BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TEAM CODE :P19

BHARATA MATA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES (BSOLS) VIRTUAL

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MAYAN,

MAYAN, BAYANK

WRIT PETITION :_____/2021

IN THE MATTER OF

MINORITY WELFARE COMMITTEE(NGO)………………..PETITIONER

V.

CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF MAYAN………………RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

1

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

CONTENTS. PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

I. LEGISLATIONS
II. CASE LAWS
III. JOURNAL
IV. WEBSITES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS. 7

ISSUES RAISED. 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 11

PRAYER. 17

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATION EXPANSION
Art Article
Arts Articles
§. Section
§§. Sections
AIR Air India Reporter
& And
i.e. Id est (Latin)
H. C High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Etc. Et cetera (Latin)
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
¶ Paragraph

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LEGISLATIONS :
1. CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK :
 Article 12
 Article 13 (2)
 Article 13(3)
 Article 14
 Article 21
 Article 213
 Article 226
 Article 246
 Article 275
 Article 342
2. Limitations Act, 1963
 section 6
II. CASE LAWS : Pg. No

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 11

2. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others,
1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869 13
3. Kerala Education Bill, … vs Unknown,1959 SCR 995 13
4. Kesava Nanda Bharti Case Vs State Of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 12,14
5. K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi
AIR 2001 SC 467. 13
6. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. Vs Union Of India And Ors.
(2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161. 14

7. M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. 13

8. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628. 15

4

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

9. Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 14

10. R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N, 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632. 14

11. State Of Orissa vs Bhupendra Kumar1962 AIR 945, 11

12. T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka,

AIR 2003 SC 355. 15

III. JOURNAL :

1. All India Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases

3. Supreme Court Reporter

IV. WEBSITES :
 www.legalserviceindia.com
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.scconline.in

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner here in have approached the High Court of Mayan through ;

PETITIONER : A Writ Petition under article 226, The constitution of Bayank, 1950.

The High court of Mayan has admitted the petition as maintainable under the Article 226.

The petitioner has filed the public interest litigation before the honorable High Court of Mayan,
In the matter of Minority Welfare Committee (NGO) v. Chief Secretary of State of Mayan under
Article 2261 of the Constitution of Bayank. This memorandum sets forth the facts laws and the
corresponding arguments on which the claims are based in the instant case.

1
Article 226,, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in
appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.
6

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mayan is a State in the Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic of Bayank. Bayank has a
constitution which contains identical provisions as the Indian Constitution. The population of
Bayank was 60 crores approximately in the year 1950, when the Constitution was enacted and
adopted. The population has been steadily increasing since then and the population of the
country at the beginning of the year 2021 is estimated at 137 crores. Mayan had a population of
just below 1 crore in the year 1950 which has increased to more than 3 crores at the beginning of
2021. In 1950, all the minorities together constituted 30 percent of the population of Mayan. In
2021, population of minority communities constitute 48 percent with a particular minority
community having a population of 40 percent. Percentage of the majority community has shrunk
from 70 percent to 52 percent. The ever-increasing population of the State has adversely
affected the development and growth of the State. With a view to control the population growth
and to enhance the infrastructure and human resources development of the State, the State
Governor has promulgated the Mayan (Management and Development of Human Resources )
Ordinance, 2021 (No.1 of 2021) on 25.6.2021.

Mather and Sashank, the President and Secretary of the Minority Welfare Committee, a
registered NGO has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Mayan, praying for a
declaration that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens and particularly the members of the minority communities. High Court
has issued notice to the Respondent, Chief Secretary, State of Mayan and has posted the Writ
Petition for preliminary hearing.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ISSUES RAISED :

ISSUE – (1)

IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

ISSUE –(2)

DOES THE §. 2 & §. 3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

ISSUE – (3)

WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK

ISSUE – (4)

IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS :

(I) IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Writ Petition is maintainable under the
Article 226 because it violates the right of citizen that prescribed in The constitution of Bayank,
1950.

(2) DOES THE §.2&§.3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Ordinance promulgated by the state
Governor of Mayan under Article 213 of the Constitution of Bayank for the population control
has violated the basic principles of the constitution like Art 142 and Art 213.Furthermore the §§.
of Ordinance is in violation of Art13 (2).4

2
Art 14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth.
3
Art 21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
4
Art 13 (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and
any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
9

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

(3) WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the Ordinance promulgated by the State
Governor of Mayan is in violation of Minority rights guaranteed under the constitution of
Bayank. And it also violated the right of Vulnerable groups of citizens.

(4) IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that, the subject of the Ordinance is in the List III5
of Seventh schedule of the constitution of Bayank is beyond the legislative competency. . By
applying the Doctrine of Pith and Substance6 it is clarified that the Ordinance can be made in this
list. However the Ordinance is in contrary to the part III of Constitution and whatever contrary
to Part III is void U Art 13(2).

5
Art 246
6
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance: The power granted to legislatures to formulate a statute under three lists of the
seventh schedule in the Constitution of India is bound to overlap at certain points but this can’t be used as a reason
to make the whole statute null and void.
10

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(I) IS THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble court that the Writ Petition submitted by the P is
maintainable under Article 226 of constitution as it violates the fundamental rights and legal
rights guaranteed to the citizen of Mayan. An Ordinance shall have the same force and effect as
an act of Legislature. It can override the judgement of the HC under Article 226.7The Ordinance
promulgated by the State Governor is a law with in the meaning of Art 13 (3). And it is clear to
the point of Art 13 (2) that laws which are contrary to Part III8 OF the constitution of Bayank is
void ab initio.

The §. 2&§.3 of the Ordinance, 2021 violated the right of Minority. The minority has already a
less amount of population considered to majority and restricting them from participating in
election will affect their fundamental rights. In A. K Gopalan v. State of Madras9 , SC said that
the aim of having a declaration of fundamental rights is that certain elementary rights, such as
right to life, liberty, freedom of speech. Freedom of faith and so on should be regarded as in

7
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar, AIR 1962 SC 945
8
Bill Of Rights
9
AIR 1950 SC 27.
11

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

voidable under all conditions, and that the shifting majority in legislature of the country should
not have a free hand interfering with these fundamental rights.

Thus making such §§. Will affect the representation of Minority group in the parliament or
legislature etc.

I:2 MAINTAINABLITY OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226:

Article 226 provides every person in India to reach before court to pray for their enforcement of
both legal and constitutional rights. HC has the jurisdiction to issue a Writ Petition which
violates the rights.

I:2 CLOSE EXAMINATION TO THE FACTS :

Since the State Governor is comes within the ambit of Article 1210, they also have to respect the
fundamental rights of citizen. The §§. Prescribed in the Ordinance are against the constitutional
rights and invade in the right to life . The facts of the case proves that the Ordinance is
promulgated to control the population growth and to enhance the infrastructure and human
resources development of the State. But the population of Mayan does not have huge growth
that in, 1950 it is just below 1 Cr and in 2021 it was increased to 3 Cr.

The growth of the population is in through out the 71 years was only 2 Cr and cannot be
considered as a huge growth in Population. Moreover it is clear from the fact that there was a
certain increase in a particular minority in 2021. But this increase is not affecting the total
population of Mayan. The 8%minority will be adversely by this Ordinance . The major increase
in population is in the country Bayank not in state of Mayan. By this it is understandable that it
violates the rights of people and the Writ Petition is maintainable.

10
Art 12. Definition In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities
within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India
12

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

(2) DOES THE §.2&§.3 OF ORDINANCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OR ANY

OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZEN.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble court that, the §. 2 & §. 3 of Mayan (Management &
Development of Human Resources) Ordinance, 2021 is in violation of Art14 and Art 21 of the
constitution of Bayank. The state Governor has the power to make Ordinance under Art 213 11but
no law should violate the basic structure of constitution.12

2:1 MAINTAINABLITY OF §§. IN ORDINANCE UNDER ART 14 :

The §.2 clearly states that, there shall be no benefits of scheme provided to families having more
than two children. Even in second delivery parents having twins will also get the benefits of
scheme but it will only extend to two children. There is a clear inequality between the children .
The benefits are only available to two children and families having more than two children will
not get any benefits.

The classification under §. 2 is not a reasonable classification. There is no intelligible

differentia . Art 14 has forbids class legislation . In Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India13, SC said that
the reasonable classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but must be based on
some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to
be achieved by the legislation.

From the Ordinance, the objective is to control population but the Minority education scheme is
also restricted to two elder children of the family. Which ever group whose population is less
than 50 %is said to be minority14. The minority group whose population is only 8 % will be

11
Art 213. Power of Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Legislature.
12
Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461.
13
AIR 1951 SC 41
14
Kerala Education Bill (1957) 1959 1 SCR 995
13

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

affected adversely by these plans. The main aim of Minority education schemes are to promote
the minority education, but the aim of such schemes are not satisfied here, This control may not
truly hit the majority but this can decrease the country’s next generation.

The classification of children who are entitled for benefits and are not, have no rational
connection15 with the objectives OF Ordinance. The §. 3 further says about representation of
election. Art 14 has violated here, that like and unlike are treated equally16. The fundamental
rights are not gift from the State to Citizen. Part III does not confers fundamental rights but
confirm their existence and give them protection 17. It is the obligation of state to follow the
fundamental rights while making laws. 18

2:2 MAINTAINABLITY OF §§. UNDER ARTICLE 21 :

The right to live is considered as an important right and it is known as the heart of constitution.
The population control will amount to numerous abortions. Though the child cannot be provided
with the benefit of Article 21 when it is a fetus, it does not mean that the fetus is not subject to
receive any of the rights. According to the World Medical Association- “The life of an individual
human being begins with conception and ends with death.” So the child at womb can be
considered as a minor 19. It will be a discrimination against the children who should born or not.
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to the rights, without distinction
or discrimination20.

The right to privacy of women is also violated by the above §. 2. The right to abortion can be
considered as one’s privacy. 21The right to privacy is protected under Art 2122. This right is not
only available to citizens but also to non citizens. The population explosion is in the Country
15
K. Thimmappa and others v/s Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. SBI, 2001 AIR SCW 62
16
Dr. V. N. Shukla—Constitution of India,¶27 (5th Ed)
17
M. Nagraj v. Union of India AIR 2007 SC 71
18
Art. 13(2)
19
Section 6 of Limitations act 1963.
20
Principle 1 of the UN Declaration of Rights of the Child 1959.
21
Roe vs. Wade,410 U.S. 113
22
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India, AIR 2017 SC 416
14

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Bayank. But comparing to the state Mayan, the contribution to population is far less. From this
circumstances of case to impose restrictions on one’s live, there has no justification to prove that
the Ordinance is just and reasonable.

In R. Rajagopal v. State of T. N23 the SC expressly held that, a citizen has the right to safeguard
the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and among
other matters

2:3BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE AND §§. UNDER ORDINANCE :

Basic structure doctrine emerged under Kesavananda Bharati v state of Kerala24, the SC said that
even by an amendment the basic structure of constitution should not be altered. The preamble of
constitution is at Supreme importance and the constitution must be read and interpreted on the
light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the preamble. The preamble protects the rights of
both majority and minority. The minority should be calculated with proportion to the entire
population of state. 25 The Governor is considered as a state 26 and is obligated to made laws with
respecting fundamental rights27. Thus whatever law which is inconsistent with Art 13 (2)will be
void ab initio. The objective of the said §§. May be for the development and growth of state but
it is contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III. In R.M.D.C v. Union of India28,
the court clarified that if the valid part of a statute is separable from the invalid then the valid
part can be constitutional.

(3) WHETHER THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES ANY OF THE MINORITY RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BAYANK.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble court that, the §§. In Ordinance violates the Minority
rights such as the right live, right to education etc. Since §. 2 says there shall be no benefits of
23
1995 AIR 264.
24
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
25
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 355; 2002 (8) SCALE 1
26
Art 12
27
Art 13(2)
28
AIR 1957 SC 628.
15

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

education fund schemes to more than two children. The right conserve once community will also
be affected by this policy.

This §. Makes the Minority community more vulnerable than how it is situated. This can cause
more abortions in minority backward communities. According to Art 27529, the parliament can
grant the sums for enhancement of ST and Scheduled area. The objective of this Art 27530 is to
eradicate the gab between the ST 31and other Communities. So the §§. UNDER the Ordinance is
in violation of Art 275.

(4) IS THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble court that, the §§. Of Ordinance is ultra vires to the
legislative competency. .Under Article 246, List III the population control is a subject. But the
objective of population control only arise when there is over population. But the situation of
Mayan is really different that there is only 2 Cr increase in 71 years.

The facts clearly states that the Country Bayank has an increase from 60 Cr to 137 Cr. But it
should be a considerable fact that this change is 71 years. So while we consider the situation in
Mayan, the population has not seen much increase. According to research32 , global fertility rate
nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 and it will fall to 2.1 by 2100. Thus it will be great tragedy if the
population got decrease more than it ought to be. The population of Mayan is now at stable
growth so such §§. Will adversely affect the States economy too.

29
. Grants from the Union to certain States
30
Art 275 (1)
31
Art 342
32
Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
16

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

PRAYER :

Wherefore, in light of issues raised, and arguments advanced and authority cited, it is humbly
prayed before the Hon’ble HC , graciously pleased to,

Quash the §. 2 and §. 3 of Mayan (Management and Development of Human Resources)

Ordinance, 2021 (No. 1 of 2021 on 25.06. 2021), since it violates fundamental rights under Art
14, Art 21 and violate many minority rights in the of constitution of Bayank.

AND /OR pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances and in interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

17

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 BSOLS INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place : State of Mayan, Bayank S/d :_______________

Date : COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

18

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER