KASHMIR LAW COLLEGE, NOWSHERA

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

NAME: KAMRAN ZAFFAR

ROLL NO: 18

SEMESTER: BA.LLB 7TH SEM

SECTION: A

SUBMITTED TO:MISS DEEBA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

(Mr. Asif)
APPELLANT

V/S

(LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA)

RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

ART article

CONST Constitution

FR’S Fundamental Rights

I.E That is

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court cases

AIR All India Record

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW CITATION

1) Ramedo Chauhan vs Bani Kant Das & ors 2010
2) Oliga Tellis & Ors Vs Bombay Muncipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180
3) Menaka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
4) Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
( 2018 ) 16 SCC 299
5) A.R Antulay V. R.S Nayak 1988 AIR 1531
6) HL Terhan & Ors VS UOI & Ors 1989 AIR 568
BOOKS CONCERNED

1. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 75,76 (Central Law Publication,

Allahabad, 56th edition, 2019).
2. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India 16 (Universal Law Publishing, Gurgaon,
13th edition, 2015).
3. M.P.Jain, Constitutional Law of India 885 (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 8th edition,
2019).
4. V.N.Shukla and Mahendra Pal Singh, Constitution of India 20 (Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow,5th edition, 2010).
5. DD Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 145 (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon,
5th edition, 2018).
6. H.M.Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 155 (Law and Justice, Delhi, 3rd
edition, 2016).

WEBOGRAPHY

www.indiankanoon.com (visited on 15th May 2022)

www.wikipedia.com (visited on 15th May 2022)

www.legalserviceindia.com (visited on 15th May 2022).

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I counsel on behalf of Appellant would like to invoke the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Supreme court of India under Article 32 of Indian Constitution.

Article 32
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 )
and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Asif had been working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a
Development Officer since the last 20 years.
2. On 21st May, 2018 a complaint was filed against him by a policy holder
alleging corrupt practices by Asif. On the basis of the complaint an Inquiry
Committee was constituted on 23rd May, 2018 to inquire into the allegations
against Mr. Asif.
3. On 23rd June, 2018, the Committee furnishes the inquiry report holding Mr.
Asif guilty of corrupt practices. However, it is noteworthy, that Mr.Asif was
not allowed to appear before the Committee though his written statement
denying the allegations was accepted by the Committee.
4. During the course of its investigations, the Committee found that one
Ms.Iram working as a clerk in LIC was complicit with Mr. Asif in his corrupt
activities. As such the Committee recommended their termination from the
services.
5. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Chairman of LIC on 24 th June, 2018
issues the termination order of Mr. Asif whereas Ms.Iram is penalized by
withholdingher increments. The leniency in favor of Ms. Iram is justified by
LIC relying on regulation 42 of LIC Rules, 2000 which stipulates ‘that
female employees should be dealt leniently in disciplinary proceedings
/matters’.
6. Mr. Asif aggrieved because of the termination order files a writ petition
before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution
challenging violation of his fundamental rights. In his petition, he alleges
firstly, that the termination order is arbitrary because he has not been
afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Secondly, he argues that
the classification made by regulation 42 between male and female employees
is an unreasonable classification.
 7. The High Court rejects the petition on the preliminary finding that LIC is not
a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12. Mr. Asif be aggrieved by the
decision files a writ in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution
canvassing the following grounds:

I. That the judgment passed by the High Court has violated my fundamental
right under Article 14.
II. That LIC is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
III. That the termination order passed by LIC is unconstitutional since he has not
been given an opportunity of being heard.
IV. That the regulation 42 of the LIC Rules, 2000 is unconstitutional since it
makes an unreasonable classification.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a judicial order itself can be challenged on the grounds that it is

violative of Part 3rd rights?
2. Whether LIC is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the termination order can be challenged on the grounds of violation of
principles of natural justice?
4. Whether the regulation 42 of the LIC Rules, 2000 is unconstitutional on the
touchstone of doctrine of reasonable classification?
ISSUE CONCERNED

Whether a judicial order itself can be challenged on the grounds that it is violative
of Part 3rd rights?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Your honor the counsel is appearing before the Hon’ble Court in the matter of(MR.
ASIF Vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION), on behalf of the Appellant.

I would like to refer text of Article 12 & 13of Constitution of India.

Challenging a judicial order passed by the high court of Delhi

ARTICLE 12:

Definition In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India.
ARTICLE 13:

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights
conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the
extent of the contravention, be void
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any
Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having
in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or
made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before
the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation
either at all or in particular areas
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made
under Article 368 Right of Equality
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Your honor my humble submissions on behalf of defendant are below:

1.Judiciary is a state and if the court are entirely exempted from state, then it would
have an insurmountable power to make laws that contradict Fundamental Rights
supported by article 13 laws made in contravention of FRs is voilative.

In case of A.R Antulay V. R.S Nayak it was held that the expression ‘state’ as
defined in art 12 of the constitution includes judiciary also.

 In my client’s case there is a clear violation of his fundamental rights by the

statutory body as well as by the high court as judiciary falls under the ambit
of state so client can go against the state for infringement of fundamental
rights

2.Therefore, supreme court decisions can’t be questioned but the Findings of

subordinate court can be questioned. As supreme court decisions are binding on
the all the subordinate courts.

3.In my client’s case right to fair hearing was denied he (MR. Asif) was not
allowed to appear in before the committee through a written statement denying the
Allegations.There was a clear violation of basic fundamental and natural justice
rule of (AUDI ALTERM PARTEM)
In Meenaka Gandhi vs UOI 1978 it was observed that law and procedure
which is followed should be fair, just and reasonable kind the rule of natural justice
comes into power where no partiality is done with a any body during regulatory
activities rule of Audi Alterm partem is primary notion of principle of natural
justice . principles also says that no one should be condemned unheard both the
parties will geta an opportunity of fair hearing and justice
4.Supreme court can held interim order of High Court Invalid .
In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation it
was held that interim orders passed by the High Court in exercise of its powers can
certainly be interfered with by the Supreme Court, but that is only in exercise of its
(Supreme courts) appellate power.
 In my client’s case the high court rejects the petition on the Preliminary
finding (i.e.,coming before the main part) and there is no bar on the supreme
court that it will not interfere in such order of the high court

5.The supreme court made it absolutely explicit in HL Terhan &Ors VS UOI

&Ors 1989that if a authority has statutory powers to take action without hearing it
would be arbitrary take action without hearing this violates the art 14 of
constitution.

6. My clients Right to livelihood was taken away.

In Oliga Tullis Vs Bombay municipal corporation No person shall be deprived
of his right to earn livelihood and it is an essential part of Art 21
 In my client’scase there was Arbitrariness in providing punishment as well
as he was left with no option and got terminated.

7. The supreme court has subsequently done so in its 2010 decision in Ramedo
Chauhan to hold that instances of courts judgment violating the Fundamental rights
Of the citizens may be extremely rare but it can’t be said that such a situation can
never happen.
 PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities may this
Hon’ble court be pleased to
1) Hold the judicial order passed by the high court of Delhi violativeof
Fundamental Rights
2) And pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience. And for this, the petitioner is duty bound, shall humbly pray.