TEAM NO:

FACULTY:
NAME :

SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW, SIMATS

______________________________________________________

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ESTANCIA

______________________________________________________

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ESTANCIA

(under Article 32 of the Indian constitution)

Mr.Ayush pandey.............................................................PETITIONER

VS

UNION OF ESTANCIA…………..……………..………….RESPONDENT

_____________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

_____________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
● Index of Authorities
a. List of abbreviation
b. Table of cases
c. Statuts
d. Books and articles
● Statement of jurisdiction
● Statement of facts
● Statement of Issues
● Summary of Arguments
● Arguments Advanced
● Prayer

TABLE OF CASES

1. SMD Kiran Pasha V. Government of Andhrapradesh, 1989 SCR

2. State of Gujarat V. Shantilal, AIR 1969 SC 634
3. Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors, 1992 ACJ 792
4. People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others V. Union of India & Others, (1982) 3 SCC
235.
5. State of Orissa V. Ram Chandra Devi, 1962 46 ITR 246 Orissa
6. National Coal Board v JE Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd, [1951] 2 KB 861
7. Weaver V. Ward, 10th Cir. 2001
8. Bimla Devi & Ors V. State Of Haryana & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3871 Of 2014 With
No. 3872-76 Of 2014
9. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865
10. Nirmala Nayak And Ors. vs Chairman-Cum-Managing, IV (2005) ACC 150

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

1. R. VENKATARAMANI & S. C. RAINA, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION, 2012

2. CASE BOOK ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SECOND EDITION, 2007
3. V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th EDITION BY MAHENDRA P.
SINGH, 2013
4. V.G. RAMACHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS, 6th EDITION, 2006

List of Abbreviation

1. & and

2. ors others
 3. sec section

4. HC High Court

5. SC Supreme Court

6. Hon ble Honourable

7. AIR All India Report

8. V. Versus

9. IPC Indian Penal Code

10. CPC Civil Procedure Code

11. Del Delhi

12. Ed. Edition

13. No Number

14. SCC Supreme Court cases

15. Mad Madras

16. Ind India

17. In Re In Reference

18. UOI Union of India

19. art Article

20. e.g Example

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Estância has the inherent jurisdictions of to try, entertain and
dispose of the present writ petition by virtue of article 32 of the constitution of Estancia,1950.

Article 32 of the constitution of Estancia

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.The Republic of Estancia is the second most densely populated country in the world. It is also
the third largest country in terms of area and the fourth fastest growing economy. The country
has a quasi-federal structure with 29 states and 9 Union Territories.
2. The constitution of Estancia declares a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic,
assuring its citizens justice, equality and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity to all
citizens.

3. Parliament passed the 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill to provide extra 10% reservation
to the existing relaxation for the economically backward classes by inserting clause 6 to the
Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution.

4. government jobs and educational institutions in favour of economically weaker sections on

09th January 2019 and enacted as Constitution (One Hundred m and Third Amendment) Act,
2019 to enable the State to make reservations based on the economic criterion alone.
5. The Act received the assent of the Hon’ble President on 12th January 2019 and was published
in the Gazette on thesame day. Through this Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment)
Act, 2019; a new clause (6) was inserted in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

6. Mr. Ayush Pandey challenged the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Estancia under Article 32 of the
Estancia Constitution claiming that, it violates the basic structure of the Constitution and
provides inequality in versatile forms that ultimately affects Fundamental Rights which was duly
guaranteed by the Constitution of Estancia.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates any of the basic structure of
the Constitution of Estancia.
2. Whether the extra 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections in educational
institutions and public employment is unconstitutional?
3. Whether reservations under the Constitutional scheme can be prescribed only on the basis of
economic criteria and not on social and educational backwardness also?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates any of the basic structure
of the Constitution of Estancia?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court As the constitution stands amended,
the only constitutional challenge left is conformity to the basic structure doctrine. So far, it has
become an established principle that reservation shall have a cap of 50%. These stipulations first
arose in when court stated that reservation above 50% would imply dominance over section
16(1). The government notification providing 10% reservation to weaker economic sections of
society was struck down in Indra Sawhney v. UOI.However, it is noteworthy that these rulings
were given in relation to a law or subordinate legislation and have never been discarded in
violation of Basic Structure Doctrine. Moreover, the amendment only provides reservation to the
extent of 10%. , however, the existing articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) do not mention that
reservation shall be 50% explicitly, by way of legislation. Consequently, any challenge
pertaining to violation of basic structure does not seem to have a stand.

2. Whether the extra 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections in educational
institutions and public employment is unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court It provides for 10% reservation in
government jobs and educational institutions for the economically weaker section in the
unreserved category. The Act amends Article 15 and 16 to provide for reservation based on
economic backwardness. For the purposes of this article 15 and article 16, “economically weaker
sections” to be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other
indicators of economic disadvantage.The new clause (6) to Article 15 allows the government to
carve reservation for the economically weaker sections of society in higher educational
institutions, including private ones, whether they are aided or not by the State. Minority
educational institutions are exempted. Likewise, the new clause (6) to Article 16 provides for
quota for economically deprived sections in the initial appointment in government services. Indra
Sawhney case (1992) Nine-judge Bench had fixed limit of 50% reservation ceiling. Judgment
also had barred reservation solely on economic criterion.

3. Whether reservations under the Constitutional scheme can be prescribed only on the
basis of economic criteria and not on social and educational backwardness also?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court One of the several contentions raised
against the Act was that it formed a reservation on the basis of economic criteria. But if we look
into the Constitutional Assembly Debates relating to the first Amendment Act, 1951, pertaining
to addition of Article 15(4) it is evident that the description of backwardness in the clause 4 of
Article 15 was considered to be similar to that of clause (1) of Article 340. This was the reason,
the word “economically” did not find a place in clause (4) of Article 15 though many members
pointed out that in the identification of socially and educationally backward classes, economic
backwardness could not be ignored.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.Whether the 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates any of the basic
structure of the Constitution of Estancia?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that In order to determine whether the
Economic Reservations provided under 103rd Constitutional Amendment are violative of the
Basic Structure or not, the Supreme Court needs to examine the principles on which affirmative
action is based upon. As per M Nagraj and Others v. Union of India,the Courts need to apply two
tests in order to check whether the Reservation policy is constitutional or not.First is the width
test, which is based upon the boundaries of the amending power. The width text includes
examination of four issues Quantitative limitations, for violation of the 50% ceiling for all
reservations taken together, Exclusion of creamy layer or qualitative exclusion, Compelling
reasons such as backwardness of the economically weaker sections for whom this reservation has
been made and Overall administrative efficiency is not obliterated by the new reservation.
The court in this case need to examine the equality code of the Constitution and check whether
the state has considered and valued the circumstances justifying it, to make reservation. This
would require that the state’s decision is rational and non-arbitrary. The state needs to show
quantifiable data to satisfy the court as to inadequacy of representation of economically
backward classes. If the Government proves the same then the 103rd Constitutional Amendment
Act, 2019 is constitutionally correct.

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, has amended two fundamental rights that are
Article, 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. These two articles are the bedrock of
reservation in areas related to education and government jobs. By adding two new clauses to
Article 15 and 16 of Indian constitution the state is now empowered to provide a maximum of 10
per cent reservation for “economically weaker sections” of citizens. This in turn increases the
total reservations over and above the existing scheme to 59.50 per cent.

One of the means devised by the Constituent Assembly towards the end of resolving ‘individual
discrimination’ by ameliorating ‘group inequalities’ was Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian
Constitution.Articles 15 and 16 guarantee substantive equality by using the ‘social and
educational backwardness’ of a group.Thus, the intention of the Constitutional makers never
contemplated inclusion of individual metrics for guaranteeing formal equality within the scheme
of the Equality Code.

In M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that “equality is
the basic feature of the Constitution and any treatment of unequals as equals or any treatment of
unequals as equals would violate the basic structure of the Constitution”. Therefore, the income
limit for determining economic backwardness should be lower and should not be the same as that
for determining the ‘creamy layer’ for Other backward classes.

2. Whether the extra 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections in educational
institutions and public employment is unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court The Constitution (One Hundred and
Third Amendment) Act 2019 passed by the Parliament of India enables the State (i.e both the
Central and State Governments) to provide reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections
(EWS) of the society. Whether or not to provide reservation to the Economically Weaker
Sections (EWS) of the society for appointment in State Government jobs and for admission to
State Government educational institutions, as per provisions of the newly inserted Articles 15(6)
and 16(6) of the constitution, is to be decided by the concerned State Government.

Article 15 of Indian Constitution, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, caste,
sex or place of birth. The amendment aims to provide reservation to those who do not fall in
15(5) and 15 (4) economically weaker sections for admission to educational institutions other
than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.The principle of
Equality is an essential feature of the Basic Structure.The various facets of the principle of
equality are enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Any
alteration of this ‘Equality Code’ must stand the widely accepted tests of ‘Identity’ and ‘Width’
as laid out in the M. Nagaraj case.These tests were developed to ensure that the balance between
equality in law and equality in fact is maintained whenever an Amendment is formulated in
regard to reservations.

Constitutional recognition to EWS For the very first time, the economic class is constitutionally
recognized as a vulnerable section & would form the basis of an affirmative action programme.
It is a departure from traditional centrality of caste in deciding affirmative action.Changing
Symmetry between caste and class: In changing circumstances, caste, while a prominent cause of
injustice in India, should not be the sole determinant of the backwardness of a class. In Ram
Singh v. Union of India (2015), SC asserted that social deficiencies may exist beyond the
concept of caste. Hence, there is a need to evolve new yardsticks to move away from caste-
centric definition of backwardness,

Increasing dissatisfaction among various sections: Politically, the class issues have been
overpowered by caste issues. This has created a sense of dissatisfaction amongst communities
with similar or poorer economic status but excluded from caste-based reservation. 10%
reservation under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category is applicable to those persons
who are not covered under the existing scheme of reservations for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. No relaxation in age,
number of attempts, fees etc. is available to such candidates as on date. Indra Sawhney case, the
Supreme Court held that exclusively “economic criteria” were unconstitutional since the
category of “poor” did not reflect “social backwardness”. For the court, ‘social backwardness’
meant extreme marginalisation in terms of social status – primarily in the form of caste. Justice
P. Sawant made it clear that a purely economic criterion would allow the higher ups in the
hierarchy of social status to monopolise state power – something that the reservation scheme was
meant to counter.

3. Whether reservations under the Constitutional scheme can be prescribed only on the
basis of economic criteria and not on social and educational backwardness also?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Reservation based on economic status
can never be an alternative to caste-based reservation, because the poverty prevailing among the
Scheduled Castes has its genesis in the social-religious deprivations of the caste system. Nor can
the ‘creamy layer’ among SC/ ST/ OBC communities be excluded from reservation policies,
because they are entitled to protection against discrimination based on their group identity.The
reservation system is just like an athletics track where the players are given different starting
positions to make sure that the distance they run in total is the same. Until we create an
environment where everyone is guaranteed some minimum capabilities through the guarantee of
reservation, we cannot claim to have fair competition.

Many are debating from the perspective that the 10% reservations are given to the upper castes.
Though it might be basically true, the important premise of this reservation happens to be based
on economic criteria. Rather than the point that it is given to the upper castes, the more important
point that should be focused on is that it is primarily based on economic criteria.Social justice
has been the only basis on which reservations have been implemented until now. Economic basis
had not been considered a criterion before. Social status and discrimination based on birth have
affected all spaces such as society, politics, economics, and culture. As a result of which many
communities have been affected and thus have been identified. The basis for the principle of
social justice is to ensure justice to them. That reservations should be ensured to these affected
people in the fields of education, occupation, and politics so as to empower them in all fields, is
the ideology behind social justice.

That reservations should be given to economically backward people has been a constant demand
for so many years. This demand has been debated since the times when Jawaharlal Nehru was
the PM. It was in the very same period, Ambedkar, the revolutionary, held the position of a
cabinet minister. An extensive debate was held back then regarding whether economic status
should be considered the basis to give reservations or not. The then leaders, national leaders such
as Jawaharlal Nehru and Ambedkar, their contemporary leaders, the activists who had worked
beyond the political spectrum, and the intellectuals had all held an extensive, deep debate
regarding this. Yet, they all finally came to the conclusion that economic status should not be
considered a criterion, and that the true democratic way was to consider social status as the only
criterion. That is how reservations have been guaranteed in the constitution.

Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court held that exclusively “economic criteria” were
unconstitutional since the category of “poor” did not reflect “social backwardness”. For the
court, ‘social backwardness’ meant extreme marginalisation in terms of social status – primarily
in the form of caste. Justice P. Sawant made it clear that a purely economic criterion would allow
the higher ups in the hierarchy of social status to monopolise state power – something that the
reservation scheme was meant to counter.
 PRAYER

In the light of the fact stated, argument advanced and authorities cited, the respondent humbly
pleads before the Hon’ble court :

1. To upheld That the 103rd constitutional (amendment) act, 2019 is not violative of the basic
structure of the constitution.
2. To upheld that the 103rd constitutional (amendment) act, 2019 is not unconstitutional.

Any other order, writ or direction as the honourable court as it deems fit in the interest of equity,
Justice and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the petition action shall be duty bound forever.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER