The Moot Court

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 24

THE MOOT COURT 2020

THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF ASGARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

CITIZEN OF VORMIR …. PETITIONERS

Vs.

UNION OF ASGARD … RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION NO. xxxx /2020

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF


ASGARD , 1950)

1|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................
TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………..................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………
1. WHETHER THE PETITION ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE UNDER ARTICLE
356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS VALID?
3. WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONTITUTION APPLICATION TO
VORMIR ORDER 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?
4. WETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE
HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE
OF VORMIR IS VALID?
5. WETHER THE REORAGISTATION OF STATE OF VORMIR INTO
TWO UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR IS VALID?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................
PRAYER.........................................................................................................................

2|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORIES

STATUES:-
1. The Constitution of India,1950
2. Code of criminal procedure 1973
3. Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019
4. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978

BOOKS REFERRED :-
1) J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (52nd ed. 2015).
2) JAIN M.P, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. Lexis Nexis).
3) SHUKLA V.N. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th ed. Eastern Book
Company)
4) SUPINDER KAUR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE(7thth ed. Lexis Nexis)

WEB SOURCES:

1. www.manupatrafast.com

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.westlawindia.com

4. www.prsindia.org/billtrack.

5. https://indiankanoon.org/

3|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

TABLE OF CASES

Sno. Case Citation Page no.


1 S.R bommai v. Union Of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 11
1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3
SCC1
2 Ummul kulus v. Ex. Magistrate, union 1991 CRLJ 262 15
territory
3 B.B.N school v. dist. Mag. Allahabad, 1990, crlj 422 (all) 15

4|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Abbreviations Expansions
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Hon’ble Honorable
Ibid Ibidem
ILR Indian Law Report
No. Number
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
Pg. Page
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
V Versus

5|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

6|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Asgard is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic that follows federalism where by
power is shared between Union and States. The Constitution of Asgard came into existence
when colonial Asgard was divided into Union of Asgard and Republic of Titan. When it was
granted independence there were 526 princely states in Asgard, they were allowed to be a
part of either Asgard or Titan or to remain independent and exercise their right to self
determination. There were two prominent religions in the Colonial Asgard, Marvelism and
Gothism. The partition took place on the prevalence of these religions in the two countries.
Marvelism was a majority religion in Asgard and Gothism in Titan. Among the princely
states which preferred to be independent was the State of Vormir which shared borders with
the Asgard and Titan. The ruler of the princely state of Vormir was a Marvel while maximum
population of the state followed Gothismtherefore the ruler exercised its right to self
-determination and decided to remain sovereign. Soon there was an invasion in Vormir by the
tribesmen and the army from Titan, the ruler sought the help of Asgard, which in turn led to
the accession of Vormir to Asgard by signing of the Instrument of Accession on October 26,
1947. Asgardian and Titan forces thus fought their first war over Vormir in 1947-48. Soon
Asgard referred the dispute to the United Nations. It asked Titan and Asgard to remove its
troops conduct a "free and fair" plebiscite to allow people of Vormir to decide their future.
Titan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was
agreed and the part of the state of Vormir which was captured by Titan was declared to be
belonging to the Union of Asgard. Both Asgard and Vormir also formed a treaty that they
will solve their disputes mutually over Vormir.

The accession of Vormir led to inclusion of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution of
Asgard under the heading ‘Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions’. According to
this article, except for defence, foreign affairs, and communications it restricted the
Parliament’s legislative powers in respect of Vormir. For extending a central law on subjects
included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA), mere “consultation” with the state government
was needed. But for extending it to other matters, “concurrence” of the state government was
mandatory. Thus, the state's residents live under a separate set of laws. Article 370 was

7|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020
supposed to be interpreted as temporary in the sense that the VormirConstituent Assembly
had a right to modify/delete/retain it and it shall continue until a plebiscite happens as per the
UN guidelines. The State's constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without
recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article. Although the Article 370(3)
permits deletion by a Presidential Order. Such an order, however, is to be preceded by the
concurrence of Vormir’s Constituent Assembly. Since the Assembly was dissolved the future
of the Article became uncertain. Uncertainty prompted an incessant situation in the State and
tension between the Titan, Asgard and Vormir. In the following time Vormir witnessed a
steady rise of militant outfits, several unstable governments, arrests and violent killings.

The Odin Janata party who had been opposing the special status for Vormir for a long time
soon proposed the Constitutional (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 to repeal the Articles
and called for bifurcation of the state into two union territories that is; Wakanda (centrally
administered) and Vormir (with its legislative assembly) by introducing the
VormirReorganisation Bill, 2019. The government used the “Interpretation clause” of Article
367 of the Asgardian Constitution wherein the reference to “Constituent Assembly” was to be
read as “Legislative Assembly of the State” and all the references to “Sardar-i-Riyasat” were
to be considered as referring to Governor of the State. Prominent Vormir leaders, including
former Chief Minister Gamora Mufti and opposition leader, Thanos Abdullah were placed
under house arrest after imposition of President’s Rule. Internet and mobile services were
curtailed, and Section 144 of Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 was imposed. Opposition
parties protested in parliament against the Bill and the complete shutdown of the Vormir
valley. Government’s move was criticised as the Reorganization bill breached the 1954
Presidential Order as no consent or concurrence of the Legislature or the State Government
was taken at any point. Further the state was locked down by imposing Sec. 144.

The sudden abrogation and its procedure invited more than a dozen petitions. The pleas have
been filed by a variety of persons, including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats and politicians. The
petitions have alleged that the Article 370 amendment could not have been done without the
concurrence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly in Vormir. Gamora Mufti approached
the Court against her house detention. Thanos Abdullah filed writ petition against the
imposition of President’s Rule in the state without giving chance for floor test. The decision
to substitute the "Governor" as the authority to recommend and ratify proposals to change the
legal status of the State, according to the petitioners, is "illegal and unconstitutional." A plea

8|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020
was also made by a Sakaar State Vision NGO, it flagged the issue of freedom of the press
being violated and imposition of Section 144 they pointed out that essential services
including ambulances, police and fire services are also not accessible due to the curfew
situation and communication blockade. They claimed that they had tried to contact the local
administration to get news about the status of people living in State of Vormir, but the "entire
Valley seemed to be under detention."

The petitions before the court have cited many grounds for challenging the President’s Order.
A substantial question is whether a federal unit can be downgraded from the status of a State
to that of a Union Territory, a move for which there is no precedent. The constitutional
morality of the rest of the country deciding the destiny of a State without the consent or
participation of its citizens is also a serious issue brought before the courts.

9|Page
THE MOOT COURT 2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue 1 WHETHER THE PETITION ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

Issue 2 WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF


THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS VALID?

Issue 3 WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONTITUTION APPLICATION TO VORMIR


ORDER 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

Issue 4 WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE HOUSE
ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID?

Issue 5 WHETHER THE REORAGISTATION OF STATE OF VORMIR INTO TWO


UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR IS VALID?

10 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITION ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?


It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asgard that the appeal
filed by the appeallant under Article 32 of the Constitution of Asgard is not
maintainable. First of all the petition filed by the party under Article 32 does not fulfil
the requirements of it. This means that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asgard does not
have jurisdiction to hear the case which makes the petition unappealable and non-
maintainable. Secondly, the petition filed against the abrogation of Article 370 and
President’s rule claims to violate the fundamental rights of the citizen of the State of
Vormir which is apparently not true according to Article 359 of the Constitution of
Asgard which provides that the Fundamental Rights can be suspended during
emergency by the President of Asgard. Furthermore, when the order of abrogation of
Article 370 was passed and the Presidential rule was imposed on the State of Vormir,
the government of the State was dissolved which empowered the Union Government
and the President to take necessary steps. Thus, permitting the petitioners to file
appeals for the same matter is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have
far reaching adverse impact on the administration of the judiciary and the government
both.

2. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF


THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS VALID?
It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,
that imposition of president rule under article 356 of the constitution of asgard is valid
as the state government is unable to function according to the constitutional provision
and the state machinery is unable to perform function properly . Article 356 was
imposed with the recommendation of governor of Asgard & cabinet ministers as well.

3. WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONTITUTION APPLICATION TO


VORMIR ORDER 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?
It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,
that enforcement of constitution application to vormir order 2019 is valid as it is

11 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
clearly mentioned in Article 370 clause (1) sub clause (d) such of the other
provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such
exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:
and clause (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article,
the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be
operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from
such date as he may specify:

4. WETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE HOUSE


ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE OF VORMIR
IS VALID?
It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,
that imposition of section 144 crpc & the house arrest of prominent political leader of
state of vormir is valid as when there are apprehensions of breach of public peace and
order by some people, Section 144 CrPC is put into effect. Under this section, all
civilians are barred from carrying of weapons including lathis, sharp-edged weapons
or firearms in public places except for police or paramilitary or security forces.

5. WETHER THE REORAGISTATION OF STATE OF VORMIR INTO TWO


UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR IS VALID?
It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,
that the reorganization of state of vormir into two union territories of wakanda &
vormir is valid as the central government has the power under Article 2 & 3 to from
new states & alteration of areas of state and union territories , boundaries or names of
the existing states.

12 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1 WHETHER THE PETITION ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. Whether the petitions are maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asgard that the petition
filed by the applicant is not maintainable on the grounds of being frivolous, absurd
and objectionable on the technical grounds.

i. SUPREME COURT OF ASGARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION


UNDER ARTICLE 32.

It is humbly submitted that the petition filed is not maintainable because it does not
fulfil the first and foremost requirement of a case under the given Article i.e.,
Jurisdiction. The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Asgard which provides that the Constitution of Asgard gives the right to individuals
to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their fundamental
right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is given the authority to issue
directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the
constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.
But here in this case there is no violation of fundamental rights of the citizen of
Vormir or the citizen of Asgard. The claims of the petitioner as of violation of
fundamental rights are frivolous in nature. The right to move this Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part
III of the Constitution is itself a guaranteed fundamental right and this Court is not
trammeled by procedural technicalities in making an order or issuing a writ for the
enforcement of such rights. There is no disagreement that in the following the
classes of cases a question of the enforcement of a fundamental right may arise
and if it does arise, an application under Article 32 will lie, namely:

(1) where action is taken under a statute which is ultra vires1 the Constitution;

1
Ultra vires means acting or done beyond one’s legal power or authority.

13 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
(2) where the statute is intra vires2 but the action taken is without jurisdiction; and

(3) where the action taken is procedurally ultra vires as where a quasi-judicial
authority3 under an obligation to act judicially passes an order in violation of the
principle of natural justice.

A tribunal may lack jurisdiction if it is improperly constituted, or if it fails to


observe certain essential preliminaries to the inquiry; but it does not exceed its
jurisdiction by basing its decision upon an incorrect determination of any
question that it is empowered or required (i.e., has jurisdiction) to determine. In
such a case, the characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds,
whether right or wrong and no question of the enforcement of a fundamental right
can arise on an application under Article 32. Therefore, an order of assessment
made by an authority under Parliamentary process which is intra vires and in the
undoubted exercise of its jurisdiction cannot be challenged on the sole ground
that it is passed without the meeting of State Legislature of the State of Vormir that
too at the time when the State Government was dissolved and Union of Asgard was
on full power and the President’s rule was prevailing. The validity of such an order
cannot be questioned on an application under Article 32.

ii. PRESIDENT CAN SEIZE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER


ARTICLE 359.

It is humbly submitted that the claims of the petitioner as of violation of fundamental


rights given under the Constitution of Asgard are not true. According to Article 356
it is provided that the President by proclamation assumes all the functions/powers of
the state government/Governor except the legislative power of the state Assembly if
he is satisfied that a situation has arisen where the government of a state cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, the
President under Article 356(1)(b) can declare that the legislative powers of the state
would be exercised by the Parliament.

2
Intra vires means an act done under proper authority.
3
A quasi judicial body is a non judicial body which can interpret law.

14 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
Article 359 authorizes the president to suspend the right to move any court for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.

This means that under Article 359, the Fundamental Rights as such are not
suspended, but only their enforcement.

The said rights are theoretically alive but the right to seek remedy is suspended. The
suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental Rights that are
specified in the Presidential Order. Further, the suspension could be for the period
during the operation of emergency or for a shorter period as mentioned in the order,
and the suspension order may extend to the whole or any part of the country. It
should be laid before each House of Parliament for approval. While a Presidential
Order is in force, the State can make any law or can take any executive action
abridging or taking away the specified Fundamental Rights. Any such law or
executive action cannot be challenged on the ground that they are inconsistent with
the specified Fundamental Rights. When the Order ceases to operate, any law so
made, to the extent of inconsistency with the specified Fundamental Rights, ceases
to have effect. But no remedy lies for anything done during the operation of the
order even after the order ceases to operate. This means that the legislative and
executive actions taken during the operation of the Order cannot be challenged even
after the Order expires.

In the case of Arjun Singh vs State of Rajasthan, the question arose whether article16
is also suspended although it is not mentioned in order, the Rajasthan High Court
held that article16 remained operative even though article14 was suspended. The
Court emphasized that under article 359 the enforcement of only such fundamental
rights was suspended as were specifically and expressly mentioned in the
presidential order.

15 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020

2 WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE


CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD IS VALID?

It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of


Asgard, that imposition of president rule under article 356 of the constitution of
asgard is valid as the state government is unable to function according to the
constitutional provision and the state machinery is unable to perform function
properly . Article 356 was imposed with the recommendation of governor of Asgard
& cabinet ministers as well.
4
In case S.R Bommai v/s Union of India supreme court lead down certain
guidelines for implementation of state emergency & they are as follow:

 Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that
is, Hung Assembly.
 Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the
governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
 Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing
or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
 Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state
government.
 Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against
the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
 Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its
constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.

The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following
situations:

 Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly


and the governor recommends imposition of President’s Rule without probing the
possibility of forming an alternative ministry.

4
([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1

16 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
 Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the
assembly and recommends imposition of President’s Rule without allowing the
ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.
 Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a
massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.
 Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
 Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or
stringent financial exigencies of the state.
 Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case
of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
 Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a
purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the
Constitution.

Therefore president rule imposed under article 356 in the state of vormir is valid as
the state machinery is fail to perform its function.

3 WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONTITUTION APPLICATION TO VORMIR


ORDER 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,


that enforcement of constitution application to vormir order 2019 is valid as it is
clearly mentioned in Article 370
5
370. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to—
5
In exercise of the powers conferred by this article the President, on the recommendation of the Constituent
Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that, as from the 17th day of November, 1952, the said
art. 370 shall be operative with the modification that for the Explanation in cl. (1) thereof, the following
Explanation is substituted, namely:— “Explanation.—For the purposes of this article, the Government of the
State means the person for the time being recognised by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative
Assembly of the State as the *Sadar-I-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of
Ministers of the State for the time being in office”. (Ministry of Law Order No. C.O. 44, dated the 15th
November, 1952). *Now “Governor”.

17 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020

(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.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the
person for the time being recognized by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and
Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office
under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that
State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by
order1 specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the
Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause
(b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred
to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that
Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of
sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be
given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of

18 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it
may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the


President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be
operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and
from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the
Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary
before the President issues such a notification.

4 WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE HOUSE ARREST
OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID?

It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard,


that imposition of section 144 crpc & the house arrest of prominent political leader of
state of vormir is valid as when there are apprehensions of breach of public peace and
order by some people, Section 144 CrPC is put into effect.

144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.

(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional


Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State
Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this
section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate
may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the
manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or
to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his
management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or
tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed,
or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility,
or a riot, of an affray.

19 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the
circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person
against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to


persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when
frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.

6
Ummul kulus v. Ex. Magistrate, union territory it was held that the executive
magistrate has wide power under this section. When the magistrate came to the
conclusion that the situation was created which had disturbed public tranquility and
danger to human life,n order passed under section 144 detention of person for
maintaining public tranquility is legal.7

Section 8 Detention of certain persons.-

(1) The Government may-

(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to-

(i) The security of the State or the maintenance of the public order; or

(2) Any of the following officers, namely

(i) Divisional Commissioners,

(ii) District Magistrate, may, if satisfied as provided in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of
clause [(a) or (a-1)]of sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-
sections.

(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1),

6
1991 CRLJ 262
7
B.B.N school v. dist. Mag. Allahabad, 1990, crlj 422 (all)

20 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
[(a) Omitted.]

(b) "Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means-

(i) promoting, propagating, or attempting to create, feelings of enmity or hatred


or disharmony on ground of religion, race, caste, community, or region;

(ii) making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or using, or instigating,


inciting, provoking or otherwise, abetting the use of force where such
preparation, using, attempting, instigating, inciting, provoking or abetting,
disturbs or is likely to disturb public order;

(iii) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, provoking or otherwise


abetting the commission of, mischief within the meaning of section 425 of the
Ranbir Penal Code where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to
disturb public order;

(iv) attempting to commit, or committing or instigating, inciting, provoking or


otherwise abetting the commission of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life or imprisonment of a term extending to seven years or
more, where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb
public order;

(4) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-
section (2) he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government together with the
grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his
opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for
more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been
approved by the Government.

21 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
Section 18. Maximum period of detention. - (1) the maximum period for which any
person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been
confirmed under section 17, shall be -

(a) twelve months from the date of detention in the case of person acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or indulging in smuggling of
timber; and

(b) two years from the date of detention in the case of persons acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the powers of the Government to
revoke or modify' the detention order at any earlier time, or to extend the period of
detention of a foreigner in case his expulsion from the State has not been made
possible.]

Under section 144 of IPC & under section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir public safety act
, a person can be detain to maintain the public order and public safety. Therefore the
home detention of political leaders of vormir is valid.

5 WHETHER THE REORAGISTATION OF STATE OF VORMIR INTO TWO


UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA & VORMIR IS VALID?

It is respectfully, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of


Asgard, that the reorganization of state of vormir into two union territories of
wakanda & vormir is valid as the central government has the power under Article 2
& 3 to from new states & alteration of areas of state and union territories ,
boundaries or names of the existing states.
Article 2- Admission or establishment of new States.
Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms
and conditions as it thinks fit.

22 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
Article 3- Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names
of existing States.
Parliament may by law—
(a) Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) Increase the area of any State;
(c) Diminish the area of any State;
(d) Alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) Alter the name of any State:
8
[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of
Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the
proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries
or name of any of the States 1***, the Bill has been referred by the President to the
Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may
be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may
allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.]
9
[Explanation I. — in this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union
territory, but in the proviso, “State” does not include a Union territory.
Explanation II. — The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the
power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union
territory to any other State or Union territory.]

Therefore the central government have the authority under article 2 &3 to from new
state and union territory , the division of vormir into two union territory is legal.

8
Subs. by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, s. 2, for the proviso.
9
Ins. by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, s. 2

23 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Asgard be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:

 The Presidential order passed to remove Article 370 is valid.


 No fundamental right has been violated
 Reorganisation of state of vormir into two union territories is valid.

And/Or to pass any such order or judgment which the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equity & good conscience for which the petitioners shall be duty bound
forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

____________________

____________________

-/sd

(Counsel for Respondents)

24 | P a g e

You might also like