LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |1

Team code-

LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH

ARISING OUT OF WRIT PETITION NO. _________/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Mr. Rudra Pratap

v.

Governor of Eastland

WRITTEN SUBMISSION DRWAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………..3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………4-5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………...6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………...7-8

5. ISSUES RAISED………..…………………………………………….....9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………..……...…10-11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………..12-14

8. PRAYER………………………………………………………………....15

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |3

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Report

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

& And

Art. Article

Ors. Others

B/W Between

v. Versus

Govt. Government

UOI Union of India

Etc. Et cetera

Hon’ble Honorable

Imp. Important

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books Referred:-

1) Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, by M.P Jain

2) The Constitution of India, 10th Edition, by P. M Bakshi

3) The Constitution of India, 1st Edition, by Prof. M.P. Singh

4) The Constitution of India, 50th edition by Dr. J.N Pandey

5) The Constitution of India, 7th Edition, by N.K Acharya

Cases:
S.R. Bommai v. UOI
Nabam Rebia v.pema Khandu (Arunachal Pradesh case)
Shiv Sena v.UOI
Chandrakant kavlekar v. UOI

Websites Referred:-

1) www.manupatra.com

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |5

2) www.scconline.com

3) www.indiankanoon.com

4) www.scobserver.in

5) www.thewire.in

6) www.nationalheraldindia.com

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |6

STATEMENTOF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Insdusland, under Art.321of the Constitution of Indusland.

1
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all
or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indusland is a democratic country with written constitution&

parliamentary form of democracy with some basic feature like federalism,
independence of judiciary, rule of law etc.

2. Indusland follows multipart system. National Workers Congress &IPI are

the two national parties along with various regional parties.

3. Eastland is one of the imp developed states situated in southern part of

indusland..EDP is one of the influential regional parties of Eastland.

4. In the leadership of Mr. Rudra Pratap got massive supports in regional

politics and got 35 seats in assembly election of 2009 and subsequently got
majority with 100 seats out of 190 in 2014 election. This govt. took
various popular decisions for the welfare of people of state.

5. Mr. Rudra Pratap had diff of opinions with the governor of the state Mr.
Vijay Prajapati on various imp issues. This turf b/w the two resulted into
holding of many imp policies & decisions by the governor’s office. This
created hurdle in progressive path adopted by ruling party.

6. Later in the election of 2019 many loyalists from all the parties changed
their political loyalty. In this election no political party got majority with
EDP ending up at 85 seats becoming the single largest party and NWC
ended up winning 80 seats becoming second largest party.

7. The spokesperson of NWC during a discussion on a T.V channel claimed

that they have support of 10 MLA’s & some independent MLA’s.

8. On the other hand EDP had already planned to take help of independent
MLA’s

9. It was a clear case of hung assembly. Here, governor exercised his power
& invited Mr. Vijay Rao; leader of NWC to form the govt. and
administered an oath as the Chief Minister of the state .Mr. Rudra Pratap
felt aggrieved by this decision & considered it as a revenge of past politics.

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |8

10. Governor appointed Mr. Chandra kumar, senior most member of NWC as
the pro-tem speaker and called special session of assembly for floor test
where NWC failed to show majority. Hence, governor was supposed to
give the chance to Mr. Rudra Pratap to form the govt. being the leader of
single largest party.

11. Later, in a dramatic situation ten MLA’s belonging to NWC & IPI with
some independent MLA’s in a press conference alleged that they were
offered 10 crore each to remain absent or resign from the membership of
legislative assembly before floor test by Mr. Rudra Pratap.

12. Based on the statement of MLA’s going on in the news governor

recommended dissolution of assembly to the president which got accepted.

13. Disappointed with the move of governor, Me. Rudra Pratap has
approached this hon’ble Supreme Court of Indusland.

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e |9

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition?

2. Whether the discretionary power exercised by the Governor in inviting Mr.

Vijay Rao to form the government was according to the constitutional
provisions?

3. Whether the appointment of the pro- tem speaker was constitutionally valid?

4. Whether the decision of the Governor to recommend dissolution of the

assembly and Presidential Rule without giving an opportunity to Mr.
Rudra Pratap was in accordance with the constitutional mandate?

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition?

Acc. to Art 32 of the constitution when fundamental rights of a person is

infringed he can directly move to the SC for the remedy. Here, rights of the
petitioner mentioned under Art 14 of part iii of the constitution were violated.
Therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

2. Whether the discretionary power exercised by the Governor in inviting Mr.

Vijay Rao to form the government was according to the constitutional
provisions?

Acc to constitutional conventions and reports of Sarkaria commission said that

if there is no pre alliance then the single largest party has rightful claim to
form the govt and should be invited first for the same. In present case the
move of governor inviting the 2nd largest party to first to form the govt was
void-ab-intio and against constitutional provisions. Also, what causes under
discretion of the governor is vague& his power are not absolute.

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 11

3. Whether the appointment of the pro tem speaker was constitutionally valid?

Constitutionally, a list of senior most members is submitted, (seniority in

context of experience of the member) and one among them is selected as the
pro-tem speaker. In present case senior most member of a particular party was
appointed directly by the governor without any adequate procedures which is
against constitutional machinery.

4. Whether the decision of the Governor to recommend dissolution of the assembly

and Presidential Rule without giving an opportunity to Mr. Rudra Pratap
was in accordance with the constitutional mandate?

Art.356 of the constitution can be invoked by the governor by submitting a report

to the President in few circumstances like political instability in the state, breakdown
of constitutional machinery or war etc. Here, no such situation arose and governor
used his discretionary power based on some baseless rumours/ allegations of
corruption, which indicates his malafide intention.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 12

ISSUE 1: Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the Petitioner has locus
standi to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case. The sole objective of
Art. 32 of the Constitution is the enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution of Indusland. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked
in any case of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 14 of Part III of the
Constitution5 of Indusland. In the given instance the petitioner has the right to the
constitutional remedies which means that a person has the right to move the Supreme
Court to get his fundamental rights protected.

The counsel respectfully submits that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the
present jurisdiction as the fundamental right of the petitioner mentioned in art 14 of
the constitution has been infringed.
The counsel has approached the court as Mr. Rudra Pratap was not given a fair chance
by the Governor to show the majority in the house & form govt.
The counsel further submits that EDP party led by Mr. Rudra Pratap was the single
largest party and hence should have been invited by the Governor to form govt. But
the acts of the Governor i.e, not giving a fair chance to EDP party for floor test is
unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art 14 of the constitution of
Indusland.
In the case of Shiv Sena & ors V. UOI& ors2. ,
“ The petitioner had approached the court
under art 32 of the constitution on 23.11.2019”.
In series of cases like Chandrakant kavlekar v. UOI3

ISSUE 2: Whether the discretionary power exercised by the Governor in inviting

Mr. Vijay Rao to form the government was according to the constitutional
provisions?
2
(2019) civil number 1393

3
(2017) 3 SCC 758

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 13

The counsel humbly submits that the discretionary power exercised by the Governor
in inviting Mr. Vijay Rao to form govt was void-ab-initio and violative of
constitutional provisions.
EDP being the single largest party must have been invited first for the floor test &
subsequently to form govt.
The counsel contends that the Mr. Vinay Prajapati and Mr. Rudra Pratap had
difference of opinion on various important issues. This turf b/w the two resulted into a
hurdle in the progressive path adopted by EDP party while in power in 2014.
Hence, here the steps taken by Governor clearly indicates his disagreement with
petitioner.

The action of the Governor i.e, not inviting the petitioner first to form the govt.
Clearly shows his malafide intention and his arbitrary exercise of power despite them
being the single largest party.

Hence, the sarkaria commission recommended certain guidelines when there is hung
assembly

The guidelines are as follows:

1.An alliance of parties that was formed prior to the Elections.

2.The largest single party staking a claim to form the government with the support of
others, including “independents”

3.A post-electoral coalition of parties, with all the partners in the coalition joining the
Government.
4.A post-electoral alliance of parties, with some of the parties in the alliance forming
a Government and the remaining parties, including “independents” supporting the
Government from outside.
 Hence, in several case laws including S.R Bommai v. UOI4 & Nabam Rebia
v.Pema Khandu5 (Arunachal Pradesh case), the SC has held that the
Governor’s discretion can be challenged on the grounds of :a) arbitrary
exercise of power ; b) malafide intention; c)or action is passed on
extraneous or irrelevant consideration; d) if there is no application of mind.
 –In 2016, the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia v. Pema Khandu went into
the question of the scope of Governor’s ‘discretionary power’. The court held
that discretion should not be interpreted as “absolute” but “constitutional
discretion”. In simple terms, this means that exercise of Governor's
discretionary power is judicially reviewable.
4
1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1

5
(2) I. A. No.2839 of 2015 In WP(C) No.7745 of 2015

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 14

So Governor’s discretion to call parties for forming the government or the act of
giving 15 days timeline to prove majority are judicially reviewable.

ISSUE 3: Whether the appointment of the pro tem speaker was constitutionally
valid?
It is humbly submitted that the appointment of pro-tem speaker was constitutionally
invalid and void-ab-intio.
While there are no specific constitutional or statutory provisions, by constitutional
convention the senior most member of the house has to be chosen as pro-tem speaker.
Seniority in this context refer to the membership in the house and not the age of the
member, here the nominated pro-tem speaker was a senior member of the second
largest party.
In Nabam Rebia v Pema Khandu5 SC clarified that the discretion of governor is not
absolute but a constitutional one. So he can in his discretion on matters provided in
the constitution.

ISSUE 4: Whether the decision of the Governor to recommend dissolution of the

assembly and Presidential Rule without an opportunity to Mr. Rudra Pratap
was in accordance with the constitutional mandate?

The counsel respectfully submits that Art 356& 357 provides for meeting a situation
arising from the failure of constitutional machinery in state. Whereas, In the given
case no such situation arised . Mr Rudra Pratap was wrongfully denied of the
opportunity for floor test to prove majority by the Governor.
 Further, the governor supposedly recommended dissolution of assembly and
invoke president rule based on rumours of horse trading going on in the news.
This shows that the governor arbitrarily exercise/used his power based on just
baseless unproven allegations and rumours. Hence, this step of invoking
Art.356 was completely against constitutional mandate .6

65
* Mentioned at page no 13

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 15

The counsel further submits that the action of governor corroborates his malicious
intention barring the petitioner of his fair chance to form govt. As there were
differences b/w the two.
Also, there are some situations of the break down of constitutional machinery in state
under which serious allegation of corruption is considered as debatable one.

PRAYER

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 LOKMANYA TILAK SIXTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

P a g e | 16

Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advances and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that this hon’ble court may be pleased to:

1. Pass an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring that

action of the Hon’ble governor in inviting Mr.Vijay Rao
to form govt. as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, void-
ab-inito & violative of Art.14 of constitution of
indusland; and accordingly quash the same.

2. Pass an order/direction to the Hon’ble governor to

invite Mr. Rudra Pratap of EDP party to perform floor
test and form govt.

3.
AND/OR

Pass any other order or orders which this hon’ble Court may deem fit, in
interest of Justice, Equity & Good Conscience.

For which the Petitioner shall ever pray

PLACE:
DATE:

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT