Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

BEFORE THE HON’ABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

In the matter of Article 14 and Article 21

Of Constitution of India

Seshaiah……………………………………………………..PETITIONER

V.

Tirmula Tirupati Devasthanams…………………………..DEFENDANT

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

JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NAME –DIVYA

COURSE –B.A. ,LL.B.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..…………..i

Lists of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………….……ii

Index of Authorities………………………………………………………………………………iii

Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………iv

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………...……………………v

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………...…………………..vi

Summary of Arguments……………………………………….…………………………………vii

Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………..……………………….1

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………….………(viii)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

Ad. Administer

Acc. According

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

AP Andhra Pradesh

BKC Backward Class

Cons. Constitution

EI Educational Institutions

Est. Established

Govt. Government

HC High Court

HON,ABLE Honorable

HRIEA Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment

Act, 1987

Prof. Professional

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

TTD Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Acts referred

The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment
Act 1987

The Constitution of India 1950

Cases refered
A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak & Anr.1988 AIR 1531

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987, SC 1086

M. Ravi, Tiruchy, Tamilnadu vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District
and others (24.11.1998 - APHC)

Websites visited

www.manupatra.com

shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

www.lawoptopus.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’able High Court of Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction in this matter under

Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in art. 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders
or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeus corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III and for any other purposes].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS

(1) Tirumala is a famous place in Chittor district in AP, where the temple of Venkateswara

Swamy is situated.

(2) TTD is the statutory religious body est. under AP Charitable and HRIEA .

(3) Acc. to sec. 2(28) of the Act, 1987, provides that “TTD means the temple specified in the

first schedule and tie endowments and properties thereof and shall include the EI and other

institution specified in the second schedule and the endowments and properties thereof and

the TTD shall be deemed to be constituted into a single religious institution for the purpose

of this Act”.

(4) TTD started “Veda Patasalas” which are un-aided EI.

(5) Mr. Seshaiah who belongs to BKC applied to the above said EI to join his son.

(6) His application was rejected and after a due enquiry he found the information that only

Brahmin Community boys were given admission and none other.

(7) He filed a writ in the HC of AP under the violation of Art. 14 and Art. 21 of the Cons.

(8) The TTD contended that acc. To Art. 19(g), Art. 26 and Art. 30(1) of the Cons., the religious

and the linguistic minorities have the right to est. and ad. EI of their choice.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

(9) The use of the words “of their choice” indicates that even prof. EI would be covered under

Art. 30.

(10) The right to admit students being an essential facet to the right to ad. EI of their choice, as

contemplated under Art. 30 of the Cons.

(11) The State Govt. or the university may not be entitled to interfere with that right, so as

long as the admission to the unaided EI is on the transparent basis and the merit is adequately

taken care of. v

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Whether the writ filed against TTD is maintainable.

ISSUE II:

Whether TTD are liable for the violation of Fundamental Rights of Mr. Seshaiah.

ISSUE III

Whether religious and linguistic minorities have right to est. and administer EI “Of Their
Choice ” gives them authority to discriminate on basis of caste.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

Whether the writ filed against TTD is maintainable.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’able HC that present writ is maintainable against TTD
since, it is a state under art. 12 of the Cons. Of India. It is further submitted that since there has
been a gross violation of Art. 14 and Art 21 of the Cons of India, the writ is maintainable, and
account of the same relief is sought.

ISSUE II

Whether TTD is liable for violation of Fundamental Rights of Mr. Seshaiah.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’able HC that ,TTD is liable for the violation of the
Fundamental Rights of Mr, Seshaiah as they denied admission to his son on the basis of his caste
which is violation of his Fundamental Rights, Art. 14 , Art, 15 and Art. 21 of the Cons. Of India.
TTD is also liable for the mental agony to Mr. Seshaiah which he faced during the time of the
case, and the lose of studies of his son which may have impact on the future of his son , for
which TTD is liable to pay fine to the state.

ISSUE III

Whether religious and linguistic minorities right to est. and administer EI “Of Their
Choice ” gives them authority to discriminate on basis of caste.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’able HC that, TTD is a statutory body which is est, under
AP Charitable and HRIEA , and according to Art. 30(1) of the Cons. the linguistic minorities

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

have right to est. and administer EI of their choice but this clause doesn’t gives them the power
to violate the fundmental rights of other people.

vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the writ filed against TTD is maintainable.

The present petition is maintainable under Art. 226 of the Cons. , since, TTD falls within the
ambit of “other authorities”1 as enshrined under art. 122 of the Cons. There has been violation of
Fundamental Rights.

1.1 writ can be filed against the TTD

A writ can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental Rights3 under art. 226
of the Cons. ; therefore, the writ is maintainable against TTD.
Further, to constitute a private party as being State, the same must fall within the ambit of
“other authorities” under art. 12 and thus must satisfy the court that it is either an
instrumentality or an agency of the State4. In order to adjudge the same, the function of the
cooperation must be of public importance, and closely related to govt. functions.

Public Function is one which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or the
section of the public” Institutions engaged in performing public functions are the virtue of
the function performed, govt. agencies. Further under the well est. doctrine of Parens Patriae,
it is the obligation of the State to protect and to take into custody the rights and the privileges
of its citizens for discharging its obligations.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

1. The Constitution of India,1950 Article 12

2. Definition- In this part unless the context otherwise requires, “the state” includes the government and
Parliament of India and the government and the legislature of each of the State and all local or other
authority within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.
3. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987, SC 1086,
4. The TTD is an independent body, governed by the Board of Trustees, appointed by the “Government of
Andhra Pradesh” with the Executive Officer acting as the Member Secretary of the Board. As per the
provisions of 1987 Act, the TTD is required to adhere to the rules and regulations of “Government of
Andhra Pradesh” in the actual conduct of the financial administration.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, TTD being an instrumentality of the state for the purpose
of EI falls within the ambit of “Other Authority” as enshinred under art. 12 of the cons.
Therefore a writ is maintaianable against TTD.

II Whether TTD is liable for violation of Fundamental Rights of Mr. Seshaiah.

II.1 Fundamental rights have been violated.

The Fundamental Right to Equality5, Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion,

race caste, sex or place of birth6 and protection of life and personal liberty7 of Mr. Seshaiah
has been as guaranteed under art. 21 of the constitution been violated on account of the
arbitrary action of the state.

Mr. Seshaiah application for admission of his son was rejected, on the basis of that he did not
belong to the “Brahmin community” hence, the fundamental rights as guaranteed under;[II.2]
Art. 14,[II.3] Art 15, and [II.4]Art, 21 of the cons. have been violated.

II.2 Voilation of Art. 14

Art. 14 of the Cons. states “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 India”.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

Equality before law means everyone is equal before the eyes of the law but in this case Mr.
Seshaiah application was rejected on the basis of that he doesn’t belongs to the particular class of
the society

Art. 14 permits reasonable classification but prohibits the “class legislation12”

5. Art. 14 Right to Equality- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.
6. Art 15 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race caste, sex or place of birth –(1) The State
shall not discriminate against any citizens on the grounds only of religion, race caste, sex or place of birth or
any of them.
7. Art 21 Protection of life and personal liberty-
8. Class legislation- It is prohibited because it makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular
privilege upon a class of person arbitrarily selected.
Thus, no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and
exclusion of the other person from such privileges.

1
II.3 Violation of Art. 15 (1)

Art 15 of the Cons.Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race caste, sex or

place of birth –(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizens on the grounds only of
religion, race caste, sex or place of birth or any of them.

Mr. Seshaiah application was denied on the basis that his son belongs to the BKC which
violates his fundamental right guaranteed under art. 15 (1) of the Cons. of India which states
the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth but
his application was rejected on the basis of that he did not belong to the “Bhramin
Community”.

II.4 Violation of Art.21

In order to est. violation of art. 219 the act should be subjected to Art. 14. Art. 14 strikes at
arbitrariness because it negates equality .

Therefore, every action of State must be guided by reason for public good and not by whim,
caprice, and abuse of power

In this case, there is a violation of Art. 21 as Mr. Seshaiah is citizen of India, arbitratory action
of the State is violating test of equality and reasonableness.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

9. A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak & Anr.1988 AIR 1531

III Whether religious and linguistic minorities have right to est. and administer EI “Of
Their Choice ” gives them authority to discriminate on basis of caste.

Art.30 (1)10 of the Cons. gives right of minorities to est. and aminister EI of their choices , “of
their choices” is a open texture which is not defined but in the case of M. Ravi, Tiruchy,
Tamilnadu vs. TTD11 . the High Court of AP held TTD liable for the violation of art 14. Of
their employee this shows even when linguistic minorities have right to est. and administer EI
of their choices this doesn’t gives them power to violate rights of the other.

Further clause 2 (4) and (5) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
(4) ‘charitable institution ’ means any establishment, undertaking, organization or association
formed for a charitable purpose and includes a specific endowment and dharamadayam;

(5) ‘charitable institution’ includes-

(a) relief of poverty or distress;

(b) education;

(c) medical relief;

(d) advancement of any other object of utility or welfare to the general public or a section
thereof not being an object of an exclusive religious nature.

Sheetansu Srivastava vs. Principal, Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Anr.12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

Part of judgement

An institution established by minority may claim to impart education in keeping with its
religious faith and belief but it cannot insist in imparting such education to members of its
own community only.

10. Right of minorities to est. and adminter EI- (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall
have the right to est. and administer EI of their choices.
11. M. Ravi, Tiruchy, Tamilnadu vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others
(24.11.1998 - APHC)
12. Sheetansu Srivastava vs. Principal, Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Anr. (25.01.1989 - ALLHC)

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, argument advanced and authority cited may this
Hon’able court be pleased to:

1. Hold the TTD for violation of fundamental rights of Mr. Seshaiah.

2. Order and direct the govt. to take measures that TTD does not repeat this
kind of discrimination within a society.
3. TTD should be held liable to pay damages to Mr. Seshaiah as lot of time and
money has been required by him to pay for this suit and the future of his son
is or may have been affected during the time period of this suit.

AND/OR

Pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
And for this, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Constitutional Law- II Moot -2018

(viii)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER