Team Code: NMCC_30

2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

IN THE HON’BLE GALACTIC COURT OF THE UNITED

FEDERATION OF PLANETS
AT CORSUCANT

~~ No.: ____/3645 G.E.

STATE OF ANNARES AND ORS…………………..………………….…PETITIONER

V.
THE UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS…………………………..….RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE GALACTIC COURT OF THE UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................. viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................................... ix

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

ISSUE 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1

ISSUE 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 5

ISSUE 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 10

ISSUE 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 12

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................. 18

~i~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. DAULAT RAM PREM, LAW OF WRITS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL

REMEDIES, (4th ed.2016).

2. DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, (8th ed. 2007).

3. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed. 2012).

4. JUSTICE P.S NARAYANA, LAW OF INJUNCTIONS, (6th ed., 2003)

5. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed., 2010)

6. SHYAM DIVAN AND ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND

POLICY IN INDIA (2002)

7. T.K. TOPE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (3rd ed. 2010).

8. SUDHIR KRISHNASWAMY, DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN

INDIA: A STUDY OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE (1st ed. 2009)

9. RICHARD ALBERT, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: MAKING,

BREAKING, AND CHANGING CONSTITUTIONS (1st ed. 2019)

STATUTES

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

2. CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010.
3. CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND, 1848.
4. CONSTITUTION OF PHILLIPINES, 1935.
5. CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA, 2009.
6. CONSTITUTION OF ROMANIA, 1991.

~ii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ONLINE RESOURCES

1. www.ebc-india.com
2. www.indlaw.com
3. www.lexisnexis.com
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.scconline.com
6. www.westlaw.com
7. www.heinonline.org
8. www.taylorandfrancis.com
ARTICLES

1. 1. Alok Kumar Verma, Abrogation of Article 370: Its Constitutionality and

Reorganisation, 9 (2021).
2. Kamau Muthoni, BBI Verdict: Four Contentious Issues Judges Will Rule On, THE
STANDARD, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001441821/bbi-
verdict-four-contentious-issues-judges-will-rule-on (last visited Jul 11, 2023).
3. Satarupa Datta, Comprehending and Inquisitioning the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’
in India: Urgency to Define the Doctrine (2020).
4. default, 51 ZBORNIK PFZ (2001), https://heinonline-org-
/Page?handle=hein.journals/zboprvfaz51&id=89 &div=1377&collection=journals.
5. default, 51 ZBORNIK PFZ (2001), https://heinonline-org-
HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/zboprvfaz51&id=89
&div=1377&collection=journals.
6. Gautam Bhatia, GAUTAM BHATIA - The Kenyan Supreme Court’s BBI Judgment –
Part I: On Constitutional Amendments and the Basic Structure | The Elephant, (Apr.
11, 2022), https://www.theelephant.info/op-eds/2022/04/11/the-kenyan-supreme-
courts-bbi-judgment-part-i-on-constitutional-amendments-and-the-basic-structure/
(last visited Jun 26, 2023).
7. J&K’s Demotion to Union Territory Status is a Violation of the Constitution, THE
WIRE, https://thewire.i n/government/kashmir-news-union-territory-indian-
constitution (last visited Jun 29, 2023).
8. Overview of Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine | Constitution Annotated |
Congress.gov | Library of Congress,

~iii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-10-1/ALDE_00013153/
(last visited Jul 12, 2023).
9. Popular Power and Vanguardism: The Democratic Deficit of 1980s ‘Peoples Power,’
https://www-tandfonline-com-
christuniversity.knimbus.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/02589346.2017.1398992?needAccess
=true&role=button (last visited Jul 13, 2023).
10. Muriuki Muriungi, The Kenyan High Court’s BBI Judgment – I: Constitutional
Amendment through Popular Initiative | OHRH, https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-kenyan-
high-courts-bbi-judgment-i-constitutional-amendment-through-popular-initiative/
(last visited Jul 6, 2023).
11. MEDHA, The Revocation of Kashmir’s Autonomy: High-Risk Hindutva Politics at
Play, (2019), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24808 (last visited Jul 1, 2023).

DICTIONARIES:

1. A. S. Oppe., Wharton’s Law Lexicon, (Sweet and Maxwell, Edn. 14th, New Delhi) (1997).
2. B. C. Mitra and A. C. Moitra, Legal Thesaurus, (University Book Agency, Allahabad)
(1997).
3. Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (Sweet and Maxwell, Edn. 6th, Vol. 2nd, London)
(2000).
4. Henry Campbell Black, Blacks Law Dictionary, (Edn. 6th, Centennial Edn. 1891-1991).
5. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, (Wadhwa and Company, Edn. 3rd, Nagpur)
(2005).

~iv~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

PAGE
S. No. CASES
No.

1. 2
Heydon, 76 ER 637, 1584 (England).
2. Robert N. Gakuru & Others v Governor Kiambu County & 3 8
others [2014] eKLR (Kenya).
3. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union of India Etc. Etc., 13
1977 AIR 1361 (India).
4. 13
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 (India).
5. 17
Babulal Parate vs State of Maharashtra., 1961 AIR 884 (India).

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& AND

ART. ARTICLE

S.C.C SUPREME COURT CASES

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

WP WRIT PETITION

MEMO MEMORANDUM

STATE UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS

SOA STATE OF ANNARES

HON’BLE HONORABLE

SC SUPREME COURT

RW READ WITH

ANR ANOTHER

ORS OTHERS

IN RE IN REFERENCE

~v ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Annares [hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioners’] most humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Galactic Court and has approached this Hon’ble Court in
apprehension of overarching powers of the President and Parliament of the United Federation
of Planets [hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’]. Therefore, the Petitioner maintains that the
jurisdiction conferred upon this Hon’ble Court by the Federation Constitution which protects
the citizens of the Federation from any violation of rights, is applicable in the present case.

All of this is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court.

~vi~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The State of Annares, a constituent state of the Federation of Planets, is a significant holder
of dilithium reserves, an essential component for facilitating interstellar travel. The State
of Annares held a special status as guaranteed by Art. 370 of the Federation Constitution.
The special status guaranteed, inter alia, the power of the State to veto Union Legislation.
2. The elected Prime Minister of the Federation, Hari Seldon, set up a taskforce named the
Bridging Blackspace Initiative [the BBI], bearing agenda of widespread constitutional
reform. A package of seventy-four amendments to the Federation Constitution was
introduced by two parliamentarians, Janet Mahmoud and Dennis Waverly, as a ‘popular
initiative’ under Art. 368A, of which, an amendment to abolish the “special status” of
Annares under Art. 370 was part. Acquiring the signatures of one million registered voters,
as required by Art.368 was commenced. The State of Annares then approached the Galactic
Court praying declaration of the BBI Amendment Bill as unconstitutional, “null and void”.
3. Prime Minister Seldon announced that the Federation was facing shortages of dilithium
resources which threatened the possibility of interstellar travel. The announcement
attracted much scepticism. But, the Federation President, under the advice of Prime
Minister Seldon, invoked the emergency provisions under Art. 356 in the State of Annares,
hence bringing Annares under Union Rule.
4. During the pre-trial stage of Annares’ petition before the Galactic Court, it was discovered
that Janet Mahmoud and Dennis Waverly were proxies, and the BBI Amendment process
was initiated by Prime Minister Seldon.
5. Soon after, as required under the process of Art. 368A, the BBI bill passed through State
Assemblies, including the non-existent assembly of Annares, a referendum was passed, and
the Constitution was amended, thereby the State of Annares lost its “special status” under
Art. 370.
6. Lastly, through initiation by Prime Minister Seldon, the parliament passed a law under Art.
3 of the Federation Constitution that converted Annares from a “state” to a “union
territory”, thereby converting the State into centrally ruled territory.
7. This step was received with widespread protests, and the State of Annares having been
dismissed, Katiba Institute initiated proceedings before the Galactic Court challenging the
constitutionality of the law under Art. 3 if the Federation Constitution.

~vii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Is the Prime Minister entitled to initiate a popular initiative within the meaning
of Article 368A of the Federation Constitution?

1.1 A popular initiative is a process of participative democracy

1.2 Applicability of ‘Mischief Rule of interpretation’ and examining the popular initiative of
Kenyan Constitution

2. Can an “amendment bill” within the meaning of Article 368A include a “package”
of proposed amendments that have absolutely no collection or unity of subject
matter with each other, with a view to being presented to the People in a
referendum in an up-down vote?

2.1 Hyper amendments violate principles of Natural Value & Principles of Good Governance
2.2 Historical analysis of Kenyan Constitution plagued with Constitutional Amendments
2.3 Distinction b/w amendment & repeal and lack of public participation in amendment
process
2.3 Distinction b/w amendment & repeal and lack of public participation in amendment process
2.4 The binary, up-down nature of referenda unsuitable for simultaneous determination of
multiple issues

3. Does Article 3 of the Federation Constitution empower the Federation/union

Parliament to downgrade a state to a union territory?

3.1 Literal interpretation of Art. 3 of the Federation Constitution

3.2 Action of the Federation Parliament is ultra vires and hence unconstitutional

4.1 Necessary conditions for Proclamation under Art. 356 of Federation Constitution
4.2 There was no evident breakdown of constitutional machinery
4.3 Scope of judicial review of President’s Proclamation
4.4 Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates in the drafting of Indian Constitution

~viii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
SUMMARY OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Is the Prime Minister entitled to initiate a popular initiative within the meaning
of Article 368A of the Federation Constitution?

The counsel on behalf of the Petitioners most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that
the Prime Minister is not entitled to initiate a popular initiative within the meaning of Article
368A of the Federation Constitution as in the instant case. A popular initiative is a process of
participative democracy that empowers ordinary citizens to propose constitutional amendments
independently of law-making power. It is argued before this court that Prime Minister Hari
Seldon or any parliamentarian with powers to initiate amendments to the Constitution through
parliamentary means or ordinary proceedings are not entitled to initiate a popular initiative
under Article 368A of the Federation Constitution. The court must examine the class or
category of citizens allowed to initiate a popular initiative in a particular jurisdiction.

The counsel argues that the court must rely on the Mischief rule of interpretation when
interpreting the provisions of Article 368A of the Constitution of the United Federation of
Planets. It is further submitted that the Prime Minister or any other Parliamentarian is not
entitled to initiate a Popular Initiative under the guise of a taskforce, as it violates the spirit of
the Constitution and defeats the purpose behind the legislation.

The Constitution of the United Federation of Planets bears resemblance to the Constitutions
and other legislations of States such as Switzerland, Moldova, Venezuela, and Liechtenstein in
the extant matter related to the amendment of the Constitution through popular initiative. The
court contends that amendment of the Constitution through Popular Initiative cannot be
undertaken by the government when it is the same entity being compelled to undertake the
amendment and in default, the amendment to be subjected to a referendum.

2. Can an “amendment bill” within the meaning of Article 368A include a “package”
of proposed amendments that have absolutely no collection or unity of subject
matter with each other, with a view to being presented to the People in a
referendum in an up-down vote?

The counsel on behalf of the Petitioners most humbly argues that the proposed 74 constitutional
amendments by the Bridging Blackspace Initiative (BBI) taskforce, led by Janet Mahmoud and
Dennis Waverly, violate the principles of Natural Value and Principles of Good Governance.
The proposed 74 amendments aim to alter the functioning of many of the Federation's

~ix~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
SUMMARY OF ISSUES

institutions, causing the Constitution to be mutilated and leaving Kenya as a fully authoritarian
state without any signs of Constitutionalism. The historical analysis of the Kenyan
Constitution, which inspired the Federation Constitution in 1963, shows that multiple hyper-
amendments have led to a mutilation of the Constitution, resulting in a hollow shell.

It is further argued that allowing Prime Minister Hari Seldon to initiate amendments in the form
of popular initiatives would be an abuse of Article 368A of the Constitution, which was
intended for direct democracy for ordinary citizens. This would empower the Prime Minister
to initiate unfavourable amendments that the Parliament does not look upon or support.

The counsel for Petitioners further argues that the proposed amendments seek to alter some of
the core principles of the Constitution, such as increasing funding to various States in the
Federation, appointing a judicial ombudsperson, and abolition of the Special Status of the State
of Annares. The scope of public participation under Article 257 of the Kenyan Constitution
adapted to the Constitution of the United Federation of Planets in the form of Article 368A is
one of the outstanding features of both Constitutions. The petitioners contend that the binary,
up-down nature of referenda makes them particularly unsuitable for the simultaneous
determination of multiple issues. The state can also incentivize citizens to vote in favour of
undesirable constitutional amendments by proposing a certain number of constitutional
amendments that benefit the citizens.

3. Does Article 3 of the Federation Constitution empower the Federation/union

Parliament to downgrade a state to a union territory?

The Counsel on behalf of the petitioners most humbly submit that Article 3 of the Federation
Constitution does not empower the Federation Parliament to downgrade a “state” to a “union
territory” on the follow grounds: the literal rule of interpretation is a crucial tool in judicial
courts to review and interpret the true meaning of a judicial provision. Art. 3 of the Indian
Constitution allows the Parliament to form a new State by separating territory from another
state or uniting parts of states. However, the text argues that Art. 3 does not empower the
Federation's Parliament to change the status of a State to a "union territory." The action of the
Federation Parliament is considered ultra vires and unconstitutional, as it requires the consent
of the State Assembly before any changes can be enacted in Parliament. The State of Annares
was under Art. 356 of the Federation Constitution when the bill demoting Annares from a
"state" to a "union territory" was enacted. Therefore, Art. 3 does not authorize or empower the
Parliament to alter the federal status of a State, from "state" to "union territory." The bill

~x ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
SUMMARY OF ISSUES

enacted by the Parliament is ultra vires and goes beyond the legislative powers guaranteed by
the Federation Constitution to the Parliament, violating a constitutional provision.

4. If the answer to (3) is yes, then can a permanent and irreversible alteration to the
structure of a state be brought in during the period that an Emergency under
Article 356 is in progress?

The Counsel on behalf of the petitioners most humbly contends on this issue by submitting
before this Court that Article 356 of the Federation Constitution empowers the President to
assume or delegate the functions of the Government of the State and any powers vested in the
Governor of the State by issuing a Proclamation. The power conferred to the President under
Art. 356 is not absolute and is only for situations that call for urgent action towards remedy or
control. The case of the Federation President's Proclamation was based on the Federation facing
a dilithium shortage, which was enforced by the President by following the process established
by the Constitution. The petitioners argue that there was no clear sign or true breakdown of
constitutional machinery in the State of Annares when the Proclamation was imposed. The
State of Annares was a major source of dilithium resources, but it was not the only source. The
various organs of administration, including the legislature and executive, were in full function,
rendering no deficiency in the proper functioning of Annares.

The scope of judicial review of the President's Proclamation is limited to certain grounds, as
per the nine-judge bench decision in the S.R. Bommai case. The three prominent grounds for
judicial review are: (1) when the Proclamation is enforced on the basis of no material at all, (2)
when the Proclamation is made upon a consideration which is wholly extraneous or irrelevant
to the purpose of powers conferred under Art. 356 to the President, and (3) when the exercise
of power was mala fide.

It is further argued that the Proclamation cannot be challenged in stricto sensu, as it is an

administrative action. The court is allowed to review the relevance of the material and the
existence of any rational nexus between the material and the consequent Proclamation made.
The case of the petitioners concludes that there was no relevance of a direct nexus between the
Federation facing a shortage of dilithium reserves and the Proclamation of the President
assuming a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

~xi~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 1|

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1

Is the Prime Minister entitled to initiate a popular initiative within the meaning of Article
368A of the Federation Constitution?

Is it the contention of the Counsel of the Petitioners that Prime Minister Seldon is not entitled
to initiate a popular initiative withing the meaning of Article 368A 1 of the Federation
Constitution. It is humbly submitted that the Prime Minister cannot initiate an amendment to
the Federation Constitution through a popular initiative on his own, or in the guise of a steering
committee or a taskforce to propagate and promote his desired initiative in form of a popular
initiative. The reasons for the same have been elucidated by the Petitioners on the following
grounds:

1.1 A popular initiative is a process of participative democracy that is provided to

empower the ordinary citizen to propose a constitutional amendment independent an
ordinary citizen to propose constitutional amendments independent of the law-making
power:

1.1.1 It is humbly before this Hon’ble court that the Prime Minister Hari Seldon or any
parliamentarian who has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution through
parliamentary means or has powers vested to initiate an amendment to the Constitution through
ordinary proceedings, such a person is not entitled to initiate a popular initiative under the
meaning of Article 368A of the Federation Constitution2.

1.1.2 It is important to look at other contemporary jurisdictions that allow for the proposal of a
Constitutional amendment through the means of a ‘Popular Initiative’ to examine what class or
category of citizens shall be allowed to initiate a ‘Popular Initiative’ in that particular
jurisdiction.

1.1.3 In Switzerland, one of the earlier States to allow for the amendment of the constitution
through the means of popular initiative in 18913, reserves this right exclusively to the ordinary
citizens of the country who exercise the right to vote in the State.

1
MOOT PROPOSITION. Para 6.
2
Id.
3
What is a federal popular initiative? https://www.ch.ch/en/votes-and-elections/initiatives/what-is-a-federal-
popular-initiative/ (last visited Jul 13, 2023).

~1 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 1|

1.1.4 In the case of Philippines, the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article XVII Section
24 provides for the amendment of the Constitution by the people directly through an initiative
upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters. The
purpose behind the insertion of this provision is to ensure that the citizens are given their right
to propose Constitutional amendments even though the ordinary power to amend the
Constitution lies in the hands of the legislature5.

1.1.5 Upon examining these provisions across various contemporary jurisdictions, it can be
understood that the purpose behind the provision of a Popular Initiative is to protect citizens
right to amend the Constitution through means of direct democracy, and not for members of
the executive or the legislature to initiate Constitutional amendments in the guise of taskforces,
steering committees or recommendatory bodies.

1.2 Applicability of ‘Mischief Rule of interpretation’ and examining popular initiative in

Kenyan Constitution which inspired the Federation Constitution:

1.2.1 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that this Court must rely upon the
Mischief rule of interpretation while interpreting the provisions of Article 368A6 of the
Constitution of the United Federation of Planets. The counsel for the petitioners contends that
the Court must examine the intent, relevance and history behind the insertion of the said Article.
It is imperative to examine the intent behind the insertion of this Article into the Kenyan
Constitution which heavily inspired the Federation to adopt this Article with relevant changes
under Article 368A.

1.2.2 The rule of interpretation also known as Heydon’s Rule7 has been established and used
in various case laws.

1.2.3 It is further contended that to determine the intention of the legislation, in case when the
material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions the most firmly established
rule of construction of such words “of all statues in general” is the rule laid down in Heydon's
case. The rule which is also known as “purposive construction” or “mischief rule”8.

4
Const. (1973), art. XVII, § 2 (Phil.).
5
Cheselden George V. Carmona, Philippines Laws on Referendum and Initiative: Implementation Experience
and Challenges, (2014), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2542459 (last visited Jul 13, 2023).
6
Suptra, Note 1.
7
Heydon, 76 ER 637, 1584 (England) .
8
JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Page no. 124 (12th ed. 2011).

~2 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 1|

1.2.4 The Kenyan Supreme Court of Kenya has held in various judgements9 that it is important
to retrace the genesis of the said provisions in order to place them in historical context. The
Court held that a holistic interpretation of the Constitution must mean interpreting the
Constitution in context. It is the contextual analysis of a constitutional provision, reading it
alongside and against other provisions, so as to maintain a rational explication of what the
Constitution must be taken to mean in light of its history, of the issues in dispute, and of the
prevailing circumstances.

1.2.5 It is contended that in this instant case, the Prime Minister or any other Parliamentarian
is not entitled to initiate a Popular Initiative under the guise of a taskforce as it is in violation
of the spirit of the Constitution and defeats the purpose behind the legislation.

1.2.6 On examining the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission which acknowledged that
apart from Parliament, there was a need for the people to exercise their constituent power in
any matter relating to the amendment of the Constitution. It was therefore recommended that
citizens and the Civil Society be enabled to initiate Constitutional amendments through a
process called "popular initiative".

1.2.7 The Constitution of the United Federation of Planets bears resemblance to the
Constitutions and other legislations of States such as Switzerland, Moldova, Venezuela and
Liechtenstein in the extant of the matter related to the amendment of the Constitution through
popular initiative.

1.2.8 While examining comparative jurisprudence and the historical evolution of the ‘popular
initiative’, the counsel contend that amendment of the Constitution through Popular Initiative
cannot be undertaken by the Government when it is the same entity that is being compelled to
undertake the amendment and in default the amendment to be subjected to a referendum.

1.2.9 It is clear from our parliamentary scheme that there are two ways in which a constitutional
amendment can be initiated, either by Parliamentary Initiative or by Popular Initiative. The
Parliament has vested power to amend the Constitution in a manner similar to that of India10
under Article 36811 of the Constitution of the United Federation to Planets.

9
The Matter of the Principle of Gender Representation in the National Assembly and The Senate Advisory
Opinion Application No. 2 of 2012, [2012] eKLR; The Matter of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission,
Advisory Opinion No. 1 of 2012; [2014] eKLR (Kenya).
10
INDIA CONST. art. 368.
11
MOOT PROPOSITION, para 6.

~3 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 1|

1.2.10 The counsels further contend that the purpose of Article 257 in the Kenyan Constitution
was to democratise the processes of constitutional change, and provide space to the people to
participate, a space outside the control of the political elite. The implied limitation upon the
President’s power to initiate an amendment via the route of Article 257, therefore, flowed from
the reason for the existence of the popular initiative in the first place.

~4 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

ISSUE 2

Can an “amendment bill” within the meaning of Article 368A include a “package” of
proposed amendments that have absolutely no collection or unity of subject matter with
each other, with a view to being presented to the People in a referendum in an up-down
vote?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that an “amendment bill” withing
the meaning of Article 368A cannot include a “package” of proposed amendments that have no
absolutely no connection or unity of subject matter with each other, and further cannot be
presented to the People in a referendum in an up-down vote.

2.1 Hyper amendments such as in the instant case, seventy-four in number is violative of
the principles of Natural Value and Principles of Good Governance

2.1.1 It is humbly submitted by the Petitioners before this Hon’ble Court that the proposal of
an amendment bill by a taskforce headed by Janet Mahmoud and Dennis Waverly in the form
of a popular initiative fails to stay within the limits placed by the Constitution of the United
Federation of Planets.

2.1.2 The counsel submits that the imposition of Amendments by the Bridging Blackspace
Initiative [“BBI”] bill in such a great number is a violation of the people’s right to decide
according to their free will whether the amendments are desirable or not.

2.1.3 The proposal of seventy-four amendments at the same time shall make it very difficult
for the ordinary citizens to understand, study and internalize the details of the said issues the
amendment bill seeks to address, this will subvert the people’s free will to exercise their
sovereign power since there is a likelihood of the public making uninformed choices over such
an important exercise.

2.1.4 Further, the public have a right to abundantly understand the issues proposed for
amendment and fully participate in matters affecting their governance hence the need to be
meaningfully consulted in policy making as opposed to them being coerced using state
machinery into embracing a constitutional amendment process.

~5 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

2.2 Historical analysis of the Kenyan Constitution that was plagued with Constitutional
amendments and led to an abuse:

2.2.1 The Kenyan Constitution which inspired the Federation Constitution in 1963 was subject
to multiple hyper-amendments for a prolonged period of time12. This resulted in the mutilation
of the Constitution even though the Constitution had gone through only 26 amendments by the
year 1991. Notably, by 1980, the Independence Constitution as a result was just a mere hollow
shell, being present but futile. This had left Kenya as a fully authoritarian state, without even a
slight sign of Constitutionalism.

2.2.2 In the instant case Prime Minister Hari Seldon has proposed 74 Constitutional
amendments with the help of a taskforce named ‘Bridging Blackspace Initiative [“BBI”]
headed by Janet Mahmoud and Dennis Waverly. The Court must deliberate upon the
consequences and the future of Constitutionalism of the Federation of the proposed 74
amendments that seek to alter the functioning of many of the institutions of the Federation.

2.2.3 The counsels further submit that the Kenya post-independence in 1964 successfully
introduced amendments to the Constitution that changed it fundamentally: The Parliamentary
system of government was converted to a predominantly Presidential one. The following year
the system of devolution was largely dismantled in an amendment backdated to independence.

2.2.4 It is submitted that further gradual amendments to the Constitution between 1964 and
1982 increasingly concentrated power in the office of the President. The cumulative effect of
these amendments undermined democracy, eroded the idea of limited government, and
removed from the independence Constitution the important principle of checks and balances,
which is the hallmark of constitutionalism.

2.2.5 The counsel further submits that if this Court were to allow the Prime Minister Hari
Seldon to initiate amendments to the Constitution in the form of popular initiatives, it shall be
an abuse of Article 368A of the Constitution that was intended as a means of direct democracy
for ordinary citizens, and further shall set a dangerous precedent in the Jurisprudence of the
United Federation of Planets.

12
Kipkoech Nicholas Cheruiyot, The Basic Structure Doctrine Vis-à-Vis the Constituent Power of the People in
a Constitutional Amendment Process in Kenya: An Appraisal of the 2020 BBI Ruling, The Basic Structure
Doctrine Vis-à-Vis the Constituent Power of the People in a Constitutional Amendment Process in Kenya: An
Appraisal of the 2020 BBI Ruling (2021).

~6 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

2.2.6 If such a precedent is in-fact granted, it shall empower the Prime Minister to initiate
unfavourable amendments to the Constitution, an abuse of power on part of the Head of State.
This shall empower the Prime Minister in the future to initiate amendments that the Parliament
does not look upon or support.

2.3 Distinction between amendment and repeal and lack of public participation in the
amendment process:

2.3.1 The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the amendments proposed by
the BBI bill seek to not just amend the Constitution but alter some of the core principles of the
Constitution. Some of these amendments include but are not limited to increasing the funding
to various States in the Federation, appointment of a judicial ombudsperson and abolition of
the Special Status of the State of Annares. The counsel submit that the seventy-four
amendments proposed by the taskforce not only seek to amend the constitution but essentially
re-write it and repeal some of the most important provisions.

2.3.2 The counsel further submit that a constitutional dismemberment can occur suddenly in a
big- bang moment, where multiple constitutional amendments are proposed/ initiated at the
same time as in the instant case by parliamentarians leading the BBI taskforce. In a case like
this the Constitutional amendments are aimed and directed at not just amending the
Constitution but essentially re-writing the Constitution. It is submitted that the Federation
Constitution is going through a Constitutional dismemberment rather than a Constitutional
amendment.

2.3.3 A Constitutional dismemberment entails a fundamental transformation of one or more of

the constitution’s core commitments. A dismemberment is incompatible with the existing
framework of the constitution because it seeks to achieve a conflicting purpose. It intends
deliberately to disassemble one or more of a constitution’s elemental parts. An amendment does
not go nearly as far because, properly defined, it keeps the altered constitution coherent with
its pre- change identity, rights, and structure. To use a rough shorthand, the purpose and effect
of a constitutional dismemberment are the same: to unmake a constitution.13

2.3.4 In the instant case, the amendments seek to introduce a Judicial ombudsperson, alter the
special status of the State of Annares which essentially amend the basic provisions of the

13
Id.

~7 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

Constitution and alter some of the founding principles of the Constitution of the United
Federation of Planets.

2.3.5 The scope of public participation under Article 257 of the Kenyan Constitution adapted
to Constitution of the United Federation of Planets in the form of Article 368A is one of the
outstanding features of both these Constitutions and was held by the Kenyan court in the case
of Robert N. Gakuru & Others v Governor Kiambu County14.

2.3.6 However, the Prime Minister in this instant case attempts to supersede the power vested
in the ordinary citizens by initiating a popular initiative on his own accord without any direct
involvement of the citizens of the country except for the votes for all seventy-four amendments
in the form of an up-down vote.

2.4 The binary, up-down nature of referenda makes them particularly unsuitable for the
simultaneous determination of multiple issues

2.4.1 The counsel firstly contends that when the amendment bill is proposed in the form of a
referendum, the proposed amendments must be submitted as separate and distinct questions,
and not as a “package deal”.

2.4.2 It is possible that the public might have different opinions on the proposed seventy-four
amendments and the binary, up-down nature of referenda makes them particularly unsuitable
for the simultaneous determination of multiple issues, especially where citizens may have
different views on those issues.

2.4.3 The State can also incentivize citizens to vote in favour of the undesirable Constitutional
amendments by proposing a certain number of Constitutional amendments that benefit the
citizens.

2.4.4 The counsels further contend that if an amendment relating to the basic structure to the
Constitution is proposed then each amendment must be put before the citizens according to
Article 368A of the Constitution. Further such an amendment if initiated by a parliamentarian
or a member of the executive such as the Prime Minister, such an amendment must be initiated
under Article 368 of the Constitution and not Article 368A of the Constitution.

14
Robert N. Gakuru & Others v Governor Kiambu County & 3 others [2014] eKLR (Kenya).

~8 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

2.4.5 Thus the counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
lumping together of unrelated amendments into an Omnibus Bill is not merely improper, but
unconstitutional.

~9 ~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

ISSUE 3

Does Article 3 of the Federation Constitution empower the Federation/union Parliament

to downgrade a state to a union territory?

It is most humbly submitted by the Petitioners that Art. 3 of the Federation Constitution does
not empower the Federation or the Union Parliament of the Federation to downgrade a State to
a Union Territory. It is further submitted that interpreting the provisions and clauses under Art.
3 of the Federation Constitution substantiates the case of the petitioner. The following
arguments on behalf of petitioner have been presented hereunder.

3.1 Literal interpretation of Art. 3 of the Federation Constitution

3.1.1 It is reverentially submitted that the literal rule of interpretation is a prominent and
primary tool employed by judicial courts in reviewing and interpreting the true meaning of a
judicial provision. It was first applied in the case of Abley v. Dale where the judgement
observed:

“If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment we are bound
to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead to an absurdity or
manifest injustice”15

The literal rule is further a tool under the common law system, which facilitates in the
deconstruction of questions of law, as may be found in the present case. It is demanded by such
interpretation that when any provision is put under question, the provision must be read as a
whole and not in part.

3.1.2 A reading of Art. 3 (a) - (c)16 of the Indian Constitution makes it clear that the Parliament
may by law, form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or
more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; the Parliament
can further increase or diminish the area of any State. Explanation II, of Art. 3 further provides
that the power garnered under Art. 3 (a) includes power to form a new State or Union Territory
by uniting parts of States or Union Territories together.

15
Abley v. Dale, (1851) Jervis CJ (Eng. & Wales).
16
INDIA CONST. art. 3.

~10~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

3.1.3 It is hence, most humbly put forth, that upon reading Art. 3, provides nowhere empowers
the Federation’s Parliament to change the status of a State to a “union territory”.

3.2 Action of the Federation Parliament is ultra vires and hence unconstitutional

3.2.1 It is further submitted that Art. 3 of the Federation Constitution has been borrowed from
the Indian Constitution, with a particular change in the proviso of Art. 3, which finds pivotal
importance in the current matter before the Hon’ble Galactic Court. The original provision
(Art. 3 as read in the Indian Constitution) makes it clear that changes made to the areas,
boundaries or names of States requires prior consultation of the State Assembly of that State
under question. But, Art. 3 as read in the Federation Constitution, requires the “consent”17 of
the State Assembly of the State under question before any changes to the areas, boundaries or
names of States can be enacted in the Parliament.

3.2.2 It must be noted that the State of Annares was under the provisions of Art. 356 of the
Federation Constitution when the bill demoting Annares from a “state” to a “union territory”
was placed before the Parliament and later enacted. As per provisions of Art. 356(1)18, the State
Assembly of Annares was dissolved under the Federation President’s Proclamation, thus
bringing Annares under Union rule - under the executive powers of the President and the Union
Parliament.

3.2.3 It is thus humbly put forth that no true consent was obtained from the State of Annares
prior to passing the Bill that modified the federal status of Annares. Hence, obtaining the
consent of a non-existent State Assembly of Annares would translate to a Bill thus passed in
violation of constitutional provisions.

3.2.4 It is hence submitted that Art. 3 does not authorise or empower the Parliament to alter the
federal status of a State, from “state” to “union territory”. The bill enacted by the Parliament is
ultra vires and arches beyond the legislative powers guaranteed by the Federation Constitution
to the Parliament, and exists in violation of a constitutional provision.

17
MOOT PROPOSITION, para 3.
18
INDIA CONST. art. 356, cl. 1.

~11~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

ISSUE 4

If the answer to (3) is yes, then can a permanent and irreversible alteration to the
structure of a state be brought in during the period that an Emergency under Article 356
is in progress?

It is most humbly submitted that the Proclamation, made under Art. 356 of the Federation
Constitution, is not enforceable and constitutionally invalid. It is the case of the petitioners that
during an emergency, permanent and irreversible changes to the State must be the last resort
and avoided to the most.

4.1 Necessary conditions for Proclamation under Art. 356 of Federation Constitution

4.1.1 It is most humbly submitted that clause (1) of Art. 356 borrowed from of the Federation
Constitution borrowed from the Constitution of India19 empowers the President to assume to
himself or delegate the functions of the Government of the State and any or all powers vested
in the Governor of the State by issuing a Proclamation. Clause 220 of the same Article elaborates
that the Proclamation must pass through each house of the Parliament before it is enforced and
implemented. Such power conferred to the President under Art. 356 of the Federation
Constitution is not absolute and not at the complete discretion of the President. The provision
is exclusively for situations that are not normal, a situation that calls for urgent action towards
remedy or control.

4.1.2 It is submitted that in the present case, the Federation President’s Proclamation was
pursuant to the Federation facing dilithium shortage. On announcement of the Prime Minister,
the Proclamation was enforced by the President by following the process established by the
Constitution.

4.1.3 It is factual that a vast number of mining asteroids, rich with dilithium resources, were
brought under the Federation’s territory under the class of “union territories”, whose
administration was guided by the Union Territory provisions of the Indian Constitution. The
State of Annares was thus not the sole source of dilithium resources for the Federation’s usage.

19
Id.
20
INDIA CONST. art. 356, cl. 2.

~12~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

4.2 There was no evident breakdown of constitutional machinery

4.2.1 It is reverentially submitted that the entire provision of Art. 356 rests on the satisfaction
of the President that “a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. This would mean that Art.
356 is intended to either safeguard against the failure of constitutional machinery in a State or
to repair the effects of a breakdown. It may be either a preventive or a curative action.21

4.2.2 The above argument has been acknowledged in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of
India22 (paragraph 35), where the marginal note of Art. 356 is interpreted:

“The marginal note of Art. 356 indicates that the power conferred by that provision is
exercisable "in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the States". While the text
of the said article does not use the same phraseology, it empowers the President, on his
being satisfied that, "a situation has arisen" in which the Government of the State
'cannot' be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, i.e., on the
failure of the constitutional machinery, to take action in the manner provided in sub-
clauses (a), (b) and (c) and (sic of) clause (1) thereof. This action he must take on
receipt of a report from the Governor of the State concerned or, otherwise, if he is
satisfied therefrom about the failure of the constitutional machinery.”

4.2.3 It is thus the case of the petitioners that there was no clear sign or true breakdown of
constitutional machinery in the State of Annares. In the prevalent situations in the State of
Annares when the Proclamation was imposed, there were howls of protest from Annares, which
cannot amount to the State being unable to comply with the constitutional provisions. Further,
there was a shortage of dilithium reserves for the Federation threatening interstellar travel, and
the only source of this information was from an announcement of the Prime Minister. It is
undisputed that the State of Annares was a major source of dilithium resources, but was not
the only source. Vast numbers of mining asteroids were under direct Union rule during the
time of Proclamation.

4.2.4 It is thus conclusively presented that lack of resources on part of the Federation cannot
be attributed to breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State of Annares. The various

21
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc., 1977 AIR 1361. (India)
22
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 (India).

~13~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

organs of administration including the legislature and executive, the State Assemblies were in
full function rendering no deficiency in the proper functioning of Annares.

4.3 Scope of judicial review of President’s Proclamation

4.3.1 It is most humbly submitted that the justiciability and judicial review of the President's
Proclamation is possible, but is limited to certain grounds. This is pursuance of the nine-judge
bench decision in the S.R. Bommai case23. The three prominent grounds upon which an
executive determination founded on “subjective satisfaction” of the President are:

1. When the Proclamation is enforced on the basis of no material at all, or on the sole basis
of evidence vitiated by assumptions and not facts

2. When the Proclamation is made upon a consideration which is wholly extraneous or

irrelevant to the purpose of powers conferred under Art. 356 to the President

3. When the exercise of power was mala fide. This is because a statutory order that lacks
bona fides has no existence in law.24

4.3.2 It is further submitted that the Proclamation cannot be challenged in stricto sensu, given
the merit that it is an administrative action. The term stricto sensu refers to an appeal made
against the order of the court of first instance and correctness based on the evidence referred in
arriving at the order of first instance. Hence, the correctness or nature of the material cannot be
subjected to judicial review.

4.3.3 What the Hon’ble Court is allowed to review is the relevance of the material as well as
the existence of any rational nexus between the material and the consequent Proclamation
made.

4.3.4 Breakdown of constitutional machinery would refer to situations of defection, failure of

parliamentary majority, failed elections, or gross management. The case of S.R Bommai v.
Union of India (paragraph 219)25 recognises various situations that would amount to failure of
constitutional machinery:

23
Id.
24
2 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 2282-2283 (16th Ed. 2021).
25
Supra note 21, at 219.

~14~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

“While it is not possible to exhaustively catalogue diverse situation when constitutional

breakdown may be justifiably be inferred from, instances are (i) large scale breakdown
of the law and order or public order situation; (ii) gross mismanagement of affairs by
the State Government; (iii) corruption or abuse of its power; (iv) danger to national
integration or security of the State or aiding or abetting national disintegration or a
claim for independent sovereign status and (v) subversion of the Constitution while
professing to work under the Constitution….”

It can be observed that the above listed instances are extreme and find no similarity with the
prevalent situation in the Federation. Although there was shortage of dilithium reserves and a
threat to interstellar travel, the same cannot be considered a breakdown in Annares, on
incapacity of Annares.

4.3.5 It is hence the case of petitioners that there was no relevance of direct nexus between the
Federation facing shortage of dilithium reserves and the Proclamation of the President
assuming a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

4.4 Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates in the drafting of Indian Constitution

4.4.1 Dr. Ambedkar was the chairman heading the Drafting Committee of the Indian
Constitution. The provisions of Art. 356 of the Federation Constitution being borrowed from
the Indian Constitution, it is beneficial to refer to the intentions of the drafters when
constitutional provisions were deliberated in assembly.26

"In fact I share the sentiments expressed … that the proper thing we ought to expect is
that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead
letter. If at all, they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed
with all these powers, will take proper precautions before actually Suspending the
administration of the provinces. I hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a
mere warning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening in the way
in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution."

4.4.2 It is submitted that Dr. Ambedkar was evidently concerned of arbitrary use and
exploitation of the emergency powers under Art. 356 and further urged for use of this provision

26
Constituent Assembly Debates, vol 9, 177 (Ambedkar).

~15~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

by the President after the exhaustion of all other choices before resorting to declaring such
Emergency.

4.5 Permanent and irreversible changes to Annares under emergency is unconstitutional

4.5.1 It is most humbly submitted that demoting the State of Annares from “state” to “union
territory” in a permanent manner is unconstitutional and embodies arbitrary liberty to the
Parliament and President of the Federation.

4.5.2 Sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Art. 35627 provides that the powers of legislature of the
State shall be exercisable under the authority of the Parliament. Clause (3) of the same Article
makes it clear that Proclamations are temporary injunctions lasting for a period of six months
from the date of Proclamation and are extendable to a period not exceeding three years.

4.5.3 The above-mentioned provisions make it clear that Proclamations are temporary
injunctions placed on the functioning of a State to repair broken constitutional machinery. A
Proclamation is a method of resolution, where the State is brought back to the status quo before
constitutional breakdown, and not a permanent period of authority practised by the President
and Parliament. The State machinery, including the State Legislature would be replenished
after which the State can function in its natural capacity.

4.5.4 During the period of legislative authority of the Parliament over the State, the likings of
the Parliament can be enforced and enacted, enactments that have a direct effect on the
functioning of the State. This liberty violates a particular check that is placed on the Parliament
and President.

4.5.5 Art. 3 of the Federation Constitution enforces that the consent of the State Assembly is
necessary before a law-making change to the structure or territory of the State can be passed.
This particular check has been placed to limit arbitrary power of majority in the Parliament to
make variations to the State’s territory. The internal domestic sovereignty of the State is
enforced by the above provision.

27
INDIA CONST. art. 356, cl. 1, § b.

~16~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
|ARGUMENTS ADVANCED|ISSUE 2|

4.5.6 On dissolution of the State’s parliamentary assembly, there exists no body to provide the
said consent. A similar analysis of Article 3 was drawn in the case of Babulal Parate v. State
of Bombay28:

“The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State Legislature to express its
views within the time allowed; if the State Legislature fails to avail itself of that
opportunity, such failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill. Nor is there
anything in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views
of the State Legislature. Indeed, two State Legislatures may express totally divergent
views. All that is contemplated is that Parliament should have before it the views of the
State Legislatures as to the proposals contained in the Bill and then be free to deal with
the Bill in any manner it thinks fit, following the usual practice and procedure
prescribed by and under the rules of business. Thus the essential content of the second
condition is a reference by the President of the proposal contained in the bill to the
State Legislature to express its views.”

4.5.7 A permanent and irreversible change to the State in the absence of a State-level body to
consent to the bill translates to overarching powers of the Parliament when Art. 3 and Art. 356
and 357 of the Constitution are read together, hence it is prayed to be declared ultra-vires and
unconstitutional.

28
Babulal Parate vs State of Maharashtra., 1961 AIR 884 (India).

~17~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2ND IFIM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, the Hon’ble
Galactic Court of the United Federation of Planets be pleased declare and adjudge that:

1) The Prime Minister is not entitled to initiate a popular initiative within the meaning of
Article 368A of the Federation Constitution.

2) An “amendment bill” within the meaning of Article 368A cannot include a “package”
of proposed amendments that have absolutely no connection or unity of subject matter with
each other, with a view to being presented to the People in a referendum in an up-down vote.

3) Article 3 of the Federation Constitution does not empower the Federation/ Union
parliament to downgrade a State to a union territory.

4) A permanent and irreversible alteration to the structure of a State cannot be brought in

during the period that an Emergency under Article 356 is in progress.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel on behalf of PETITIONERS

Sd/-

~18~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS