Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TEAM CODE:
V.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................... iv
I.1.1 That the Rule of Locus Standi is relaxed in the case of a PIL ............................... 1
I.1.2 That the PIL fulfills all criteria to have a locus standi........................................... 2
I.2 That prima-facie case for breach of Fundamental Rights under Article 14 has been
established .......................................................................................................................... 4
I.2.1 That the amendment act is against the principle of reasonableness ...................... 4
II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW ....... 6
II.1.2 That the amendment act is not conducive to the functioning of the modern
society ............................................................................................................................ 7
II.1.3 That the amendment act violates Article 14 of the Constitution ....................... 8
i
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
II.2 That the Amendment Act fails to make permissible classification ............................. 9
II.2.2 That the object of the amendment act is to allow continuance of convicts as
electors ........................................................................................................................... 9
II.3 That the Amendment Act cannot overturn the judgment of the court ...................... 11
II.4 That the Amendment Act makes an attempt to preclude Judicial review ................. 13
II.4.1. That the government has made an attempt to preclude judicial review ............ 13
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 16
ii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
& And
Paragraph
Section
Anr. Another
Assn. Association
Corpn. Corporation
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
P. Page
SC Supreme Court
Vol. Volume
v. Versus
iii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily
Thomas Case, 1 International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 66 (2013). ................ 3
Association of Democratic Reforms, Press Release, Analysis of Candidates and elected
MLAs from 2008 Assembly election ............................................................................... 3
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, How Indian Voters Respond to Candidates with Criminal
Charges: Evidence from the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, 49(4) Economic & Political
Weekly 103,105 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 10
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S.
Subbramani & V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 2, 8th ed. 2012 ............................. 5
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani
& V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 3, 8th ed. 2012 .............................................. 13
Dr. Mallikarjun I Minch, Criminalisation Of Politics And Indian Administration, 2 Spectrum:
A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 34, 34 (2013). ....................................................... 3
Justice M.N Ventakachaliah, Report Of The National Commission To Review The Working
Of The Constitution Of India., Electoral Process and Political Parties 7 (2000) ................. 8
Ministry Of Law And Justice, Government Of India, Dinesh Goswami, Report Of The
Committee On Electoral Reforms .......................................................................................... 8
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India , N.N Vohra, Vohra Committee Report, ..... 10
Ministry Of Law and Justice, Government Of India, Background Paper On Electoral
Reforms, 8, (December, 2010) ............................................................................................. 10
Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs, Government Of India, Indrajit Gupta
Committee Report on state funding of elections, 21, (December, 1998) ............................. 8
T.S Krishnamurthy, The Miracle Of Democracy, Indias Amazing Journey, 219 (2008)
.............................................................................................................................................. 11
iv
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
CASES
v
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
vi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010(12) SCALE
217.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 .................................................. 2
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007)4SCC380 ..................................................... 2
vii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
viii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The material case arises out of a public interest litigation filed by Peoples Upliftment
Organization and Mr. Yashwant Angre against the State of Lindiya before the Supreme Court
of Lindiya to strike down The Lindiyan Representation of The Citizens (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2013.
I. BACKGROUND:
3. By 2013, Lindiya had become an industrial country and in the year 1991, the
economy was made more market-oriented by initiating economic liberalisation. LDP had
been at the helm of affairs for 34 of the 68 years after independence and for the remaining
years, the Lindiyan Peoples Party (hereinafter, LPP) was in power. While economic growth
at a rapid pace had ameliorated the image of the country, a series of scams involving political
figures since 1995 had damaged the countrys reputation. News articles rebuking candidates
contesting elections became common.
4. Mr. Ranjeet Thadani, the leader of the LDP, came from one of the wealthies families
of Lindiya. While it formed the central government from 1990 to 2000, LDP lost public trust
as a result of several scams which ran through their government. LPP came to power after
2000 elections.
5. In May 2005, Mr. Thadani was invited by the Star of Lindiya news channel along
with Mr. Yashwant Angre, leader of the LPP and Mr. Shekhar Verma, senior member of the
ix
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
LPP. Mr. Verma accused the Thadani family of being the reason behind Lindiyas split. Mr.
Thadani responded by saying that the split was a result of the actions of the followers of
Fargoism who, in his opinion, were motivated by their religious needs. He went on to remark
that there was something very unhealthy about the followers of Fargoism, accusing them of
being the reason behind the riots of 1947. There were protests the next day. Mr. Thadani was
charged with section 153A (b) and section 295A of the Lindiyan Penal Code. In September
2007, he was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment by the Sessions Court. Conviction under
section 295A was overturned by the High Court.
6. By the year 2010, Lindiya had emerged as one of the developed countries of the world
and had made full use of nuclear power for both peaceful as well as military purpose. LDP
returned to power in 2010. Some cabinet ministers had prior criminal records and some were
facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Thadani was
released.
7. The desired result of corruption free politics in Lindiya was far from being achieved.
In July 2013, the Supreme Court of Lindiya held that citizens convicted of certain offences
could no longer stand for elections. Immediately after this judgment, the government
amended The Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens Act to reverse the judgment.
8. Peoples Upliftment Organization, an NGO, was working towards clean politics and
constantly demanded that elections should not be contested by those who have a criminal
record, as it offends politics ethics and was not in the best interest of the nation. Mr.
Yashwant Angre remarked in one of his speeches that those who govern this nation must do
so with clean hands. In December 2014, Peoples Upliftment Organization along with Mr.
Yashwant Angre filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of Lindiya to strike down the
amendment.
x
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court of Lindiya is
maintainable.
II. Whether The Lindiyan Representation of the Citizen's (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2013 constitutional.
xi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Public interest litigation can be filed for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article
32 and if an act of the State runs contrary to the Constitution, the rule of locus standi is
relaxed so as to facilitate justice and further public interest. Article 14 has been violated by
the amendment made by the government, which hampers the interest of the public. The
amendment also furthers the spirit of constitutionalism. It is argued that the present PIL is
maintainable since: I.1] The PIL pertains to decriminalization of Politics which is in public
interest and the petitioners fulfill all conditions to get locus standi; I.2] A prima -facie case
for breach of Article 14 has been established as there is no reasonableness in the amendment
act.
II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW
Any act would be struck down if it is not found to be valid on the touchstone of the
Constitution. The amendment is not good in the eyes of the law as: II.1] The legislative action
in this case is arbitrary as there is substantive unreasonableness in the act; II.2] The
amendment act fails to pass the test of permissible which makes it violative of Article 14;
II.3] The amendment act overturns a judgment which is not permissible in law; II.4] The
amendment act makes an attempt to preclude judicial review, a basic structure of the
Constitution, and such an attempt renders the amendment unconstitutional.
xii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Lindiya1 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights2, as guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution.3 It is humbly submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation filed to strike
down the Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act, 20134
is maintainable primarily on two grounds: I.1] That the petitioners have locus standi to file
the present PIL; I.2] That there is Prima Facie breach of fundamental rights under Article 14.
I.1.1 That the Rule of Locus Standi is relaxed in the case of a PIL
2. In public law, the rule that only the aggrieved person is entitled to seek judicial
redress has been liberalised to include any public-spirited individual or association.5 In
instances of public wrong or injury, if an act or omission by the State runs contrary to the
Constitution then any member of the public has locus standi.6
3. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Amendment Act is against public interest,
and is against part III of the Constitution. The rule of locus standi was relaxed in Bar Council
of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar & Others,7and since the petitioners in this case are acting
bona fide,8 they have a locus standi to file this PIL.
4. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed against the State for the violation of
Fundamental rights9 under Article 32 of the Constitution. PIL is undertaken for the purpose
of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, diffused rights
and interests or vindicating public interest, any citizen acting bona fide has to be accorded
standing.10
5. In the present case, the PIL was filed before the Honble Supreme Court of Lindiya to
strike down the Amendment to Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens Act, 195111 which
was enacted to increase its ambit enough to reverse the Judgment of this Honble Court,
passed on 10th July 2013,12 as it is in contravention with a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Constitution.
I.1.2 That the PIL fulfills all criteria to have a locus standi
6. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India,13 it has been observed that in
determining the question of locus standi in public interest litigation the Court must look
into: (i) the credentials of the applicant; (ii) prima facie correctness of information; (iii)
information should show failure of public duty (iv) must not go into merits of the case.14
7. In the present case, the applicants are an NGO called the Peoples Upliftment
Oraganization, an organization working towards clean politics15and Mr. Yashwant Angre
(Leader of LPP)16. Politicians with a genuine cause are not debarred from participating in
PILs as petitioners17 or respondent,18 and the PIL in question raises a very pertinent issue of
criminalization of politics in Lindiya.
8. Among the cabinet ministers elected in 2010 elections in Linidya, some had prior
criminal records and some were facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.19 The object of the petitioners is to check the entry of convicts in active politics, as
the impugned amendment makes it possible for convicts to contest elections. The amendment
act has already been passed to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court,20 and has been
approved by the President of Lindiya.21 Hence, all conditions of a valid Public Interest
Litigation have been fulfilled.
10
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
11
Herein after referred to as The Act.
12
Factsheet, 14.
13
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380.
14
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 at 27-30.
15
Factsheet
16
Factsheet, 10.
17
Golden Granites v. V. K. Shanmugam AIR 1997 Raj 24.
18
Raja Ram v. State of U.P. 1998 AIHC 1016.
19
Factsheet, 13.
20
Factsheet, 14.
21
Ibid.
2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
22
Dr. Mallikarjun I Minch, Criminalisation Of Politics And Indian Administration, 2 Spectrum: A Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research 34, 34 (2013).
23
Ibid.
24
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 66 (2013).
25
Association of Democratic Reforms, Press Release, Analysis of Candidates and elected MLAs from
2008 Assembly election.
26
Trilochan Sastry , Towards the De-Criminalization of Elections and Politics, 2 Working Paper No. 436,
Indian Istitute of Management, Bangalore (2013).
27
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 68 (2013).
28
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others (1982) 3 SCC 235 1.
3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
of India & Others29, this court observed that public interest litigation is part of the process of
participative justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal
reception at the judicial doorsteps.
14. Public interest, therefore, means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or
a section of the public is interested30 or the means of concern which is advantageous to
people as a whole.31 This landmark Supreme Court judgment was delivered, whereby citizens
who were convicted of certain offences could no longer stand for election.32 This judgment
was a welcome step as a recent survey shows that a vast majority of the population, about 98
per cent, want criminals out of Parliament and Assemblies33.
15. In the light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the petitioners enjoy locus standi
in this case and hence, the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.
I.2 THAT PRIMA-FACIE CASE FOR BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14
HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
16. The right to move the Supreme Court where a fundamental right has been infringed is
in itself a fundamental right.34
17. The Supreme Court is constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights,
and it is the duty35 of the Supreme Court to grant relief under Article 32, where the existence
of a fundamental right and its breach, actual or threatened,36 is prima facie established,37
however laudable the object of the respondent might be.38 It is hereby submitted that the
fundamental right under Article 14 stands violated.
29
Sindri & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1981 SC 844 6.
30
Kuttisankaran Nair v. Kumaran Nair, AIR 1965 Ker 161 12.
31
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 30.
32
Ibid.
33
Business Line- Avaaz Survey, September 6, 2013.
34
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 21.
35
Ibid.
36
Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
37
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
38
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570.
39
Factsheet, 14.
4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
40
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
41
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 67 (2013).
42
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
43
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 2, 8th ed. 2012, p. 1384.
44
Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 67.
45
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2371 64.
46
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Ananthi Ammal & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2114 17.
47
Factsheet, 14.
5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
Litigation filed before the Supreme Court is in the interest of the public. Therefore, it is
humbly pleaded, that the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.
II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW
25. It is humbly submitted, that in the light of the laws, cases and arguments mentioned
below, the Amendment Act is not good in the eyes of law on the basis of following four
grounds : II.1] That the legislative action of state is arbitrary II.2] That the Amendment Act
fails to make a reasonable classification II.3] That the Amendment Act cannot overturn the
Judgment of the court II.4] That the Amendment Act precludes Judicial Review. Article
13(2) of the Constitution of Lindiya makes any law which is inconsistent with this
fundamental right void ab initio.48
48
Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1019.
49
Basheshar Nath v.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149, 25.
50
Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631, 26.
51
Ibid., 6.
52
Maneka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
53
Associated Provincial Picture v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223.
54
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy . State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 14.
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
alone.55 Right to equality means not only the right to be not discriminated, but also protection
against arbitrary or irrational act of the State.56
30. It is respectfully urged that the absence of arbitrary power is an essential of the rule of
law upon which our entire constitutional framework rests its edifice. 57 To complain of a
denial of equality in the sense of non-arbitrariness, the petitioner need not allege
discrimination vis a vis others.58
II.1.2 That the amendment act is not conducive to the functioning of the modern society
31. By the medium of the impugned amendment act, a separate classification is made for
convicts of certain offences, and the object of the classification is to enable them to contest
elections.
32. In Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.59, a test
was laid down by this Honble Court to determine reasonability and rationality of a
classification- is the classification conducive to the functioning of modern society? 60 If it
is, then it is certainly reasonable and rational.
33. In the present case, the purpose of the classification is to make those citizens of
Lindiya, who were convicted of certain offences and debarred by a Supreme Court judgment
from standing for elections61, competent to contest elections.
34. It is humbly submitted that the desire of corruption-free politics in Lindiya was far
from being achieved.62 It was this widespread corruption in politics which was the basis
behind the landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 10, 2013. Even some of the cabinet
ministers of the government of Lindiya, who were elected in the 2010 elections, had prior
criminal records and some were facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.63
35. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution was set up and
one of the suggestions in pursuance of electoral reforms was regarding entry of criminals in
55
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322.
56
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, 9.
57
A.P. Agarwal v. Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600.
58
Kalra v. P. E. C., AIR 1984 SC 1361.
59
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010 (12) SCALE 217.
60
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010(12) SCALE 217, 28.
61
Factsheet, 14.
62
Ibid.
63
Factsheet, 13.
7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
politics.64 The importance of electoral reforms and obliterating criminalization of politics was
again well elucidated in the Indrajit Gupta Committee Report.65
36. An effective democracy functioning through periodic free and fair elections is part of
the basic structure of the Constitution.66 Rapid criminalization of politics was mentioned as
one of the dangers to free and fair elections in the Dinesh Goswami Report on Electoral
Reforms.67
37. Data suggest that criminal candidates are significantly wealthier than those with
criminal charges.68 So, criminal candidates generate positive externalities to candidates of
their own party since their additional contributions release party funds which can be used in
other constituencies.69 Hence, political parties see these candidates as an advantage.
38. Thus, the purpose of the amendment act is to circumvent the judgment of the Court
in an artful manner to provide a gateway to convicts to enter electoral politics. The
amendment is a crafty scheme of the government and lacks an element of bona fide.
39. It is humbly submitted, therefore, that the classification in question does not seem
conducive to the functioning of modern society, as it defeats the agenda of corruption-free
politics by once allowing the entry of convicts in electoral politics.
64
Justice M.N Ventakachaliah, Report Of The National Commission To Review The Working Of The
Constitution Of India., Electoral Process and Political Parties 7 (2000), Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v1ch1.htm , last seen on 1/9/2015
65
Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs, Government Of India, Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on
state funding of elections, 21, (December, 1998) Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Indrajit%20Gupta%20Committee%20Report.pdf last seen on 31/08/2015
66
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, 213.
67
Ministry Of Law And Justice, Government Of India, Dinesh Goswami, Report Of The Committee On
Electoral Reforms, 14 (May, 1990) Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdf. last
seen on 27/08/2015.
68
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, What makes criminals tick in politics, The Financial Express, 10 (Delhi,
29/01/2013).
69
Ibid.
70
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2276 37.
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
41. Whenever there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or the
executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action.71
II.2.2 That the object of the amendment act is to allow continuance of convicts as electors
44. 16( 1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 195075 provides that a person
shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is for the time being disqualified
from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in
connection with elections.
45. 4 of the Act lays down the qualifications for membership of the House of the People
and one of the qualifications laid down is that the person must be an elector for any
Parliamentary constituency.
46. 5 of the Act lays down the qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly
of a State and one of the qualifications laid down is that he must be an elector for any
Assembly constituency in that State.
47. 62 of the Act entitled Right to vote provides in sub-section (5) that no person shall
vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or
71
Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487.
72
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234.
73
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
74
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
75
Hereinafter, the 1950 Act.
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. The proviso to sub-
section (5) of 62 of the Act, however, states that the sub-section will not apply to a person
subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force.
48. Thus, by 3, the Amendment act purports to enable the continuance as elector in the
Electoral Roll those who would otherwise stand disqualified to be electors.
49. By 2, the Amendment act ensures that disqualifications for membership of
Parliament and State Legislatures takes place only on the basis of the provisions of Chapter
III of the Act.
76
Factsheet, 14.
77
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India , N.N Vohra, Vohra Committee Report,
(October 1993) Available at
http://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/VOHRA%20COMMITTEE%20REPORT_0.pdf. last seen on 25/08/2015.
78
Ministry Of Law and Justice, Government Of India, Background Paper On Electoral Reforms, 8,
(December, 2010) Available at http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/ereforms/bgp.doc, last seen on 17/08/2015.
79
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, How Indian Voters Respond to Candidates with Criminal Charges:
Evidence from the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, 49(4) Economic & Political Weekly 103,105 (2014).
80
Ibid.
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
unfeigned democracy,81 and therefore the judgment of the Court was a dire need and
something which the circumstances demanded.
II.3 THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT CANNOT OVERTURN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
81
T.S Krishnamurthy, The Miracle Of Democracy, Indias Amazing Journey, 219 (2008).
82
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
83
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138.
84
Krishnaswami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407.
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
not have been given in the altered circumstances.85 Even if there is legislative competence, it
is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the Court shall not bind, for it
tantamounts to exercise of judicial power, which the legislature does not possess or
exercise.86
61. The Act was quickly amended after the landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 10,
201387 and no substantial change in circumstances had occurred. Thus, there were no
fundamental alterations in the conditions on which the judgment was based, as Lindiya did
not become free from the predicament of corruption in politics. The judgment was delivered
to counter criminalization in politics, and it was not allowed to meet its objective.
of such conviction ceases to be an elector, as defined in the Act in relation to the constituency
to mean a person whose name is entered in electoral rolls of the constituency for the time
being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16
of the 1950 Act, continues to be an elector and thus, still be able to contest elections.
67. When power is exercised in bad faith to attain ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of
power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal, it is called a colorable
exercise of power.92 When the custodian of power is influenced in exercise of its power by
considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the action becomes
bad for the reason that power has not been exercised bona fide for the end design.93
68. It is therefore submitted, that since the government exercised its power only to
overturn the judgment, it lacked an element of bona fide. The goal was only to provide a
passage to convicts of certain offences to mainstream electoral politics. The impugned
amendment act, therefore, is a piece of colorable legislation.
69. Thereby, it is submitted before this Honble Court that the impugned amendment act
cannot overturn the landmark judgment of this Honble Court of July 10, 2013.
II.4 THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT MAKES AN ATTEMPT TO PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW
II.4.1. That the government has made an attempt to preclude judicial review
70. Judicial review is the process by which the courts decide whether action of
government officials comply with the Constitution,94 and the power of judicial review is
implicit in a written Constitution.95 It is the power of the Courts to pass upon the
constitutionality of actions taken by any of the co-ordinate branches of government.
71. Judicial review in India deals with three aspects- judicial review of legislative action,
judicial review of judicial decision and judicial review of administrative action.96
72. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,97 it was held that the Constitution has created
an independent judiciary which is vested with the power of judicial review to determine the
validity of legislation, which aims to protect citizens from abuse or misuse of power by any
branch of the State.
92
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 4.
93
Ibid.
94
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 3, 8th ed. 2012, p. 3764.
95
A.K. Kaul v.Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1403, 12.
96
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 55.
97
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
73. The legislature may seek to preclude judicial review, in whole or in part, wither by
direct words, such as final or conclusive98 or indirectly.99 It is submitted that the
legislature by way of amendment act has precluded judicial review by way of 4 in the
amendment which states that Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree
or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have
effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times.
74. It is hereby submitted that by this clause in the amendment act, the government tries
to preclude judicial review. Hence, due to this attempt of the government, it is submitted that
the amendment act should be rendered unconstitutional.
98
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 1, 8th ed. 2012, p. 915.
99
Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, 203.
100
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
101
Rajkrishna v. Binod, AIR 1954 SC 202 18.
102
Supra 74 at 1227.
103
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861 7.
104
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, 135-136.
105
Supra 72.
106
Srinivasa v. Veeraiah, (1992) 3 SCC 63, 7.
107
Supra 74 at 1227.
14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
108
Supra 98.
15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that this Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
That the Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2013 is unconstitutional and consequentially strike down the Lindiyan Representation of the
Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.
16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS