THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

st
TEAM CODE: TC-H013R

THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

28TH – 29TH NOVEMBER 2020

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

SATYA PRAKASH …………………………………………………………………….. (PETITIONER)

v.

UNION OF INDIA ……………………………………………………………………. (RESPONDENT)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDGE OF

SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DRAWN AND FILED BY THE

1
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................... III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................ VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. IX

ISSUES RAISED............................................................................................................................. IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................................X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1

[I]. The writ petition is maintainable in the instant case.................................................1

[II.] Whether the Union is interfering in state domain?

A. Union directions under the constitution
B. The significance of Art 365
C. Art 246 in the constitution of Aryavarta 1949

[III.] Whether the emergency under Article 356(1) has been imposed in an arbitrary
manner for political reasons?

A. Art 356: Failure of constitutional machinery

1) Art 356 with reference to the other provisions of the constitution

1.1) Art 355 as the nature of justification for the measures to be adopted under Art 356

1.2) Scope of executive power of Central govt.

B. Nature and scope of Art 356

1) Interpretation of words under Art 356

2) How satisfaction is formed

2 C. Proclamation in the state of Delta Pradesh is not Arbitrary.

Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

PRAYER..........................................................................................................................................

Memorandum for Respondent

 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Expansions
& And
AIR All India Report
ANR Another
ART. Article
Cl. Clause
FR Fundamental Rights
CO. Company
CONSTI. Constitution
Govt. Government
H.C. High Court
HON’BLE Honourable
i.e. In other words,
LTD. Limited
Mad Madras
St.EC State Election Commission
ORS. Others
¶ Paragraph
PVT. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
§ Section
U/S Under Sections
UOI Union of India

4 v. Versus

Memorandum for Respondent

 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. TABLE OF CASES: Cases

S. No. Case Citation ¶ Pg

1 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF (1977) 3 SCC 592 2,19 2,7

INDIA
2 S. R BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA (1994) 3 SCC 1 2,8,30 2,3,9

3 STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. UNION OF 1962 Indlaw SC 316 10 6

INDIA
4 STATE OF KARNATAKA V. UNION OF (1977) 4 SCC 608 27 9
INDIA
5 BARRIUM CHEMICALS LTD V. 1966 Supp SCR 311 30 9
COMPANY LAW BOARD

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
3. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
4. Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976

III. BOOKS REFERRED

1. Practice and procedure of parliament by Dr. Subash C. Kasyap
2. The Constitution of India by P.M Bakshi

IV. LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
V. Articles
1. Duty of the Union under Article 35 of the Constitution – Remembering the Constitutional ideal of
Co-operative Federalism.

5
Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. W.P. No. _____/2017

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Aryavarta. The respondents
have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta in response to the petitions filed by the petitioner.

6
Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Aryavarta is a country having 28 states and 9 union territories. Constitution of Aryavarta provides a federal
form of government. Initially under the Constitution, there were only 2 tiers of government and powers were
constitutionally divided by part XI between there 2 tiers of government i.e. federal and provincial level. After the
incorporation of part IX and IX-A through 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment, a 3rd tier of government was
constitutionally recognized i.e. local governments. These constitutional amendments provided in 243E that the
duration of panchayat shall be 5 years and the elections to constitute panchayats shall be completed before the
expiry of its duration or before the expiration of 6 months from the date of its dissolution, if dissolved earlier.

2) Delta Pradesh is one of the 28 states of Aryavarta. To establish Panchayati Raj Institutions at 3 levels in
Rural Areas, this state had enacted Delta Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,1994. The state had 99 Municipal Councils
and 10 Municipal Corporations till 2017. On 2nd February 2017 issued a notification under section 3(1) of Delta
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and notified 3 urban areas to have municipal corporations. Earlier these
areas had Municipal Councils under the Act of 1911. The tenure of these Municipal Councils expired on 28 th
February 2017. The State Election Commission took up the task of delimiting and revising the constituencies as
per law but the elections could not be held till 2019.

3) DPPP alleging that the delaying of elections by APP (ruling party) is against the constitutional mandate and
wrote a letter (in October 2019) to the President of Federation calling upon him to dismiss the provincial
government claiming that the failure of the state to hold elections should be deemed as failure of the constitutional
machinery in the State. In the alternative, DPPP requested the president to issue appropriate direction the state
for conducting elections. DPPP filed petition in the High Court claiming that the provincial government was
bound to conduct elections before the expiry of the tenure of local government and the non-holding of elections
is against the constitutional mandate.

4) During pendency of the petition in the HC, President of Aryavarta issued a direction to the state under
Article 256 on 11th October 2019 to conduct elections to the newly constituted Municipal Corporations on or
before 31st January 2020 and to issue notification for holding the elections. Delta Pradesh filed a suit in the SC
of Aryavarta on November 2019 claiming that Union could not issue such a direction and the SC issued notice to
the Union. In the meantime, on 01st February 2020, President of Union of Aryavarta issued a Proclamation under
Article 356(1) declaring that government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution as
the State has failed to comply with the constitutional mandate and there is non-compliance with the directions of
the Union. The Proclamation has been approved by both House of Parliament of Aryavarta.
7
Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

5) Mr. Satya Prakash challenged both the proclamation and the constitutionality of the direction issued by the
Union to the state on 11th October 2019 and claimed that after the proclamation under Article 356(1), the state is
under President’s Rule and that there would be conflict of interest in the matter filled in November 2019 by the
state of Delta Pradesh against Union of Aryavarta. Therefore, he prayed to club the earlier suit filed by the state
in the month of November 2019 with this. Notice has been issued by SC to the Uni

8
Memorandum for Respondent
 THE 1ST HPNLU NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: Whether the present case is maintainable in the court of law?

ISSUE II Whether the Union is interfering in the state domain?

ISSUE III Whether the president has unfettered powers to issue proclamation
under Art 356(1) of the constitution?
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that the present case has been unnecessarily dragged
into the court of law and it has no base other than seeking for an interim relief or extension of time. The power
exercised by the president and the Union under Art.256 and Art.356 could never be taken into question, since it
was exercised under the grounds provided in our Consti. The president has the power to analyze and decide
whether the state can carry in accordance with the constitution or not. If he thinks the state can’t do, then he has
the discretion under Art.356 to declare presidential proclamation. And in this case, both the houses are also agreed
the proclamation to be exercised. Therefore, the said proclamation cannot be termed as mala fide or ultra vires
the Constitution of Aryavarta.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE UNION IS INTERFERING IN THE STATE DOMAIN?

The humble submission before the hon’ble SC of Aryavarta that the Union have not interfered on the state
domain, rather it has given only direction to the state as it is its duty when the state tries to implement
unconstitutional mandates. The state of delta Pradesh have tried to delay the election to the newly constituted
municipal corporations and this was against the constitutional mandate. The direction under Art. 256 was given
with the whole intention to give the state one more chance to understand the necessity of conducting elections.
But the said direction was not taken into account by the state, therefore with the explanation received from the
governor of the state, the presidential proclamation was said to be declared.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS UNFETTERED POWERS TO ISSUE

PROCLAMATION UNDER ART. 356(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the power of the president to issue proclamation under Art
356(1) has not been used arbitrarily without sufficient grounds. In the C.A. by Dr. Ambedkar has opined that
before resorting to Art 356, the President will issue warning to the state that has erred. Also, same was opined by
the S.C. in the case of S.R. Bommai. Thus, the Proclamation issued under Art 356(1) is fair as the President of
Aryavarta has issued a warning to the state of Delta Pradesh.
i
Page

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT

 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the present case is maintainable in the court?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the present case has been unnecessarily dragged into the
court of law and it has no base other than seeking for an interim relief or extension of time.

2. The scope of judicial review of the Presidential Proclamation under Art. 356 was tested for the 1st time by the
SC in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India1. In that case clause (5) inserted by the Constitution 38th Amendment
Act, 1975 which prohibited the judicial review of the Presidential Proclamation, was called into operation. Suits
under Art. 133 and Art. 32 were filled in this court. In that context this court held that though the power of the
judicial review was excluded by clause (5) of Art. 356, as it then stood, judicial review was open on limited
grounds. Namely mala fides, wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds without nexus between power exercised
and the reasons in support thereof.2

3. But here no such orders could be said as mala fides or extraneous or irrelevant. The said order was exercised
with the whole power of the president given under Art.356 which was also been approved by both the House of
parliament of Aryavarta.3 Not only that, the decision of the proclamation was taken only after the receival of
letter from the Governor of Aryavarta on 1st January 2020. And the said letter was about the state which had not
taken any tangible steps to conduct elections in compliance with the direction of the union and therefore stating
that this is their dill- delaying tactics under the grab of preparation/ revision of electoral rolls.4

4. The president of Aryavarta has already given a direction to the state under Art.256 on 11th October 2019 to
conduct elections as he had received a letter from the opposition party in the state of Aryavarta in October 2019
stating that the state failure to hold elections should be taken as the failure of Constitutional machinery in the
state and therefore the provincial government should be dismissed.5

5. Directives by the Union to the State governments: Article 256 mentions that the executive power of every state
shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament and any existing laws, which apply

1
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3
2
S.R Bommai v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
ii

3
Moot proposition ¶ 10 pg.6
Page

4
Moot proposition ¶ 9 pg.6
5
Moot proposition ¶6,8 pg.5
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

in that state, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a state as may
appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.

6. This provision is looked upon with suspicion in many countries.

Dr. Ambedkar explained the aim of Article 256 through two important propositions:

“The first proposition is that generally the authority to execute laws, which are related to what is called the
Concurrent field, whether the law is passed by the Central Legislature or is passed by the State Legislature shall
ordinarily apply to the State.

The second proposition it lays down is that if, in any particular case, Parliament thinks that in passing a law,
which relates to the Concurrent field, the execution ought to be retained by the Central Government, Parliament
shall have the power to do so.”

7. This power of the Union extends to the limit of directing a State in a manner it feels essential for the purpose.
This is essential to ensure the implementation of Parliamentary laws throughout the country. Non-compliance of
the directives might lead to a situation mentioned under Art.365 and then it shall be lawful for the President to
hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.6

8. Thus, the Union can invoke Article 356, for the imposition of President’s rule in the State and take over the
administration of the State. As well as when considering the question of judicial review, the satisfaction of the
president under Art 356(1) is basically subjective satisfaction based on the material on record. It may not be
susceptible to scientific verification hedged with several imponderables. The question, therefore, maybe looked
at from the point of view of common-sense limitation, keeping always that the constitution has entrusted the
power to the highest executive, the president of Aryavarta, to issue proclamation under Art 356 with the aid and
advice of the council of ministers, again subject to his own discretion given in proviso to Art 74(1). Whether the
question raised for decision is judicially based on manageable standards? the question related to the extent, scope
and power of the president under Art. 356 through wrapped up with political thicket, per se it does not get
immunity from judicial review. 7

ISSUE II: Whether the Union is interfering in the state domain?

iii

6
Administrative Relations between Centre and State (Art. 256 to 263) (Nov 19, 2020)
7
S.R Bommai v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
Page

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT

 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

9. The humble submission before the hon’ble SC of Aryavarta that the Union have not interfered on the state
domain, rather it has given only direction to the state as it is its duty when the state tries to implement
unconstitutional mandates.

10. The Consti of Aryavarta is not truly Federal in character. The basis of distribution of powers between the
Union and States is that only those powers which are concerned with the regulation of local problems are vested
in the States and the residue specially those which tend to maintain the economic industrial and commercial unity
of the country are left to the Union. It is not correct to say that fall sovereignty is vested in the States. Parliament
which is competent to destroy a State cannot be held, on the theory of absolute sovereignty of the States, to be
incompetent to acquire by legislation the property owned by the States. Even if the Consti were held to be a
Federation and the States regarded qua the Union as sovereign, the power of the Union to legislate in respect of
the property situate in the States would remain unrestricted.8

11. It is quite sad that party in charge of conducting the elections in the state of delta Pradesh is not doing so. The
centre had mandated multiple times that the election be conducted but the party in power refused to do so, citing
delimitation of constituencies. The state of delta Pradesh has not favoured the people by doing this and
furthermore, it is clear from the facts that the deadline issued by the central govt. for the elections has not been
followed. The respondents agree with the governor of delta Pradesh and his observations that no tangible steps
had been taken to conduct elections in the state.

A. Union directions under the Constitution

12. Under various provisions of the Consti, the Union govt. is authorised to issue directions to the States which
would have the impact of encroaching upon the State field in excess of that permitted by the scheme of the Consti.
Art. 539 of the Consti provides that the executive power of the Union is vested in the President and he shall
exercise his power either directly or through officer’s subordinate to him in accordance with the provisions of the
Consti ART. 7310 says that the executive power of the Union extends
(a) to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws; and
(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Govt. of India by virtue of
any treaty or agreement.
iv

8
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1962 Indlaw SC 316,1963 AIR 1241
Page

9
The Constitution of India, Art.53
10
The Constitution of India, Art.73
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

13. In other words, the executive powers of the Union comprehend the power to administer or to carry into effect
valid laws made by Parliament and the exercise of its treaty powers.
Art. 256 imposes a general obligation on the States to so exercise their executive power as to ensure compliance
with the laws made by Parliament and the executive power of the Centre extends to the giving of such directions
to a State as may appear to the Centre to be necessary for the purpose. This makes the State executive subservient
to the Union executive power. If the Union govt. issues any directions under any of the provisions enumerated
above and if any State govt. fails to comply with them, such failure answers the situation contemplated by Art.
365.

B. The significance of Article 365

14. The incorporation of Art. 365 in the Consti is not without significance. The Consti has not provided for
separate federal agencies to execute the federal laws. If the Union is to implement them through the State govt.
by issuing directions to them, the Union must have necessary power to seek obedience from the States for the
implementation of Union directions. To achieve this objective power is given to the President under Art. 365.
But inconsiderate use of these directions can upset the constitutional balance between the Union-State
relationship. If the Union Govt. issues any such warning then non-compliance with such warning by the State
govt. answers the situation contemplated by Art. 365.
Administration of state is governed by bureaucracy or by IAS officer under the direction of home ministry where
Art. 365 apply. Governor of state send his report to president that state machinery is has failed to run
administration in state.

15. According to Art. 35611 of the Consti of Aryavartha,

If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has
arisen in which the Govt. of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Consti., the
President may be Proclamation
(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Govt. of the State and all or any of the powers vested in
or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;
(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of
Parliament;
v
Page

11
See, the constitution of India, 1950, art.356.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the president to be necessary or desirable for
giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the
operation of any provisions of this Consti relating to anybody or authority in the State Provided that nothing in
this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a HC,
or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Consti relating to HC.

16. It is clear that the president of Aryavartha was satisfied with the report made by the governor and the fact that
the mandate of the centre had not been followed. Despite the fact that the centre had given the state of delta
Pradesh time till the 31st January to conduct the elections, they never were conducted. This is saddening as the
true sufferers of such a move are the people who vote, i.e. the ordinary citizens of the state. Therefore, it is quite
clear that something had to be done to ensure that the elections are conducted.

C. Article 246 in the Constitution of Aryavartha 1949

17. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union
List)
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State
also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule
(in this Consti referred to as the Concurrent List)
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included
(in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List

18. According to Art. 24612 of the Consti of Aryavartha, power is divided among 3 lists between the centre and
state govt. election to any office comes under the Union list according to Art. 246. Therefore, it can be clearly
stated that the central govt. of Aryavartha has the right to issue the notice as it has already done. And so, the state
govt. must conduct the elections within the stipulated time or secede power to the union govt. primarily due to
the fact that there has been a breakdown of constitutional machinery.
vi
Page

12
See, the constitution of india,1950, art.246.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

19. In the State of Rajasthan v. union of India13, it was laid down that the type of emergency is not of importance
and that the general definition of an emergency according to Art. 356 shall prevail. This is something that ensures
that common definition of an emergency refers to the Art. 356 of the Consti of Aryavartha, with regards to the
breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.

20. Lastly, the notice brought to the centre by the SC is vague and most likely goes against the provisions of the
Consti as stated above, the respondents would like it if the appellants could be a little more specific in their
demands and actually elaborate upon this notice.

ISSUE III: Whether the president has unfettered power to issue proclamation under Art 356(1) of the
constitution?

21. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the power of the president to issue proclamation under
Art 356(1) has not been used arbitrarily without sufficient grounds.

A. Article 356: Failure of Constitutional Machinery

1. Article 356 with reference to the other provisions of the Constitution

22. Art 356 of the constitution of Aryavarta starts with Marginal heading “Provisions in case of failure of
constitutional machinery in states. But nowhere under clauses word has “Failure of constitutional machinery”
been used in Art 356. Its Cl. (1) states:

“If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation
has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this
Constitution, the President may issue Proclamation”.14

The words used under (1) finds its resemblance to the words used in Art 355 which states

“It shall be the duty of the union to ensure that the govt of every state is carried on in accordance with the
provision of the constitution”.15

1.1. Art 355 as the nature of justification for the measures to be adopted under Art 356
vii

State of Rajasthan v. union of India 1977 AIR 1361

13
Page

14
The constitution of India Art. 356.
15
The constitution of India Art. 355.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

23. The rational given by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while incorporating Art 355 was that the constitution of Aryavarta
is a federal constitution and thus the states have been assigned sovereignty within their respective fields. Also,
the states have plenary powers to secure peace, order and good government. If any invasion has to be made into
the states’ domain as permitted under Art 356, it must be carried out to fulfil an obligation which the constitution
imposes upon the union, otherwise it would remain a dead letter.16 If at all they are brought into operation, the
president, who is endowed with such power, should take proper precautions.17

24. In State of Rajasthan v Union of India18, C.J.I Beg opined that the provision dealing with the proclamation of
emergency under Art 352 is covered under the first part of Art 355 which endowed upon the union the duty to
protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and the second part of Art 355 covers all
steps which are required “to ensure” that govt of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution. It is this part which is sought to be covered under Art 356.

25. From this it is conspicuous that to justify the drastic shift in the balance of Union-State relations caused by
emergency provision provided under Art 356 the constitution has incorporated Art 355 in Part XII “Emergency
Provision”.

1.2. Scope of executive power of central govt

26. Under Art 365 of the constitution of Aryavarta it is stated that

“where any state has failed to comply with, or to give effect to, any directions given in the exercise of the executive
power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold
that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of this Constitution”.19

Similar language viz. non-compliance is employed in Art 256 and 257 which occurs in Ch II Administrative
Relations in Part XI.

27. As stated above Art 365 provides result for non-compliance of any direction issued in exercise of the executive
power. Art 256 provides executive power to the union which shall be extended to the giving of the direction as
may appear to the govt of Aryavarta to be necessary in relation to the matter covered by any existing law of the
Parliament and 257(1) provides an obligation upon the state to exercise its power in such a way as not to impede
or prejudice the exercise of executive power of union. Under Art 73(1)(a), the executive power of union extends

16
Jaideep Reddy, Duty of the Union under Article 35 of the Constitution – Remembering the Constitutional ideal of Co-operative
viii

Federalism, Pg. 372.

17
Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. 9 (1949).
Page

18
State of Rajasthan v Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592.
19
The constitution of India Art. 365.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

to all the matter on which parliament has power to make laws. Further, Art 248 endowed upon the Parliament
residuary power to make laws on any subject matter not enumerated in state or concurrent list. This power was
recognised in the case of State of Rajasthan v Union of India20 and State of Karnataka v Union of India21

28. Thus, after reading Art 73 with Art 248 of the Constitution of Aryavarta, it can be said that the Parliament
can make laws on any subject matter on which there is no law. Thus, it would be fit to say that when the Union
govt considers that the situation in the country is such that a fresh election is necessary in the interest of political
stability or to establish the confidence of the people in the govt of the state, in the exercise of its executive
residuary power, it can issue appropriate directions. Non-compliance of such issue by any state shall make the
president to hold that a situation has arisen in which the govt of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the constitution.

29. Subsequently the president may issue the emergency under Art 356 of the Constitution. But the emergency
issued under this section cannot be said to be grave emergency. Such emergency can be issued either to safeguard
the failure of constitutional machinery or to repair the effects of breakdown. Unlike Art 352, it is either a
preventive or curative emergency. In fact, nowhere in Art 356 of the constitution word ‘Emergency’ is used.
Whereas, proclamation under Art 352 can be said to be protective or defensive. Hence, it is conspicuous why Art
356 starts with Marginal Heading ‘Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states.

B. Nature and Scope of Article 356

1. Interpretation of words under Art 356

30. As stated above Art 356 reads the word ‘is satisfied’ which means, proclamation under Art 356 can be issued
when the President is satisfied that the situation has arisen in which govt of the state cannot carried on in
accordance with the provision of the Constitution. In the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. v Company Law Board22
Jus. Shelat, pointed out the expression ‘is satisfied’ ‘is of the opinion’ or ‘has reasons to believe’ are indicative
of subjective satisfaction. Thus, the nature of power has to be determined by the totality of the consideration of
relevant provision. In case of S.R. Bommai v Union of India 23, the Supreme Court stated that cl. (1) of Art 356
uses the word ‘is satisfied’ which indicates more definite state of mind than the expression ‘is of the opinion’ or
‘has reason to believe’. It is evident that the satisfaction has to be formed fairly by the President on receipt of
report from the governor or otherwise. Further, it was stated that according to Art 74(1), the President shall be
deemed to act upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head. Thus, the

20
State of Rajasthan v Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592.
ix

21
State of Karnataka v Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608
Page

22
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v Company Law Board, 1966 Supp SCR 311: AIR 1967 SC 295: (1966) Comp Cas 639.
23
S.R. Bommai v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

satisfaction referred to in Art 356(1) really means the satisfaction of the Union Council of Ministers with the
President at its head.

1.1. How satisfaction is formed

31. The satisfaction of the President is formed on the receipt from the Governor or otherwise. The Governor is
appointed by the President under Art 155 of the Constitution. Acc. to Art 154, the executive power of the state is
vested in the Governor and he can exercise his execute power with the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers
with the Chief Minister at its head as mentioned under Art 163(1). He is, however, required to exercise his
discretion in certain circumstances which are either explicitly stated in the Constitution or can be inferred
therefrom.24 He takes oath under Art 159 in the presence of Chief Justice of High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the state, or in his absence, senior most judge of that court available, to preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution.

32. From Art 155 and 163(1), it is conspicuous that, the Governor has two-fold responsibility. He is the Head of
the State acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers. At the same time, he is a link between the Centre and
the State. He submits reports to the President periodically on the administration and also, when necessary on the
difficulties or crises which arise in the working of the Constitution.25 This duty of reporting to the President flows
from Art 365. The Union Govt has the duty to ensure that the govt of every state is carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution and the Governor of the state is an agency which informs Union about the
happenings of the state.

33. It is this obligation under which he reports to the President, the commission and omissions of the govt of his
state which according to him are creating or have created a situation where the govt of the state is not carried on
in accordance with the constitution.

C. Proclamation in the state of Delta Pradesh is not Arbitrary

34. In the present case, the provincial govt of Delta Pradesh is delaying elections claiming that the electoral rolls
and records are being updated due to delimitation of constituencies. But under art 243U(3)(a) election to
constitute a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of five years from the date appointed for its first
meeting. Here, the Municipal councils who by issuance of notification under Art 3(1) of Delta Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 have been notified to have Municipal Corporation, their tenure has been expired on
February 28th, 2017. But the election could not be held till 2019.26
x

24
Administrative Reforms Commission Report on Centre-State Relationships Pg. 20.
Page

25
Administrative Reforms Commission Report on Centre-State Relationships Pg. 24.
26
Moot Proposition ¶ 5 Pg. 5.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

35. Subsequently, on October 11th, 2019 the President issued a direction to the state under Art 256 to conduct
elections to the newly constituted Municipal Corporations on or before January 31st, 2020. The Governor of Delta
Pradesh wrote to the President on January 1st, 2020 a letter stating the situation, that no steps have been taken by
the state till date to conduct elections in compliance with the directions issued by him and the state is using dill-
delaying tactics under the garb of preparation/ revision of electoral rolls pursuance delimitation of
constituencies.27

36. Upon the receipt of report from him on February 1st, 2020, and taking in cognizance that the election has not
been conducted till January 31st, 202028, the president issue the proclamation under Art 356(1) declaring that the
state of Delta Pradesh is failed to carried on in accordance with constitution and has failed to ensure compliance
with the directions of the Union.29 The proclamation has been approved by both House of Parliament.

37. Thus, it can be concluded that the proclamation issued Art 356(1) of the Constitution by the President is not
arbitrary. It is done in a fair manner, as the state of Delta Pradesh has not carried on in accordance with the
Constitution. Further, it has also failed to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the Union.
xi

27
Moot Proposition ¶ 9 Pg. 6.
Page

28
Moot Proposition ¶ 8 Pg. 5
29
Moot Proposition ¶ 10 Pg. 6.
MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT
 THE 1ST HPNLU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2020

Prayer

In the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Place:
Date:
Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)
xii
Page

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDANT