Team Code - 104P

6TH INTRA-CUM INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF MAHISURU
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2431 OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP (Civ.) No. 2356 of 2015)

Mr. Ganesan……………. Appellant(s)
Versus.
Mr. Pavaj, NCR of Ulan and Ors………... Respondent(s)

With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2011 of 2005

Mr. Manvel Murmu…………Petitioner

Versus
State of Momarastra and Anr………. Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MAHISURU

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................7
ISSUES RAISED......................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUENTS...............................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................11

1. A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD BY A

LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS...........................................................................11

1.1. Substantive question of law and its relativity to the case......................................11

1.2. Relativity of substantive question of law to Mr. Pavaj’s case...............................12

2. A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULE CASTE OF X NOMENCLATURE

RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961 IN THE ERSTWHILE STATE A IS ENTITLED

FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE RE-ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN THE SCHEDULE CAST OF X
NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES RE-ORGANIZED AS WELL............13

2.1. Re-organization of Morastra is valid under article 3 of the constitution of Mahisuru

13
2.2. President has validly considered Maki tribe as ST................................................13
2.3. Person to be eligible for reservation under SC/ST of any particular state must have
his/her name or his/her ancestor’s in the presidential order declaring any caste or tribe as
schedule caste or schedule tribe respectively in that particular state...............................14

3. NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULE CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF RESERVATION) ACT, 2005 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID...............................................................................................16

3.1. Against the principle of equality............................................................................16

3.2. Lack of legislative competence..............................................................................17

Page | I
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3. Against article 341.................................................................................................18

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................19

Page | II
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Schedule caste

ST Schedule Tribe

AIR All India Report

SCC Supreme Court Cases

BOM Bombay

Anr Another

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

UOI Union Of India

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

C.B.I Central Bureau of Investigation

NCT National Capital territory

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

Ors Others

W.P. Writ Petition

SLP Special Leave petition

Page | III
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 130......................................18
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors (1990) 3 SC C 130. .17
Radhabai Charansingh Chaware v. State of Maharashtra 2007(4)ALLMR38........................12, 15
Sanwat Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961, SC 715.........................................................11
Shweta Santalal Lal v. State of Maharashtra 2010(2)BomCR497..........................................12, 15
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. 1962 AIR 1314........................12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 136, The Constitution of India

2. Article 14, The Constitution of India
3. Article 341, The Constitution of India
4. Article 342, The Constitution of India
5. Article 145(3), The Constitution of India
6. Article 15(4) and 16(4), The Constitution of India

Page | IV
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mahisuru, the
Memorandum for the Petitioner under Article 136(SLP) and Article 32 (Writ Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court) of the Constitution of Mahisuru.
The Present Memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments advanced in the
present case.

Page | V
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CIVIL APPEAL 2431 OF 2016

MR. PAVAJ V/S NCR OF ULAN

 Baghyapuri is one of the States in Mahisuru. It may be mentioned that Urvi Three
community is highly discriminated and have settled in rural area of the State, mainly
working as agriculturists and manual labourers.
 The President by Order of 1961 identified inter alia Urvi three to be a Scheduled Caste in
the State of Baghyapuri.
 Mr. Megra belonging to Urvi three caste, was working as an agriculturist in the State of
Baghyapuri since his birth. He migrated with his family to NCT Ulan (similar to NCT
Delhi).
 Mr. Megra started working there. In the year 1975, Mr. Megra was married and within
two years thereafter, the couples were blessed with a child (Mr. Pavaj).
 In the year 2005, NCT of Ulan enacted a legislation titled Ulan Scheduled Caste
(rationalization of reservation Act), 2005. This legislation provided for reservation up to
2% for migrant SC/ST persons.
 In 2009, NCM, called for job applications for 50 vacancies in the Water Board. Acc.
advertisement published in newspaper 40% of the seats were kept reserved for the post
including 15% reserved for SC/ST as notified by the Presidential Order of 1961.
 Mr. Pavaj also applied and his application was rejected on the grounds that he was
migrant. He approached the High Court of NCR of Ulan, under writ jurisdiction The
High Court of Ulan to reconsider the application of Mr. Pavaj.
 Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, certain persons belonging to general category
has approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution by an order
dated 02.01.2017, the case was referred to a larger bench and was placed before the Chief
Justice of India for constituting appropriate bench.

WRIT PETITION (CIV.) NO. 2011 OF 2005

Mr. Manvel Murmu v. State of Morastra

Page | VI
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The ancestors of Manvel Murmu belonged to a class of Scheduled Tribe known as Maki
Tribe in the State of Morastra.
 Maki Tribe was notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order of 1962
concerning the State of Morastra.
 One Moril Murmu was born in the State of Morastra (Maarin City) in the year 1944.
After independence, he moved to Dunkun Islands for education in 1963. He studied
medical course in Dunkun Island and settled there as a medical practitioner.
 In the meanwhile, State of Morastra was reorganized into two States namely State of
Mujrat and State of Momarastra. The Reorganization was made under Morastra
Reorganization Act of 1974 which was notified from 01.01.1974.
 Mr. Moril Murmu married Mrs. Mama, who was also a member of Maki Tribe from State
of Morastra. In the year 1974, the couple were blessed with a baby Mr. Manvel Murmu
who was born on Dunkun island. Maki tribe is not recognized as a ST in Dunkun Island.
They moved back to Maarin City, which was now in the State of Momarastra.
 In the year 1995, when Mr. Manvel wanted to take admission in a State Engineering
College. His admission was considered under the SC/ST category and the college granted
the seat. But in the year 2002, when he finally passed the final examination, his degree
was not provided by the State Engineering College as according to them, he was not
entitled for a seat as he was not a SC/ST belonging to the State of Momarastra.
 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the college, Mr. Manvel Murmu approached
the Supreme Court in the year 2005. The Apex Court had heard the matter substantively,
when the counsels representing the State of Momarastra represented that a similar matter
in the Case of Mr. Ganesan v. Mr. Pavaj and Anr., was referred to a larger bench. Apex
court thought it fit to tag the present case with that case. Both the cases are listed for final
disposal before a bench of seven learned judges of the Supreme Court of Mahisuru.

Page | VII
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUES RAISED

Following are the issues that have arisen from the facts of the present case:

1. Whether a reference by a smaller bench could be rejected at the threshold by a larger

bench?
2. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, then on what grounds?
3. Whether a re-migrated person belonging to a Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature
recognized by the Presidential Order of 1961 in the erstwhile State A is entitled for
benefits given by the Re-organized State B and C, when the Scheduled Caste of X
Nomenclature is also recognized in those States reorganized States as well?
4. Whether the NCR of Ulan Scheduled Caste (rationalization of reservation) Act of 2005 is
constitutionally valid?

Page | VIII
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUENTS

[ISSUE I.] THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OF LAW
The SLP is maintainable in the court of law as it the natural rights of the parties are infringed and
there is a substantial question of law.
[ISSUE II.] A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD
BY A LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS

The reference made by smaller bench cannot be rejected by the larger bench as it involves
substantial question of law.
[ISSUE III.] A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULED CASTE OF X
NOMENCLATURE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961 IN THE ERSTWHILE
STATE A IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE RE-ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN

THE SCHEDULED CASTE OF X NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES

REORGANIZED STATES AS WELL

A re-migrated person belonging to a schedule caste of X nomenclature recognized by the

presidential order of 1961 in the erstwhile state A can claim benefits given by the re-organized
state B and C, when the schedule cast of X nomenclature is also recognized in those states re-
organized as well if he or his ancestors resided in the state at the time of presidential order
declaring SC/ST of that particular state.

[ISSUE IV.] THE NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULED CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF RESERVATION)

ACT OF 2005 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID

The constitutionality of the NCR of Ulan scheduled caste (rationalization of reservation) act of
2005 is challenged under Article 14 and Article 341 of constitution of Mahisuru. The concerned
act is against the basic principles of equality as it deprives the schedule caste of NCT of Ulan the
right equal opportunity. Moreover, the concerned Act is against Article 341 as this Act sub
categorises the Schedule caste of NCT of Ulan by introducing new category i.e. migrated person.
Furthermore, NCT of Ulan lacks the legislative competence to create a sub category of migrants.
Thus, the petitioner pleads that the NCR of Ulan scheduled caste (rationalization of reservation)
act of 2005 should be declared unconstitutional.

Page | IX
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT THE

THRESHOLD BY A LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS

(¶ 1.) Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal or other proceeding, the
Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the
matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing
of it.1
(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted that a smaller bench refers a case to a larger bench when a
substantive question of law is involved and the larger bench cannot reject it because then
such a matter would remain undecided and justice wouldn’t be assigned to the parties.

1.1. SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW AND ITS RELATIVITY TO THE CASE

(¶ 3.) A question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly

affects the rights of parties and/or there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the
issue."2
(¶ 4.) It is humbly submitted that the issues which are being dealt in Mr. Manvel
Murmu v. State of Morastra and Mr. Ganesan v. Mr. Pavaj, NCR of Ulan and others are
substantive question of law as they interfere with the rights of the parties. In both the
cases the rights of being the SC/ST of the state are being affected as they are not allowed
to claim the benefits out of those rights.
(¶ 5.) In the case of Mr. Manvel Murmu v. State of Morastra Mr. Manvel who was the
descendant of Mr. Moril Murmu a ST of state of Morastra was born in Dunken Island.
His father moved to Dunken Island in 1963 after the presidential order 1962 declaring
tribes of Morastra as schedule tribes of state of Morastra. After the re-organization of
Morastra the place where they lived earlier now lied in Momrastra. They came back to
Momrastra and Mr. Manvel started studying in a college. He got his admission in the
reserved category for STs but when the time came for giving him his degree he was
rejected by the college giving reason that he didn’t belong to the ST of Morastra.

1
Supreme Court Rules,2013 Order 6(2)
2
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. 1962 AIR 1314

Page | 1
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 6.) And ‘to enable a person to claim benefits of his belonging to a particular caste or
tribe, he would have to show that he or his ancestors belonged to a particular caste or
identified in relation to a states, or hailed from locality included in the Constitution.’ 3 The
date of such inclusion with reference to locality identified in the schedule too is equally
relevant in order to identify the person as belonging to caste included in the schedule.4
(¶ 7.) If a person migrates to a geographical area forming part of another State after the
date of Presidential Notification, such a person will be treated as a migrant, so also, the
children of such migrants born after the date of Presidential Notification will be entitled
to the benefits of reservation in the State where their parents were ordinarily resident.5
(¶ 8.) As in this case Mr. Manvel’s father was a resident of Morastra at the time of
presidential notification so he will also be entitled to claim the benefit. The college by not
giving him the benefit has affected his right. Therefore, this involves a substantive
question of law.

1.2. RELATIVITY OF SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW TO MR. PAVAJ’S CASE

(¶ 9.) In this case both the parties are directly getting affected by the 2 % reservation
given to the migrant person. On the one side the respondent who is denied the service on
account of being migrant person is directly affected by this act of water board. In spite of
there being an act which provided for reservation to migrants the respondents application
was not entertained by water board. Doubtless, the act of water board not accepting
application of respondent clearly shows conduct against the rights conferred to migrants.
On the other hand, the appellant whose interest is also at stake, according to him his
interest has been infringed by high court’s order to water board to reconsider the
application of Mr. Pavaj.
(¶ 10.) The common contention here is that of reservation, which is a part of fundamental
rights. The constitution being protector of fundamental rights has the duty to protect and
preserve them. The counsel hereby submits that this case involves substantive question of
law and should be dealt by a larger bench. Therefore, the reference made by the smaller
bench to the larger bench is valid and the reference cannot be rejected by the larger
bench.
3
Radhabai Charansingh Chaware v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(4)ALLMR38
4
Ibid.
5
Shweta Santalal Lal v. State of Maharashtra, 2010(2)BomCR497

Page | 2
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2. A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULE CASTE OF X

NOMENCLATURE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961 IN
THE ERSTWHILE STATE A IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE RE-
ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN THE SCHEDULE CAST OF X
NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES RE-ORGANIZED AS
WELL.

2.1. RE-ORGANIZATION OF MORASTRA IS VALID UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF MAHISURU

(¶ 11.) As per Article 3 of the Constitution of Mahisuru “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 or increase the area of any
State or diminish the area of any State or alter the boundaries of any State or alter the
name of any State”.6
(¶ 12.) It is humbly submitted that the parliament is empowered under article 3 to make
an act for reorganization of states and thus the Morastra Re-organization Act of 1974
enacted by parliament in the year 1974 of republic of Mahisuru 7 is validly and
constitutionally enacted and passed. Thus, Re-organization of Morastra is valid under
article 3 of the constitution of Mahisuru.

2.2. PRESIDENT HAS VALIDLY CONSIDERED MAKI TRIBE AS ST.

(¶ 13.) As per article 341 of the Constitution of Mahisuru provides that “the President
may with respect to any State or Union territory after consultation with the Governor by
public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes,
races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be
Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.”8
(¶ 14.) It is humbly submitted that president is empowered to consider a tribe or caste as
schedule caste and schedule tribe in particular state. The presidential order of 1962
considering the Maki tribe as schedule tribes in the state of Morastra is constitutionally

6
Constitution of India, article 3.
7
Moot proposition, pg 11.
8
Constitution of India, article 341.

Page | 3
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

enacted using the power under article 341 of Constitution of Mahisuru. Thus, the
president has validly considered Maki tribe as ST.

2.3. PERSON TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RESERVATION UNDER SC/ST OF ANY PARTICULAR

STATE MUST HAVE HIS/HER NAME OR HIS/HER ANCESTOR’S IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

DECLARING ANY CASTE OR TRIBE AS SCHEDULE CASTE OR SCHEDULE TRIBE RESPECTIVELY

IN THAT PARTICULAR STATE.

(¶ 15.) ‘To enable a person to claim benefits of his belonging to a particular caste or
tribe, he would have to show that he or his ancestors belonged to a particular caste or
identified in relation to a states, or hailed from locality included in the Constitution.’ 9 The
date of such inclusion with reference to locality identified in the schedule too is equally
relevant in order to identify the person as belonging to caste included in the schedule.10
(¶ 16.) If a person migrates to a geographical area forming part of another State after the
date of Presidential Notification, such a person will be treated as a migrant, so also, the
children of such migrants born after the date of Presidential Notification will be entitled
to the benefits of reservation in the State where their parents were ordinarily resident.11
(¶ 17.) It is submitted that a person of scheduled caste and schedule tribe community
claiming benefit of reservation would have to show that he is the resident or domicile of
that particular state before commencement of presidential order which consider a
community as sc/st.
(¶ 18.) The reorganization of states is not a material consideration in deciding the rights
of the parties with reference to their castes/tribes. If a person is entitled for reservation
under sc/st in a particular state, then even after its reorganization and division into two
states he/she can claim such reservation under sc/st but the limitation to such clause is
that the reorganized states should have to continue reservation to sc/st within their
territories.
(¶ 19.) Moreover, if a person migrates or transfers to another state after the
commencement of presidential order then also his/her right of reservation under sc/st
remain valid and sustain and he/she can validly claim reservation after remigration to

9
Radhabai Charansingh Chaware v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(4)ALLMR38
10
Ibid.
11
Shweta Santalal Lal v. State of Maharashtra, 2010(2)BomCR497

Page | 4
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

such state but he/she has to prove that his/her ancestors hailed from the particular state on
or before the date of presidential order.
(¶ 20.) A re-migrated person refers to the person who first migrate to another state from
the state where his/her origin is and then further migrate to his original state from the
place where he was migrated. Thus, in this scenario such re-migrated person has valid
claim of reservation under sc/st category even after reorganization of such state if he/she
follows all the grounds and provision stated above. Also, his/her progeny has valid claim
to reservation under sc/st category if his/her ancestors has the same.
(¶ 21.) In the present fact scenario, justification to such reasoning can be derived as in the
case of Manvel Murmu v. State of Maharashtra; the reorganization of Morastra act 1974
was passed by parliament. The act was passed after declaration of Maki Tribe as
Schedule tribe by presidential order in year 1962.
(¶ 22.) In this case, the Moril Murmu ancestor of Manvel Murmu was born in state of
Morastra in year 1944 and belonged to a class of Scheduled Tribe Known as Maki tribe
declared by presidential order in year 1962. He moved to Dunkun islands in year 1963
and married there. Mr. Manvel Murmu was the son of Moril Murmu and born in Dunkun
island. In meanwhile in the year 1974, State of Morastra was reorganized into two states
namely State of Mujrat and State of Momarastra. Even after reorganization the
reservation to sc/st was continued in both the states. In year 1995 Mr. manvel return to
state of Momaratra and take admission in college under sc/st category and benefit under
the same was given to him in state of Momarastra but later it was denied to him.
(¶ 23.) It is submitted that by connecting the dots between the reasoning stated above and
this case, it can be easily derived that Mr. Moril was entitled for reservation if he re-
migrated to state of Morastra or to reorganised states. Thus, as the Mr. Manvel was
progeny of Mr. Morul and even he was a migrant person, also then he was entitled to get
benefit under reservation in state of Momaratra as his ancestor was belonged to and
hailed from such state before commencement of presidential order.
(¶ 24.) Thus, a re-migrated person belonging to a schedule caste of X nomenclature
recognized by the presidential order of 1961 in the erstwhile state A is entitled for
benefits given by the re-organized state B and C, when the schedule cast of X
nomenclature is also recognized in those states re-organized as well.

Page | 5
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULE CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF

RESERVATION) ACT, 2005 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID

(¶ 25.) It is humbly submitted to the honourable supreme court that the NCR of Ulan
schedule caste (rationalization of reservation) Act, 2005 is constitutionally invalid as per
article 341 of the constitution of Mahisuru. The concerned act creates a sub category in
the state causing disadvantage to the reserved category of that particular state.

3.1. AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY

(¶ 26.) The basic principle of the constitution of Mahisuru is equality and all the acts and
laws which are made in Mahisuru should be in accordance to the principle of equality.
The concerned act by introducing 2 % reservation for the migrant persons is in a way
taking the schedule caste of the NCT at disadvantage as earlier this 2% reservation was
also given to the schedule caste of NCT of Ulan.
(¶ 27.) In the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College
and Ors12. it was said that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a
particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they
are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas
should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of
the community who suffer from inabilities in those areas.13
(¶ 28.) In the instant case the clause of reservation to migrants deprives schedule caste of
that area of right to equal opportunity as the reservation for migrants is made within the
reserved seats of the schedule caste of that area. There should be balance in the country’s
integrity so that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to
other community or part of community or section.14
(¶ 29.) It is hereby submitted by the counsel that the aforesaid act is against the basic
principle of equality as the main clause of the act clearly shows the glimpse of inequality
towards the schedule caste resident of NCT of Ulan.

3.2. LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

12
(1990) 3 SCC 130.
13
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors (1990) 3 SC C 130.
14
ibid

Page | 6
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 30.) The State /UT has no competence to make any law in regard to bifurcation of the
Presidential List of Scheduled Castes prepared under Article 341(1) of the Constitution,
therefore the concerned Act being one solely meant for sub-dividing or sub-grouping the
castes enumerated in the Presidential List, the same suffers from lack of legislative
competence15. The reservation given to migrants under the reservation provided to
schedule caste of NCT of Ulan can be considered as subdivision of schedule caste by
introducing new category of migrants.
(¶ 31.) In the guise of exercising its legislative competence under Entry 41 in List II or
Entry 25 of List III the State Legislature cannot exercise its legislative power so as to
make a law tinkering with the Presidential List because the said Entries do not permit any
law being made in regard to Scheduled Castes.16 In the guise of providing opportunity to
some of the castes in the list of Scheduled Castes the State cannot invoke Entry 41 of List
II and Entry 25 of List III to divide the Scheduled Castes.
(¶ 32.) Thus, it is humbly submitted by counsel that allotting a separate percentage of
reservation from amongst the total reservation allotted to the Scheduled Castes to a
different group amongst the Scheduled Castes amounts to depriving one class of the
benefits of such reservation at least partially.

3.3. AGAINST ARTICLE 341

(¶ 33.) Acc. Article 341(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union
territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes
in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be17
(¶ 34.) It is clear that the castes once included in the Presidential List, form a class by
themselves. If they are one class under the Constitution, any division of these classes of
persons based on any consideration would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List.
(¶ 35.) In the present case the reservation given to migrants within the already reserved
seats for schedule caste amount to sub categorisation which is against article 341 as only

15
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 130
16
ibid
17
The constitution of India 1950, s 341(1).

Page | 7
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

the president is competent to declare any caste or class SC/ST or create any subclass
within the already declared SC/ST. The counsel hereby submits that the sub
categorisation done by state is against article 341 and makes the Act constitutionally
invalid.

Page | 8
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts displayed, issues raised, disputes advanced and controls
alluded to Court, it is most compliantly asked and implored before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Mahisuru generously announce and declare that this Hon'ble Court may be fulfilled to: -
1. Hold that the reference by a smaller bench could not be rejected at the threshold by a
larger bench.
2. Entitle re-migrated person belonging to a Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature recognized
by the Presidential Order of 1961 in the erstwhile State A for benefits given by the Re-
organized State B and C, when the Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature is also
recognized in those States reorganized States as well.
3. Declare Ulan Scheduled Caste (rationalization of reservation Act), 2005 as
unconstitutional.

The Court being satisfied may in like manner make any such demand as it may regard fit in the
light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this demonstration of kindness the petitioner might as compelled bound ever humble
pray.
Respectfully submitted
S/d

(Counsel Appearing for Petitioner)

Page | X
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION