IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

High Court Lawyers Association ……PETITIONER

v.

Government of Indica …….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. ……/2019, …….2019

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE NO.

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………3

Statement of Jurisdiction ..................................................................................6

Statement of Facts .............................................................................................7

Issues present before the Hon’ble Supreme Court………….….……………9

Detailed Arguments ..........................................................................................10

Prayer………………………………………....………………………………16

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

Art. Article

COI Constitution of Indica

H.C. High Court

i.e. That is

ILR Indian Law Reporter

GOI Government of Indica

SLP Special Leave Petition

PIL Public Interest Litigation

S.C. Supreme Court

v. Versus

3
 CASE CITATIONS

1. Kesawananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461)

2. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333)

3. Minerva Mill v. Union of India & others (AIR 1980 SC 1789)

STATUTES AND REPORTS

1. The Constitution of India

BOOKS AND JOURNALS

1. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 12th Edition 2016

2. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition 2016

3. Lauv kumar Radhika Lexis Nexis constitutional law.

4. Rosedar SRA Constitutional Law, 1st Edition.

DYNAMIC/OPEN SOURCE WEB LINKS

4
1. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=public+interest+litigation

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

3. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
1. In the present matter, one writ petition is filed which comes under the
jurisdiction of Hon’ble court under article 32(2) of COI which states that right to
move to Supreme Court by proper proceeding on violation of fundamental right.

2. The petitioner HIGH COURT LAWYER BAR ASOCIATION filed the writ
petition regarding violation of fundamental right for which remedy is provided
under article 32(2) of COI.

3. The association is registered in India as per rules and regulations and comes
under jurisdiction of Constitution of Indica.

4. The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments in
the present case. The parties shall accept any judgments of the Court as final and
binding upon them, and shall execute in its entirety and in good faith.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6
1. Government of Indica passed an Act called “The Access to Justice Act 2018”.

2. The main purpose of this Act was to make justice, especially in the cases of
violation of fundamental rights, more accessible to people living in faraway
places from capital towns of different states of India where High Courts of
Indica were usually located.

3. Parliament of Indica amended COI and inserted article 32(3)(A) in Part III that
read as following. “Without Prejudice to the power conferred on the Supreme
Courts and High Courts of India, there shall be Fundamental Right Courts in
such place and in such manners having similar powers to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court as may be prescribed by a law made by Parliament in this
regard”.

4. In pursuance of the newly inserted Article 32(3)(A) of the COI, Parliament of

Indica passed Justice Act. Justice Act constituted a ‘Fundamental Rights Court’
in each and every district (and subdivisions) where a civil court already existed.
A persons serving in the higher judicial service in their respective states in the
rank of district judge was to preside over these newly constituted fundamental
rights courts. These courts had the same powers 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 COI that Supreme Court had
under Article 32(2) of COI. The rule of procedure was same that was followed
by their respective state High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the COI.

5. However, Justice Act also faced opposition from certain group who saw it as a
step by government to undermine the authority and dignity of Supreme Court
and High Courts of Indica. They formed a group called High Court Lawyers
Association to oppose the enforcement of this law. They filed a writ petition
before Supreme Court of Indica challenging the validity of this Act. The
Supreme Court admitted the writ petition and framed following issues on which
final arguments were to be submitted.

6. As a matter of fact the amendment Bill was not sent for ratification to the state
legislature because in the eyes of government it was not making any

7
amendment of such nature for which it was to be ratified by state legislature
under the provision of Article 368(2)of COI

ISSUES PRESENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

8
1. Whether the said amendment to the COI which inserted Article 32(3)(A) was
unconstitutional because it has not followed the mandatory provision of
ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by
resolutions to that effect as provided under Article 368(2) of COI before
amendment to certain provisions of COI could be made.

2. Whether the said amendment is unconstitutional because it undermines the

supremacy of Supreme Courts and High Courts of Indica by granting writ
jurisdiction to courts at district level and therefore, it violates the basic
structure of the COI.

3. Whether the writ jurisdiction can be extended to courts other than the High
Courts and Supreme Court of Indica.

DETAILED ARGUMENTS

9
1. Whether the said amendment to the COI which inserted Article
32(3)A was unconstitutional because it has not followed the
mandatory provision of ratification by the Legislatures of not less
than one-half of the States by resolutions to that effect as provided
under Article 368(2) of COI before amendment to certain
provisions of COI could be made.

In the present matter the first issue said that the amendment in COI for
the insertion of new article i.e. Art. 32(3)A is unconstitutional
because it has not followed the mandatory provision of ratification
given in article 368(2) of COI. I’d like to read article 368(2) for this
Hon’ble Court which states that:

“An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the

introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of
Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a
majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority
of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present
and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his
assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand
amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in
(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of
Part XI, or

10
 (c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) the provisions of this article,
the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislature
of not less than one half of the States by resolution to that effect
passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for
such amendment is presented to the President for assent.

As it is clearly visible from the above Article that there is no

requirement of ratification by the legislatures of the States for the
current amendment as the main subject of the amendment is not given
in any of the sub clauses i.e. (a to e). Ratification by the legislatures of
not less than one-half of the States is also required if the subject
matter falls under the clauses given from a to e. There is specific
mentioning of Articles and Chapters in which requirement of
additional ratification by the legislatures of the States is to followed
by parliament to amend the constitution but the current addition of
Art. 32(3)(A) does not require additional ratification as it is not
following in the specific list of Articles and Chapters which require
ratification from States too. So there is no requirement to follow the
procedure mentioned in the proviso of Art. 368(2). So this fact cannot
be the ground to declare the following amendment unconstitutional.

2. Whether the said amendment is unconstitutional because it

undermines the supremacy of Supreme Courts and High Courts

11
of Indica by granting writ jurisdiction to courts at district level
and therefore, it violates the basic structure of the COI.

1. In the given issue it is stated that the following amendment should

be declare unconstitutional as it undermines the supremacy of
Supreme court and High court but if we actually read the amendment
which is Art. 32(3)(A), reads as:

“Without Prejudice to the power conferred on the Supreme Court

and High Courts of India, there shall be Fundamental Right Courts
in such place and in such manners having similar powers to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court as may be prescribed by a
law made by Parliament in this regard”.

From the above said Article it is cleared that the following amendment
is not taking any power or infringes any jurisdiction of Supreme Court
& High Courts. It clearly states that parliament is only extending the
jurisdiction of District Court as to writ petitions without restricting
any power or infringing any jurisdiction of SC & HC for which
Art.32(3) of COI itself providing power to parliament to do the same.
Art. 32(3) of COI reads as under :

“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)”.

12
So it is cleared from above stated article that parliament has power to
constitute any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction and following amendment shall stand constitutional and
not violating any fundamental right. It is also quoted in Kesawananda
Bharti v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) that Article 13(4)
provides power to parliament to amend the fundamental rights also
until and unless it does not effect the basic structure of constitution
and in the current case the is no issues regarding the basic structure,
the amendment is only providing an advance remedy to the citizens of
Indica for their betterment.

2. It is the State which gives you rights and corresponding duties upon
those rights. One of the rights that State gives you is the equal access
to justice, irrespective of your background but when someone is
unable to have access to it for any reason whatsoever, then the State
have failed in their duty to give justice to all.
Not having access to justice is a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Indica. Access to Justice is a fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 14 & 21 of Constitution, as said by a SC
Constitution Bench.
The Bench has observed the following :
"The Bench observed that “life” implies not only life in the physical
sense but a bundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no
juristic or other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice”
will not affect the quality of human life so as to take access to justice
out of the purview of right to life guaranteed under Article 21";

13
 "We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that access to justice is
indeed a facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Citizen’s inability to access courts or any other
adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and
obligations is bound to result in denial of the guarantee contained in
Article 14 both in relation to equality before law as well as equal
protection of laws.”

So, the decision of the GOI to pass an Act called "The Access to
Justice Act, 2018" is a step towards the right direction to make justice
accessible to all.
So what this means that the power of SC to issue anything under
clause (2) of Article 32, can be extended to any court within its local
limits of jurisdiction by a law made by the Parliament.

3. Whether the writ jurisdiction can be extended to courts other

than the High Courts and Supreme Court of Indica.

14
The COI has given power to the parliament under Article 32(3) which
states that-

“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)”.

With the help of above Article and by following the proper procedure
and exercising the given power the parliament has made a provision
which provides an additional forum which is easily accessible to the
people of whole State to provide remedy if their fundamental rights
get violated. The following amendment is welcomed and appreciated
by the citizen of Indica as it is making the right given under Article 32
more convenient and reachable to all the citizen who cannot move to
the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court because of faraway
places. The following amendment is not taking any right of citizen to
move to SC directly but instead providing a more convenient option to
move directly to District Court which will be situated in their
respective Districts. Also it is said by a great author that amendment is
the basic need of any Constitution to fulfill the demand of modern
society and the current amendment is doing the same. So the extended
jurisdiction is just enabling citizens of Indica to get justice more
conveniently.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, QUESTIONS
PRESENTED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS
MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
KINDLY BE GRACIOSULY PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THE
FOLLOWING:-

(a) That the following amendment done by parliament of Indica is

constitutional.
(b) That there is no violation of fundamental right in the following amendment.
(c) That whatever the Hon’ble court think fit may pass order or orders in the
interest of justice.

Sd/- ________________

Place: COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

16