, thereby defeating the Bill in the Lower House.

5. In the midst of such events, the KJP Government introduced a bill in the Lower House of
Parliament to amend the Constitution. Under the Kindia Constitution certain regions of the different
states were given a special status based on the socio-political conditions and economic
backwardness. The Government led by KJP decided to give
them the status of States instead of special status and amended the Constitution to create 10 new
States (106th Constitution Amendment Act, 2019), and immediately held
general elections in those new States and was successful in forming its own government in all the
ten new States.

6. KNTV, a prestigious news outlet in Kindia, caught wind of a leaked report which suggested
that KJP had introduced the constitutional amendment as a measure to ensure the retention of the
majority in the Parliament in the upcoming elections and to pave the way for other amendments to
the Constitution that requires the ratification of one-half of the States. The government, however,
refuted the claims and reasoned its decision to
establish 10 new States on the grounds of better administration and governance according to the
needs of such regions.

7. The 106th Constitution Amendment caused a huge uproar which was supplemented by the
media. Violent protests broke out, and the Union Government was accused of being anti-federal
and violating the basic structure of the Constitution. Large protests were backed by the NESFF who
resorted to the destruction of public property.

8. In the year 2020, the country was going through the havoc wreaked by the deadly COVID

- 19 pandemic. Kindia was badly hit due to overpopulated cities, poor health infrastructure and
waning GDP. Owing to the difference in opinions between the Center and the North Eastern States,
they did not cooperate with the Central Government and this cost the lives of people.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 6
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

9. The ten new States and a few other States of Kindia had requested assistance from the
Union for additional medical supplies. The Central Government, then, issued a direction to all the
States that the surplus medical resources, for instance, PPE kits, surgical masks, sanitizer, etc., are
to be given to the Union which shall be further shared with the States having limited resources.
However, the seven states anticipated a huge demand for those medical resources and hence did not
give them to the Union. They were also vocal about questionable methods adopted by the Union in
passing the 106th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2019.

10. Observing the conditions prevailing in the 7 states, the President upon receiving a report
from the Governor imposed Emergency in these 7 States under Article 356 of the Constitution of
Kindia.

11. Several organizations rose up against the imposition of Emergency, claiming that the action
is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of Kindia and destroyed the very essence of a
federal system of government. Angered by the turn of events, NESFF challenged the constitutional
validity of the action of imposing the President’s Rule under the Constitution of Kindia.

12. Further Kindia being a member of the UN, had to work in pursuance of the Envision
2030, an initiative which laid down the 17 sustainable development goals for all countries to
employ, one of which was the “Good Health and Well-Being” of all its citizens. Thus, the Union
Government planned another set of amendments to the Constitution.

13. Owing to the fact that States were unable to perform their duties laid down under part IV of
the Constitution and to meet the Envision 2030 goals, the Union
Government through the 107th Constitution Amendment Act, 2021 moved Entry numbers 1, 6 and
14 from the State List to the Concurrent List of the Constitution of Kindia.
With the help of the Governments in Ten new States and other States where KJP was in power
independently or through alliance succeeded in getting the ratification of one half of the States of
the Union of Kindia.

14. Mr. Clarke filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the 107th Constitution
Amendment Act 2021. The Supreme Court clubbed the matters filed by the NESFF and Mr.
Clarke. The hearing is fixed on 5th July 2023.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 7

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 8

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE – I

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE NORTH EAST STATE
IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARITCLE 356 ?

ISSUE – II

WHETHER THE 106th CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT,2019 IS CONSTITUIONAL?

ISSUE – III

WHETHER THE 107TH CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT ACT,2021 IS CONSTITUIONAL?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 9

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE I:] WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN

NORTH EAST STATES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 356?
Amidst the unrest, the President imposed Emergency in seven states that opposed the central
government's actions. This decision led to widespread criticism and legal challenges from various
organizations, including the NESFF.
[ISSUE II:] WHETHER 106TH CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT ACT ,2019 IS
CONSTITUIONAL?

It is reverently submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the constitutional validity of the 106th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. This amendment introduced changes to the
Constitution, including the creation of 10 new states. The Supreme Court will assess whether
this amendment is consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution and whether it
adheres to the principles of federalism

[ISSUE III:]WHETHER THE 107TH CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT ACT ,2021 IS

CONSTITUIONAL?
It is most humbly submitted before the hon'ble court of Kindia that 107th constitutional
amendment act, 2021 is constitutional under A.249 of the Kindian Constitution. The gov. of
Kindia can move Entry numbers 1,6 and 14 from the State list to the Concurrent list of the
Constitution of Kindia. The States of Kindia were unable to perform their basic duties under
Part 4 of thr Constitution and they were also unable to meet the sustainable development
Goals.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 10

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCENT

[ISSUE1;-]WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN NORTH

EAST STATES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 356?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC of KINDIA that the imposition of the president
rule in North east states is justified under article 356. Article 356 states that Article 356 of the
Constitution of India is based on Section 93 of the GOI Act,1935.

According to Art 356,President’s Rule can be imposed on any state of India on the grounds of the
failure of the constitutional machinery. This is of two types:

1. If the President receives a report from the state’s Governor or otherwise is convinced or
satisfied that the state’s situation is such that the state government cannot carry on the
governance according to the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Article 365: As per this Article, President’s Rule can be imposed if any state fails to comply
with all directions given by the Union on matters it is empowered to.
It is also called ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’?

The imposition of the President's Rule in the North East States raises questions about its
justification under Article 356 of the Constitution. Article 356 empowers the President to
impose President's Rule in a state if there is a failure of the constitutional machinery, as
observed by the Governor. The grounds for such imposition include situations where the
state government is unable to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

In the present case, the imposition of President's Rule in the North East States would require
a careful examination of the circumstances leading to this decision. The President would
have relied on a report from the Governor highlighting the breakdown of constitutional
machinery in these states. The Supreme Court, while considering the constitutional validity
of the imposition, would assess whether there were valid reasons for the belief that the state
governments were unable to govern effectively.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 11

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

The Court would scrutinize factors such as political instability, law and order issues, and the
state's failure to perform its duties as laid down in the Constitution. It would evaluate
whether the situation warranted the imposition of President's Rule as a measure to restore
normalcy and ensure the proper functioning of the state machinery.

The petition challenging the imposition of President's Rule filed by Mr. Clarke and
supported by NESFF would likely argue that the action is violative of the basic structure of
the Constitution and undermines the federal system of government. The Supreme Court
would consider these arguments along with the government's justifications for the
imposition, weighing the constitutional provisions and principles involved.

Ultimately, it would be the Supreme Court's responsibility to determine the constitutionality

and legality of the imposition of President' Rule in the North East States, based on the facts,
evidence, and legal arguments presented before it during the hearing scheduled for 5th July
2023.

2.WHETHER THE 106th CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT,2019 IS CONSTITUIONAL?

It is reverently submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the constitutional validity of the 106th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. This amendment introduced changes to the
Constitution, including the creation of 10 new states. The Supreme Court will assess whether
this amendment is consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution and whether it
adheres to the principles of federalism.
 ARTICLE 2 says parliament may by law admit into the union , established new states
on such turms and conditions as it thinks fit.
So by the mentioned article according to the kindian constitution the government made 10
new states for the people of the states.
 ARTICLE 3 say parliament may by law form new states by separation of territory
from in a states or by uniting two or more states or part of states or by uniting any
territory to a part of any state.
 The constitutionality of the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 would need to
be assessed by the Supreme Court. This Amendment Act introduced significant
changes by creating 10 new states under the Kindia Constitution, replacing the
previous special status of certain regions. The Supreme Court would examine the
amendment in light of the constitutional provisions and principles.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 12
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

 The Court would evaluate whether the Amendment Act adheres to the basic structure
of the Constitution and respects the federal nature of the country. It would consider if
the amendment infringes upon any fundamental rights, violates the principles of
equality, or undermines the balance of powers between the Union and the states.

 The media reports of leaked information suggesting ulterior motives behind the
amendment could also be scrutinized by the Court. The government's assertion of
better administration and governance as the rationale for creating new states would be
assessed for its credibility and adherence to constitutional norms.

 Moreover, the protests and accusations of the amendment being anti-federal, along
with the destruction of public property, may add weight to the arguments challenging
its constitutionality. The Court would weigh these factors against the government's
justifications for the amendment and the goals it aimed to achieve.

 The Supreme Court's final determination on the constitutionality of the 106th

Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 would depend on a thorough examination of the
provisions, principles, and arguments put forth by the petitioners and the government.
The Court's decision would establish the legality and validity of the amendment,
ensuring that it is in harmony with the constitutional framework.

_____________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 13

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

3.WHETHER THE 107TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

It is most humbly submitted before the hon'ble court of Kindia that 107th constitutional
amendment act, 2021 is constitutional under A.249 of the Kindian Constitution. The gov. of
Kindia can move Entry numbers 1,6 and 14 from the State list to the Concurrent list of the
Constitution of Kindia. The States of Kindia were unable to perform their basic duties under
Part 4 of thr Constitution and they were also unable to meet the sustainable development
Goals.
According to ARTICLE 249 the parliament has power to legislate with respect to a matter in
the state list in the national interest 48A of the Constitution of kindia says about the
protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife, it is the
most important of all 48A of the Constitution of kindia says about the protection and
improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife, it is the most
important of all the basic duties of a state which comes under part 4 of the Constitution.
 The constitutionality of the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 would be
subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. This Amendment Act shifted certain
entries from the State List to the Concurrent List of the Constitution of Kindia, aiming
to address the states' inability to fulfill their duties and meet the goals of sustainable
development.

 The Supreme Court would examine whether the amendment is in line with the basic
structure of the Constitution and the principles of federalism. It would assess whether
the shift of powers from the states to the concurrent list maintains the balance of
power between the Union and the states and does not infringe upon the essential
features of the Constitution.

 The Court would also consider if the amendment infringes upon any fundamental
rights or violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It would assess
whether the goals and objectives of the Envision 2030 initiative, such as "Good
Health and Well-Being," can be effectively achieved through this amendment without
undermining the constitutional framework.

_____________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 14
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

 The arguments challenging the constitutionality of the amendment, particularly in

relation to the states' autonomy and the potential encroachment on their powers,
would be weighed against the government's justifications for the amendment in terms
of meeting the Envision 2030 goals and ensuring effective governance.

 Ultimately, the Supreme Court's determination on the constitutionality of the 107th

Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 would be based on a comprehensive analysis of
the constitutional provisions, principles, and arguments presented by the parties
involved. The Court's decision would establish the legality and validity of the
amendment, ensuring its compliance with the constitutional framework.

 The constitutionality of the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 would need to
be assessed by the Supreme Court. This Amendment Act introduced significant
changes by creating 10 new states under the Kindia Constitution, replacing the
previous special status of certain regions. The Supreme Court would examine the
amendment in light of the constitutional provisions and principles.

 The Court would evaluate whether the Amendment Act adheres to the basic structure
of the Constitution and respects the federal nature of the country. It would consider if
the amendment infringes upon any fundamental rights, violates the principles of
equality, or undermines the balance of powers between the Union and the states.

 The media reports of leaked information suggesting ulterior motives behind the
amendment could also be scrutinized by the Court. The government's assertion of
better administration and governance as the rationale for creating new states would be
assessed for its credibility and adherence to constitutional norms.

_____________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 15

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

 Moreover, the protests and accusations of the amendment being anti-federal, along
with the destruction of public property, may add weight to the arguments challenging its
constitutionality. The Court would weigh these factors against the government'
justifications for the amendment and the goals it aimed to achieve.

 The Supreme Court's final determination on the constitutionality of the 106th

Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 would depend on a thorough examination of the
provisions, principles, and arguments put forth by the petitioners and the government.
The Court's decision would establish the legality and validity of the amendment,
ensuring that it is in harmony with the constitutional framework.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 16

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the council on the behalf of respondent humbly pray before this
Hon’ble court, that it may be pleased to adjudged and declare:

1. That the imposition of the President’s Rule in the North East States is justified
under Article 356.

2. That the106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 is constitutional.

OR/AND

Pass any order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience. And for this act of kindness the respondent shall as duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

(COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 17

 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 18