BEFORE THE
  HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYA LAND
Writ Jurisdiction

Under Article 32 of Constitution of Arya Land

IN THE MATTER OF

 Association of Aryans (AOA)         …………………………….

…    Petitioner
Versus

 Government of Arya land    ………………………………    Respondents

_____________________________________________
______
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYA LAND
_____________________________________________
__          
                        MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………… III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………. IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………. V
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………..... VI
 ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………… VII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………... VIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………...……………….. IX

Whether the public interest litigation is maintainable or not

Whether the Notification issued on 8th november violates the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the constitution
PRAYER ......................................................................................  XIV
 ABBREVIATIONS USED
Sec.                                                                 :                                   Section
AIR                                                                 :                                   All India Report
Art.                                                                  :                                   Article
Hon’ble                                                           :                                   Honorable
Ltd.                                                                 :                                   Limited
SC                                                                   :                                   Supreme Court
SCC                                                                :                                   Supreme Court Cases
Cr.P.C.                                                                        :                                   Criminal
Procedure Code      
C.P.C.                                                             :                                   Civil Procedure Code
BCI                                                                 :                                   Bar Council of India
u/s                                                                    :                                   under section
r/w                                                                   :                                   read with
Yrs.                                                                 :                                   Years
v. / vs.                                                              :                                   Versus
Cr.L.J.                                                             :                                   Criminal Law Journal
&                                                                     :                                   and
Pg.                                                                   :                                   Page
Ors.                                                                 :                                   Others
Anr.                                                                 :                                   Another
Edn.                                                                :                                   Edition
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statues:
         The Constitution of India
         The Reserve Bank Of  India Act, 1934
         Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 
                          
Cases:
         Krishna swami v. Union of India  (1992) 4 SCC 605
         S. P. Gupta v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149
         M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , AIR 1987 SC 1086
         Jayantilal Ratanchand  Shah v. Reserve Bank of India and ors. jt 1996 (7),681  1996 SCALE
(5) 741
         State of Rajasthan v. vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933, 935
         Kasturilal v. state of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1039
         Shyam sunder v. state of Rajasthan. AIR 1974 SC 890 Para. 21.
         Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI, MANU/DE/3311/2016, Crl. A. 1177/2016
         Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR2006SC2609

Books:
         Dr.Jai Jai Ram Upadhyay, The Constitution of India, Central Law Agency, 2015
         The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 , Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd.
         Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Eastern Book Company, 33rd Edt.2014.
         Dr. J.N. Pandey,Constitutional Law Of India,52nd Edition ,Central Law Agency,2015
Websites referred :
         www.manupatra.com                                      www.indiakanoon.org
         www.scconline.com                                    en.wikipedia.org 

Statement of Jurisdiction
The Petitioner , association of aryans  have  filed a  Petition through the Public Interest
Litigation under article 32 of constitution of arya land  before  Hon’ble Supreme court
against  The Notification Of the DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ( DEA ) OF
FINANCE MINISTRY OF ARYA LAND Issued on 8TH NOVEMBER 2016.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and the arguments

STATEMENT OF FACTS

         The incidence of fake Aryan currency notes in higher denomination has increased. For ordinary persons,
the fake notes look similar to genuine notes, even though no security feature has been copied. The fake
notes are used for anti-national and illegal activities. High denomination notes have been misused by
terrorists and for hoarding black money.
Thus On November 8, 2016. Prime Minister of Arya land announced in a broadcast to the nation that “The
legal tender character of the existing bank notes in denominations of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 issued by the
Aryan Reserve bank till November 8, 2016 stands withdrawn and that Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes
 would no longer be recognized legally as currency’’. He noted that the move complements the
country’s Swachh Arya Abhiyan  (Clean Aryan campaign).
 The aim behind the government’s action was to combat tax cheating, counterfeiting and
corruption
         In consequence thereof these Bank Notes cannot be used for transacting business and/or
store of value for future usage. The Specified Bank Notes could be exchanged for value at
any of the 19 offices of the Aryan Reserve bank or at any of the bank branches of commercial
banks/ Regional Rural Banks/ Co-operative banks or at any Head Post Office or Sub-Post
Office.
 Initially, the move received support from people, several bankers as well as from some
international commentators.
After some time The move was heavily criticized as allegedly poorly planned and unfair, and
was met with protests, litigation, and strikes. The move was heavily criticised by prominent
economists and by world media leading to debates in both houses of Parliament and
triggering organised protests against the government in several places across India.
         Aggrieved by the decision of the government and calling it a ‘Tughlaki Farman’, an
Association of Aryans (AOA) filed the PIL before the Apex court of Arya land to quash the
November 8 notification of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of Finance Ministry
of Arya land.

ISSUES RAISED
1)     Whether the public interest litigation is maintainable or not

2)  Whether the Notification issued on 8th november violates the fundamental

rights guaranteed by the constitution

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1)    WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest litigation made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court U/Art. 32 of the Constitution of Arya Land is not maintainable. There is no public
purpose in filing this petition because this notification was in public good and it is held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that Petitioners have no locus standi to file petition if they have no
public purpose in filing petition.
It is humbly submitted that demonetization was a completely executive act carried out for
public welfare and curbing the black money and it is well settled that this Hon’ble court
cannot interfere in executive act and public policy
Thus it is most humbly submitted that the Petition under Art.32 of The Constitution Of
Arya Land filed by the petitioner is not maintainable  before the   Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2) Whether the Notification issued on 8th november violates the fundamental

rights guaranteed by the constitution
It is humbly submitted that notification was in the favour of public interest  and  was in good
faith because it does not violate the basic fundamental rights  of the people as well as it was
in order to implement fundamental rights absolutely that’s now  people can secure their
livelihood and all other basic requirements of life.
It is further submitted that notification was not ultra vires and it was in consonance with the
provisions of constitution of Arua Land and Aryan Reserve Bank.

Arguments Advanced
1)    WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest litigation made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court U/Art. 32 of the Constitution of Arya Land is not maintainable.
The petition is not maintainable for following reasons –
1.1  No Violation of Fundamental Rights and No Public purpose for filing the present PIL
i.             There is no public purpose in filing this petition because this notification was in public
goodand it is well said by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Petitioners have no locus standi to file
petition if they have no public purpose in filing petition. As held in case of Krishna swami v.
Union of India2
ii.             The petitioners have no sufficient interest in filling this petition. Thus petition should
not be maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As Hon’ble Supreme Court held in
case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others that any member of the public having
“sufficient interest” can approach the court for enforcing constitutional or legal rights of
other persons and redressal of a common grievance.3
 It is humbly submitted that the notification issued on 8th November was in the favour of
public interest and no rights of the people were violated. It was a step towards complete
development and curbing the black money.
              _____________________________
1. Dr.Jai Jai Ram Upadhyay, The Constitution of India, Central Law Agency, 2015, Pg.19
2. Krishna swami v. Union of India  (1992) 4 SCC 605 (Dr. J.N.Pandey,Constitutional Law of
India,52th Edition ,Central Law Agency,2015, Pg.409 )
3. S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149

1.2   No interference in executive act

        It is humbly submitted that demonetization was a completely executive act carried out for
public welfare and curbing the black money.
In case of Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI[1] it was held that The issuance of currency notes
and its demonetisation is purely an executive act and it is not open to the courts to step into
the said arena.
In case of  Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[2], it was held that the policy
decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted
after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or
exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is
not shown Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not
substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the
propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is
possible from that of the Government.

Thus it is most humbly submitted that the Petition under Art.32 of The Constitution Of
Arya Land filed by the petitioner is not maintainable  before the   Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2) WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 8th NOVEMBER VIOLATES

THE  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
 It is most humbly submitted that the Notification issued by Department of Economic Affairs
(DEA) of Finance Ministry of Arya land  regarding the prevention of Counterfeits and
hoarding of money was a Sovereign function of the state and its was in the public welfare  to
remove the income inequality & corruption which  existed  in the Arya Land.
The Notification issued on a 8th November was a historical step towards the betterment of
nation and it was a very balanced step to Re-funnel the  Unaccounted Money towards the
Nation’s Economy.     
2.1. The Notification does not infringe any Fundamental Right  of the people  -
 It is humbly submitted that notification was in the favour of public interest  and  was in good
faith because it does not violate the basic fundamental rights  of the people as well as it was
in order to implement fundamental rights absolutely that’s now  people can secure their
livelihood and all other basic requirements of life. It was a  step by which people would get a
assurance of their Right to Life and Personnel liberty.
None of the fundamental rights of the people were violated as –

Art. 14 – Equality before Law – The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law
    

or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India6

 The Arya land continues to be plagued by problems such as the fake notes look similar to genuine notes,
The fake notes are used for anti-national and illegal activities. High denomination notes have been misused
by terrorists and for hoarding black money thus it is evident that the government was justified in order to
solve these problems therefore it was a step to provide the right to  equality to the people  which is sole
principle of rule of law mentioned in Art.14.

  Art. 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc – (1) All citizens shall
have the right – (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.8
The restrictions which were imposed by the notification was the temporary and with the
options of many ways to deal with payment as well as carryout their business , trade and
occupation. Thus the ground that people were not given reasonable time to arrange alternative
financial means is not appropriate ground because there were so many other options were
present for payments like Cheque , online transactions, money transfer systems etc. Thus
notification does not violates the fundamental right provided u/Art. 19(1))(g) in any
manner.     
  Art. 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty –  No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
By the notification issued on 8th November, there was no violation of Article 21 .on the
contrary, the act of government was in order to insure and secure the people’s right to life and
personal liberty as the black money, counterfeit currency and terrorism ultimately affects the
life of general public. So the notification issued by the government was in order to curb these
problems and safeguard the public interest. 
         Notification was not ultra vires to the Constitution –
The constitutional validity of this type of notification was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court inJayantilal Ratanchand  Shah v. Reserve Bank of India and ors.  on the
basis that , it was a violation  of the right to carryout trade and Commerce, and in addition,
amounted to a compulsory acquisition of property without compensation by the Govt. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the such a demonetization notification was in public
interest given its purpose to control the problems of “ unaccounted money” and did not in
any way amount to a violation of the righjt of the petitioners’.10
         It was with in the Limit of Provisions Aryan Reserve bank Act 1934 –   
Sec. 26 – Legal tender Character of notes – (2) On recommendation of the Central
Board   the Central Government may, by notification in the Gazette of Cadbridge, declare
that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, any series of bank
notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender Save at such office or agency of the
bank and to such extent as may be specified in the notification.11     
The legal basis for the order demonetizing currency can be found in Sec.26 of the Aryan
Reserve bank Act 1934under sub-section 2 of Section.26 the union govt.  is given the power
to declare that issue will no longer be legal tender. The only procedural requirement is that
the Aryan Reserve bank recommends the same to the union govt.
 This power is what has been exercised the Government of Arya Land and thus it is humbly
submitted that argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law that the union Govt. has not
exercised the power lawfully.
 ___________________________
1.       Jayantilal Ratanchand  Shah v. Reserve Bank of India and ors. jt 1996 (7),681  1996 SCALE (5) 741

         It was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Arya Land –
Art. 13-   Laws Inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights- (2) The State
Shall not make any lawwhich takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and
any law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention, be
void.12
Art. 13 (3)(a) explains the word law as-
Art.13(3)(a)-   “Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification,
custom or usage having in the territory of Cadbridge the force of  law.13 
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the notification issued by central
govt. neither takes away nor abridges the fundamental rights of the people provided by the
Constitution of Arya land.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:
1.      The writ petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable and therefore be dismissed.

2.      The Notification issued by Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of Finance Ministry of

Arya land be maintained  .

1 Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI  MANU/DE/3311/2016, Crl. A. 1177/2016

[2] Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs.  Govt. of NCT of Delhi : AIR2006SC2609