‭​‬ I‭f it may please the court the Counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your lordship.

‬
‭Greetings of the day, the counsel in the present case is here on behalf of the respondent‬
​‬‭ ‭.‬
‭​‬ ‭The counsel seeks permission to begin with statement of facts.‬
‭​‬
‭​‬

‭After independence of indiana‬

‭ any of the territories of Indiana had become part of it after the signing of the Instrument of‬
m
‭Accession, the Constitution of Indiana also provides for specific Special, Transitional, and Temporary‬
‭provisions in regard to certain federal states.‬

‭State of huadia - treaty of magna - 371AA. Belastine andd galastine‬

‭ 021;‬ ‭BORDER‬
2
‭INFILTRATION‬
‭ISUEE.‬

‭ HIS‬
T
‭ORDINANCE‬
‭WAS‬

‭Involved treaty of magna . so 107th amend 363 nd 131(1)‬

​‬‭ I‭ssue 1‬‭Alteration of Supreme Court Jurisdiction and constitutionality of 107th amnd‬
‭​‬ ‭Isuue 2 Application of Basic Structure Doctrine to ordinary legislations‬
‭​‬ ‭Issue 3 Constitutionality of Proclamation of emergency‬
‭​‬ ‭Issue 4 Abrogation of Huadia's Special Status‬
I‭t is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that jurisdiction of the supreme‬
‭court can be altered during an ongoing case. Moreover, it is humbly presented that the 107Th constitutional‬
‭amendment (impugned) is intra vires of the Constitution of Indiana. The same shall be proved by the following‬
‭sub issues‬

‭ arliament has Legislative Authority to Alter Jurisdiction under article 138‬

P
‭107th Amendment is Constitutionally Sound‬
‭Judicial Review as a Pillar of Constitutional Governance‬

‭ arliament's Legislative Authority to Alter Jurisdiction‬

P
‭Article 138 provides that “The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to‬
‭any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.”‬

‭ ntry 77 of List I of the Seventh Schedule reads as under: '77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and‬
E
‭powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein; persons entitled‬
‭to practise before the Supreme Court"‬

I‭n the case of H.S. Yadav v. Shakuntala Devi Parakh1 the court observed “ Entry 77 gives power to the Union‬
‭in respect of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court.”‬

‭ AIL v. Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, Article 138 of the Constitution confers power on‬
S
‭the Union Parliament to confer further jurisdiction in the Supreme Court with regard to any of the matters in the‬
‭Union List……………… o‬‭r any matter as the Government of‬‭India and the Government of a State may by‬
‭special agreement confer, subject to enactment of a law to such effect by the Union Parliament.‬

‭ hankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain - the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of jurisdiction alteration. The‬
S
‭case involved a tenant dispute where the premises were initially not in an urban area. During the pendency of‬
‭the suit, the State Government extended the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to the area in‬
‭question. Such alternation was held constitutionally sound …..Despite this, the Civil Court passed a decree for‬
‭possession against the appellants. The High Court upheld this decision, considering a previous judgment that‬
‭had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the decree could be passed based on the same‬
‭view adopted by another co-ordinate Benc‬‭h of the High‬‭Court.This example illustrates how jurisdiction can be‬
‭altered during the course of a case.‬

‭ he respondents respectfully submit before the Supreme Court that, given the specifics of the present case,‬
T
‭they hold the present that Parliament is within its authority to alter the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as‬
‭outlined in Article 138 and Entry 77 of List I. Hence, Parliament has not overstepped its boundaries or‬
‭breached any constitutional provision in exercising its power.‬

‭ our lordship it is humbly submitedd that petitioners had contented that their rights were violated by the‬
Y
‭passing of state of huadia reorganisation order, 2023. Your lordship judiciary is the guardian of const. The‬
‭parliament merely bought in this amendment so that the sc has the jurisdicition to hear the grievances of both‬
‭the parties. Thereby upholding the principle of natural justice of audi alterm paterm‬

‭ arliament deemed it crucial for the judiciary to interpret the treaty of magna, thereby expanding the judiciary's‬
P
‭role by removing Article 363 and the proviso to 131(1). This action by Parliament simply broadened the‬
‭jurisdiction, thus enhancing the scope of judicial review and the judiciary's function as the interpreter of the‬
‭constitution.‬

‭Constitutional Soundness of the 107th Amendment -‬

I‭n Indiana, a challenge to the validity of an amendment often focuses on whether it violates the basic structure‬
‭of the Constitution. Such challenges are brought before the Supreme Court. If the court finds that the‬
‭amendment indeed infringes upon the basic structure, it may declare it unconstitutional and nullify its effects‬

‭ 07th amendmen thas not violated the basic structure doctrine and principles of judicial review and‬
1
‭independence of judiciary‬

‭The judiciary's role is to uphold the Constitution, including its fundamental principles, such as the Rule of Law.‬

‭In Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has asserted that independence of judiciary is‬
‭ basic feature of the Constitution as it is the sine qua non of democracy; it is the most essential characteristic‬
a
‭of a free society. This means that the judiciary ought to be kept free from the influence of political‬
‭considerations‬

I‭n the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the court decided that the rule of law is also a part of the‬
‭basic structure of the constitution and hence, it cannot be amended.‬

‭ our lordship it is humbly submitted that the parliament has acted well within rule of law as it has used the‬
Y
‭power under 138 which is given to it by constitution itself. To expand jurisdiction.‬

‭ oreover independence of judiciary is not hampered as parliament merely has expanded the jurisdiction, its‬
M
‭upon the judiciary to hear both the sides and give any decision as it may deem fit.‬

‭ s held in Raghunath Rao v. Union of India9, unity and integrity of India would constitute the basic structure as‬
A
‭laid down in Kesavananda Bharati case‬

‭ he amendment bought forward was to give the power to supreme court to interpret treaties. This power to‬
T
‭interpret was to restore the unity of Indiana, which is well within the basic structure. Hence this amendment‬
‭should be held constitutionally valid.‬

‭ udicial Review as a Pillar of Constitutional Governance‬

J
‭It is most respectfully submitted that judicial review is an integral component of the basic structure of the‬
‭Constitution, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and upholding the principles of justice, equality, and‬
‭rule of law. Through judicial review, the judiciary exercises the power to scrutinize the actions of the legislative‬
‭and executive branches to ensure they conform to the Constitution's provisions. This fundamental role‬
‭empowers the courts to strike down any laws or governmental actions that contravene the Constitution's‬
‭principles, thereby safeguarding individual rights and preventing the abuse of power. The doctrine of judicial‬
‭review serves as a cornerstone of Indiana's democratic framework, fostering accountability and maintaining‬
‭the balance of powers among the various branches of government.‬

‭ havesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra,India follows doctrine of dualism and not monism. (‬‭d is‬
B
‭different international and municipal law‬‭)The Supreme‬‭Court, for the purpose of Interpretation, has on some‬
‭occasions taken into consideration not only treaties to which India is a party, but also declarations, covenants‬
‭and resolutions passed in different international conferences However, the treaties are subject to municipal‬
‭law. Enforcement of a treaty must conform to domestic law of the country.‬

I‭f there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the rule of‬
‭law and under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the‬
‭State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective.‬
I‭n Subhesh Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has asserted that "judicial review is a part of the‬
‭basic constitutional structure and one of the basic features of the essential Indian Constitutional policy." This‬
‭means that the independence of the judiciary ought to be safeguarded.‬

.‭ In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India14, (CHANDRACHUD, C.I., speaking on behalf of the majority‬
‭observed: "It is the function of the Judges, nay their duty, to pronounce upon the validity of laws. If courts were‬
‭totally deprived of that power, the fundamental rights conferred on the people will become a mere adornment‬
‭because rights without remedies are as writ in water. A controlled constitution will then become uncontrolled."‬

‭ The jurisdiction of the supreme court can be altered even in an ongoing case. The arguments and landmark‬
3
‭judgements given above, giving us the principle that there could not be any restriction on the powers of‬
‭supreme court in the matter of review.‬
‭In the present matter by removing proviso to article 131(1) and article 363 parliament increased the umbrella‬
‭of jurisdiction of the supreme court which is not a violation of basic structure doctrine or any provision of the‬
‭constitution.‬

‭ herefore, the respondents respectfully argue before the Supreme Court that, considering the specifics of the‬
T
‭case, they contend that Parliament is well within its rights to adjust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.‬
‭Parliament recognized the significance of the judiciary interpreting the Magna Carta treaty, leading to the‬
‭expansion of the judiciary's role by removing Article 363 and the proviso to 131(1). This parliamentary action‬
‭simply broadened the jurisdiction, thereby amplifying the scope of judicial review which is well within the basic‬
‭structure‬

I‭t is humbly presented that the 107th Constitutional Amendment should not be deemed invalid as it does not‬
‭infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution. Instead, it expands the jurisdiction of the judiciary without‬
‭limiting it. Additionally, this amendment was crucial as it empowered the Supreme Court to interpret the Treaty‬
‭of Magna, which was central to numerous legal disputes. Parliament's action enabled the Supreme Court to‬
‭address issues surrounding the abrogation of the special status of Huadia. Furthermore, this amendment was‬
‭necessary to uphold the fundamental principle of the unity and integrity of the nation. Therefore, the‬
‭challenged amendment should be considered constitutionally valid.‬

I‭ssue 2‬
‭WHETHER THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE APPLICABLE TO THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL‬
‭AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT MADE UNDER ARTICLE 368 OR THOSE ORDINARY LAWS THAT HAVE‬
‭THE EFFECT OF AN AMENDMENT?‬

‭ 71AA 5(b) Petitioner contended that even though the addition made under Article 371AA cannot be‬
3
‭considered constitutional amendment under Article 368, it is an amendment and thus should checked on the‬
‭touchstone of the Basic Structure Doctrine.‬

‭ onstitutional Amendments Are Distinct from Ordinary Legislation:‬

C
‭Limited application Basic Structure Doctrine to Ordinary Legislation: BECAUSE OF SEPERATION OF‬
‭POWER‬

‭ o, the basic structure doctrine does not generally apply to those constitutional amendments made outside the‬
N
‭scope of Article 368 or to ordinary laws that effectively function as amendments.‬

‭Constitutional Amendments Are Distinct from Ordina‬‭ry‬‭Legislation:‬

I‭t is humbly presented that the principle of‬‭separation of powers‬‭underscores the distinction between‬
‭constitutional amendments and ordinary legislation. Constitutional amendments, which alter the fundamental‬
‭framework of the Constitution, require a rigorous process outlined in Article 368. This process acknowledges‬
‭their profound impact on governance and individual rights. In contrast, ordinary legislation deals with specific‬
‭policy matters and operates within the constitutional framework. While subject to judicial review, ordinary laws‬
‭do not undergo the same level of scrutiny under the basic structure doctrine, preserving the balance of powers‬
‭among governmental branches and upholding constitutional integrity.‬

I‭n the case of State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co17, it was held that, A law made by Parliament or the legislature‬
‭can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence‬
‭and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other‬
‭constitutional provision.‬
‭4.5. The other grounds that were considered are— (3) law should not be prohibited by any particular provision‬
‭of the Constitution,18 (4) law should follow the procedure laid down in the Constitution and (5) vagueness in‬
‭law.‬
‭Before applying the above tests, the court starts with a presumption that a law is constitutionally valid.‬

‭ pplying the doctrine of Basic Structure to ordinary laws would denude the power of Parliament and State‬
A
‭Legislatures of laying down legislative policies, which would amount to a violation of the principle of separation‬
‭of powers.‬

‭ .6. Therefore, an ordinary legislation is never straight away tested against the touchstone of basic structure‬
4
‭doctrine. Its constitutionality is challenged on the grounds mentioned in the previous points.‬

I‭t is humbly adduced that Constitutional amendments in Indiana are placed on a higher pedestal compared to‬
‭ordinary legislation, as they undergo a specialized process, have a broader impact on fundamental principles,‬
‭are subject to a rigid framework, and are susceptible to judicial review, particularly regarding compliance with‬
‭the Constitution's basic structure—a scrutiny not applied to ordinary legislation‬

‭Limitated application of Basic Structure Doctrine to Ordinary Legislation: due to separation of power‬

‭ his essentially refers to the distinction between legislative power and constituent power. Chandrachud brings‬
T
‭out this distinction to emphasize the point that “since the two are not the same a higher power should be‬
‭subject to a limitation (read as “Basic Structure doctrine”) which will not operate upon a lower power and there‬
‭would be no paradox ...same genus, they operate at different fields and are therefore subject to different‬
‭limitations”.‬
‭It is humbly submitted that — A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority‬
‭of the two houses of Parliament outside the scope of Article 368. These provisions include:‬
‭Admission or establishment of new states.‬
‭Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states‬
‭Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.‬

‭ rdinary legislation means an Act enacted by either Parliament or the State Legislatures on the matters‬
O
‭respectively enumerated under 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Our Constitution’s aim is clear in demarcating‬
‭the functions of the institutions. As per Article 245(1), Parliament or State Legislatures make the laws, w‬
‭Your lordship it is humbly‬

‭Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,23 only constitutional amendments can be subjected to the test of the‬
‭ asic features doctrine. Legislative measures are not subject to basic features or basic structure or basic‬
b
‭framework‬

‭ asic structures or basic features are indefinable. The legislative entries are the fields of legislation. The pith‬
B
‭and substance doctrine has been applied in order to find out legislative competency, and eliminate‬
‭ ncroachment on legislative entries. If the theory of basic structures or basic features will be applied to‬
e
‭legislative measures it will denude Parliament and State Legislatures of the power of legislation and deprive‬
‭them of laying down legislative policies. This will be encroachment on the separation of powers.‬

‭ hough the validity of the provisions of a legislative Act cannot be challenged on the ground it violates the‬
T
‭basic structure of the Constitution, it can be challenged as violative of constitutional provisions which enshrine‬
‭the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.‬

‭ rdinary legislation means an Act enacted by either Parliament or the State Legislatures on the matters‬
O
‭respectively enumerated under 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Our Constitution’s aim is clear in demarcating‬
‭the functions of the institutions. As per Article 245(1), Parliament or State Legislatures make the laws,‬
‭whereas, as per Article 141, the Supreme Court declares the law to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.‬

‭ ence its actually not against the power of judicial review. Not allowing challenges on the ground of basic‬
H
‭structure doctrine doesn’t mean the power of judicial review is curtailed.‬
‭371AA 5 (b) Any such law as is referred to under sub-clause (a) or any such law which amends the present‬
‭Article by way of addition, variation, or repeal shall not be deemed to be an amendment to the Constitution for‬
‭Article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending this‬
‭Constitution.‬

‭ he petitioner contended that even though the addition made under Article 371AA cannot be considered‬
T
‭constitutional amendment under Article 368, it is an amendment and thus should checked on the touchstone of‬
‭the Basic Structure Doctrine. Further, in‬
‭contended that the Act violated the Basic Structure Doctrine as granting such autonomy to the Governor,‬
‭which is a nominal head,‬
‭is against the concept of a Parliamentary Structure Form of Government.‬