The Moot Court
The Moot Court
The Moot Court
Vs.
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
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
(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 4 WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE HOUSE
ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID?
10 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
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:
12 | P a g e
THE MOOT COURT 2020
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
(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.
4 WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 CRPC & THE HOUSE ARREST
OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER OF STATE OF VORMIR IS VALID?
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.
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
(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
(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.
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-
(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.
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:
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.
____________________
____________________
-/sd
24 | P a g e