S.V.

D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE O F CONTENTS ……………………………………………………........……...…..1

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………….......…………………………….….2

3. PROVISIONS OF ACT……………………………………………………..........………….4

4. ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………................................……..6

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………….......…………………….....7

6. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS …………………………………………………........………......8

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEFS ……………………………………………………........…...……14

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 1

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED:

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BARE PROVISIONS, By

PROFESSIONAL BOOK PUBLISHERS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, By J.N.PANDEY, CENTRAL LAW
AGENCY
N.K.ACHARYA’s CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ASIA LAW HOUSE

AIR, 1993

DYNAMIC LINKS :

 http://www.livelaw.in/
 https://indiankanoon.org/
 https://www.lawyers
 http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
 http://www.manupatra.com/
 https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 2

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949
2. THE 103RD AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:

1. State of Ap Vs Balaram

2. M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India &Ors.

3. Balaji Vs State of Mysore

4. Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 3

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. KALYAN

…..PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF INDIA

…..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 4

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

PROVISIONS OF ACT

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 violates several basic features
of the Constitution.

This Amendment essentially inserted Clause 6 to Art. 15 & Art.16 in the

Constitution which permits the following :

1. The State to provide for special reservations for economically weaker section
of citizens.

2. These economically weaker sections to be of those other than the backward

classes or SCs & STs.

3. These measures are subject to 10% of seats/posts in addition to the existing

reservations.

4. The reservations in Art.15(6) to be for unaided institutions as well,

notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 29(2) & 30(1).

The above 4 aspects violate the basic features of the Constitution, and
such violation ought to be prevented.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 5

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

ISSUES RAISED

1) Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 contravenes

any of Basic structure of Constitution of India ?

2) Whether the Add. 10% reservations for economically weaker sections

in educational institutions and public employment is violation of 50%
limit for reservations as laid down by Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney
Vs Union of India ?

3) Whether the Constitution of Hindustan permits the providing of

reservation basing solely on economic criteria ?

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 6

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 contravenes

any of Basic structure of Constitution of Hindustan ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that the
103rd Constitutional amendment Act, 2019 violates Art. 14 of the const., which is
the foremost basic feature of Constitution.

2. Whether the Add. 10% reservations for economically weaker sections in

educational institutions and public employment is violation of 50% limit for
reservations as laid down by Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of
India ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court,
that the 10% additional reservations provided for weaker sections through 103rd
amendment Act, 2019 is in violation to the judgement laid down in Indra
Sawhney case.

3. Whether the Constitution of Hindustan permits the providing of reservation

basing solely on economic criteria ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
providing of reservations only on the basis of economic criteria irrespective of
other factors for backwardness completely backdrops the constitutional norms.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 7

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

1. Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 contravenes

any of Basic structure of Constitution of Hindustan ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that the
103rd Constitutional amendment Act, 2019 violates Art. 14 of the const., which
is the foremost basic feature of Constitution.

From Maneka Gandhi, to Shayara Bano, the value of equality has been repeatedly
emphasized to ensure that equals are not treated unequally. Supreme Court has
upheld the equality code as one of the foremost basic features of the Const. But
in the 103rd amendment Act, the basic structure has been violated in the following
ways :

a) The existing reservation is 49.5% ( 22.5%+27% ). This amendment

provided additional 10% reservations, which currently resulted in 59.5%
of reservations to Bc’s, SC & ST and weaker sections of General category.
This amendment exceeded 50% limit, which in turn lessen the opportunity
for meritorious candidates. Equality has been the greatest craving of all
human beings at all the time. The equal balance between the meritorious
and reserve candidates has been collapsed by this amendment, by
exceeding the limit of 50%.

In the case of State of Ap Vs Balaram, Court has held that, in making

reservations for the backward classes, the state cannot ignore the fundamental
rights of the rest of the citizens and also held that state should not exceed
legitimate limits.

By way of the present amendments, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs
from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those
who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 8

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

This is an overwhelming violation of the basic feature of equality enshrined in

Art. 14 of the const. The Classification for special preference must be not be
unfair for the persons left of the favoured group.

b) Both the Constitution Bench judgements in T.M.A.Pai Foundation, and

P.A.Inamdar, make it clear that, the State’s reservation policy cannot be
imposed on unaided educational institutions, and as they are not receiving
any aid from the State, they can have their own admissions provided they
are fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit.

While the impugned amendment attempts to overcome the applicability of

Art.19(1)(g) & Art. 29(2), it remains completely silent on Art.14, which protects
the citizens from manifestly arbitrary State action. The majority in Shayara Bano
case, has specifically held manifestly arbitrariness destroys the Art. 14 of the
const.

Hence, the effective nationalization of unaided institutions to the extent of

economic reservation is violative of Art. 14 of the const. and against to the
constitutional morality which confers bunch of rights to the individuals.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 9

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

2. Whether the Add. 10% reservations for economically weaker sections

in educational institutions and public employment is violation of 50%
limit for reservations as laid down by SC in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of
India ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
the 10% additional reservations provided for weaker sections through 103rd
amendment Act, 2019 is in violation to the judgement laid down in Indra
Sawhney case.

The addition of Clause 6 to Art. 15 & Art. 16 provides 10% reservation in

addition to existing reservation, which is currently 59.5% ( 22.5% + 27% +
10%). The reservation benefit is more than 50% ceiling limit laid down by
Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case.

Acc. to Guidelines laid down in Indra Sawhney case is 50% ceiling limit
cannot be breached

The reservations contemplated in Art.15 or Art.16 should not exceed 50%. While
50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration except in
certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of the country and
the people. Extreme caution is to be exercised and unless special case is made
out.

Supreme Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench in the case of

M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India &Ors., upheld the Constitutional validity of
Article 16(4A) and the proviso to Article 335 in the following words:

“We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 10

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without

which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.”

The Court specifically states that “As stated above, be it reservation or evaluation,
excessiveness in either would result in violation of the constitutional mandate.”

In case of Balaji Vs State of Mysore, The maximum limit of reservation all put
together should not exceed 50% and if it exceeds, it is nothing but a fraud on the
Constitution. Such fraud cannot be protected through this amendment because it
is not only supressing the meritorious sections but also the other sections.

50% should be reserved for the whole group of backward communities. It is

extremely unreasonable to assume that in enacting Art. 15(6), Parliament
intended to provide for the advancement of the backward classes or the
Scheduled Castes and Tribes were concerned, the fundamental rights of the
citizens constituting the rest of the society were completely and absolutely
ignored.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 11

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

3. Whether the Constitution of Hindustan permits the providing of

reservation basing solely on economic criteria ?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
providing of reservations only on the basis of economic criteria irrespective of
other factors for backwardness completely backdrops the constitutional norms.

In Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India, the Constitution Bench specifically

stated that the economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservations under
the Constitution.

“It follows from the discussion that, a backward class cannot be determined
only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. It may be a
consideration on basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it
can never be the sole criterion. This is the view uniformly taken by this Court
and we respectfully agree with the same.”

In addition, Justice Sahai states that, “But any reservation or affirmative

action on economic criteria or wealth discrimination cannot be upheld under
doctrine of reasonable classification. Reservation for backward class seeks to
achieve the social purpose of sharing in services which had been monopolised
by few of the forward classes. To bridge the gap, thus created, the affirmative
actions have been upheld as the social and educational difference between the
two classes furnished reasonable basis for classification. Same cannot be said
for rich and poor. Indigence cannot be a rational basis for classification for
public employment.” If this amendment is allowed it raises the imbalances in
the society than supressing the sections which are backward in real and it
enables the undue benefit to forward communities.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 12

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

Economic weaker section is a section among all the communities irrespective of

caste and creed.

The above Constitution Amendment invariably violates the Constitutional

norm that economic criterion cannot be the only basis of reservation as laid
down by the 9 judges in Indira Sawhney, without removing the basis of the
judgement. Such an Amendment is hence, vulnerable and ought to be struck
down as it merely negates a binding judgement. The criterion for determining-
the backwardness must not be based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, or place
of birth, and, the backwardness being social, and educational must be similar to
the backwardness from which the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
suffer. Eventually, the sole basis of economically weaker section is to be held
null and void in the interest of social backward classes of Hindustan.

In Indira Sawhney Vs UoI, the Apex Court has laid down the rule, that any
legislation or executive action violates the basic structure of Const. would be
unconstitutional or invalid.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 13

 S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the light of the provisions stated, Issues raised, Arguments

advanced, Authorities cited & relied upon the petitioner’s submission before this
Honourable Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that :

1. to struck down the impugned Amendment Act, 2019, as it violates basic

structure of Const.,
2. to declare the Act, 2019 is unconstitutional, &
3. to upheld the integrity of nation.

MISCELLANEOUS

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity & good
conscience,

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, PETITIONER SHALL DULY BOUND

FOREVER PRAY.

Respectfully Submitted by,

Counsel for Petitioner.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 14

S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 15

S.V.D SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 2020

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 16