TUTORIAL – IV

MOOT COURT

ISSUE:1(WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?)

Submitted by

Name of the candidate – Y. Akshay

Team Code:A6

Division - A

PRN - 16010323006

BATCH - 2016-2021

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune

In March, 2021

Under the guidance of

Dr.Pankaj Umbarkar
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Parties to the Case

1.1. Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others: Petitioner in the present case. The union is formed by
Kisaan Mukti Morcha, a collective of several farming communities to raise voice against the
Farm laws and Kisaan Sangharsh Sangh, an ally of the opposition party, the Indistan
Fundamentalist Party.

1.2. Republic of Indistan: Respondent in the present case. Current Union Government formed
by Indistan Liberal Front, a political party chaired by Prime Minister, Dr. Ravindra which came
to power in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections with overwhelming majority, known to have floated
several revolutionary reforms for the labours, minorities, poor, and revered immensely in the art,
literature and scientist fraternity.

2. Law and Country

The PIL has been filed before the Federal Court of Indistan whose laws are pari materia to the
laws of India and is scheduled for the admissibility of the petition for the restoration of
Fundamental Rights.

3. Cause of Action

In September 2020, when the Parliament came into session, it passed three laws which were

called as Agricultural reforms. The reforms were as follows:

● The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020

● Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services

Act, 2020

● Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

4. Action Taken by the Parties

4.1. Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others: The petitioners filed a petition calling for nullifying the
laws, and enacting laws consistent with the interests of the farmers

4.2. Republic of Indistan: The Union Government argued that the PIL lacks merits and warrants
an immediate dismissal of the petition.

Kisaan Mukti Morcha & Others have filed the PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indistan

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

I.
WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

● The counsel for the Respondents humbly submits that the instant Petition filed by the
Petitioner’s before this Hon’ble Supreme Court is not maintainable under these
circumstances.
❖ There is no violation of Voice Vote/Decision by the Parliament.
❖ Farm Bills are declared to be valid.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

1. The Counsel for the Respondents herein humbly submits that the petition filed
herein is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner has
no right but invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Apex Court, where Art.32 of the
Indiana Constitution has the power to issue writs for matters concerning the
 violation of the rights to the citizens of this country. It is further submitted that
there was no violation of any rights in the country. .

A. There is no violation of Voice Vote/Decision by the Parliament.

1. Firstly, the Respondents herein humbly submits that the present petition filed is not
maintainable, which is filed against the Farm laws, i.e., The Farmers' Produce Trade and
Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and The
Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
2. The counsel for the Respondents humbly submits that the laws which were passed by the
members in the Parliament were termed as the ‘Farm Bills’. It is further submitted that by
the end of 2019, a dangerous disease called Covid-19 broke out, which caused a major set
back for all the commercial activities including the agriculture sector. This Covid-19
Pandemic led to the introduction of the ‘Farm Bills’ in the Parliament for improvement
of the agricultural sector and majority of the members in the Parliament had agreed for
the said bill and the bill was passed in September 2020.
3. The Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the ‘Farm Laws’ which has been
passed by the majority of members in the parliament by ‘Voice Vote’ which is indeed
sufficient for passing of the bill in the parliament of Indistan and it was done in in
accordance with the laws of the parliament and there are no such provisions in the said
Acts that are against any of the constitutional amendment.
4. The Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the members in the Parliament
have the right to ask for division of votes but they acted bona fide and failed to ask their
exclusive right which is vested upon the members in the Parliament.
5. It is further submitted by the Respondents herein is that the Acts like Child Marriage
Restrain Act, 1929 which is now replaced by Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Triple Talak were not asked by the public but the
respective governments have passed these Bills. At the time of passing these Bills there
was a similar controversy about the validity of these laws but the fruits of these laws were
realized later. It is further submitted that the ‘Indistan Liberal Front’ has the record of
emerging some revolutionary reforms and had succeeded those reforms. It is further
 submitted that the ‘Indistan Liberal Front’ is keen on developing the Agricultural Sector
and thus implemented the Farm Bills for the advancement of the society.
6. The proceeding of the parliament is being challenged in this present petition. Article 122
of the Constitution states that “The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be
called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.” Hence it is
clearly evident that a parliamentary proceeding cannot be questioned on the ground that
the there was an irregularity in the procedure as it is mentioned that the laws had been
enacted and agreed by the majority of the members in the Parliament by the voice vote.
This falls under parliamentary proceedings and this cannot be questioned in any court.
Hence this Petition is not maintainable.

B. Farm Bills are declared to be valid.

1. The Counsel for the Respondents further submits that D.C. Varadarajan, had led the
green revolution in Indistan, the National Commission on Farmers which was set up in
2004, under his Chairmanship. The Commission submitted five reports between
December 2004 and October 2006. It distinguished certain causes for farmers such as
farm distress, incomplete agenda in land reforms, quantity and quality of water,
innovation exhaustion, access, adequacy and timeliness of institutional credit, etc. It is
further submitted by the Respondent herein that there were no major changes in the
agriculture laws by the previous government despite of knowing the faults in the
previous agriculture laws which were laid on the table by the Varadarajan committee.
2. The Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the Parliament had taken the
recommendations from National Commission on Farmers report of 2006 and framed the
Farm Bills accordingly. It is further submitted that by enacting these Farm Laws the
farmers will have guaranteed command over essential assets including land, water, bio-
assets, credit and protection, innovation and information in the executives and markets.
3. The Counsel for the Respondents further submits that after due deliberations from the
veteran members and recommendations from previous Farm Bills has now waived off the
“market fee or cess or levy by whatever name called under the APMC Act or any other
state law shall be levied on any farmer or trader or electronic trading and transaction
 platform for trade and commerce in the scheduled farmers produce in a trade area” 1.
Hence these Farm Bills are valid and binding.
4. The Counsel for the Respondents humbly submits that the farm laws which were enacted
by the parliament of the Indistan belong to State list under seventh schedule of the
constitution. The lists are divided into three parts which are Union List, State list and
Concurrent list. The parliament has granted powers to can enact laws on state list and it is
guaranteed under Article 249 clause (1) of the constitution which state that
“Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of
States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the members
present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that
Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List
specified in the resolution, it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or
any part of the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains
in force.”. Hence, the parliament has powers to make laws on state list and the laws
which were passed by the parliament were of the state list but it was solely on the basis of
national interest. Hence, the present government has taken reasonable steps to enacts
these Farm Laws to benefit the farmers and for the larger interests. Hence the bills are
valid and binding.

HENCE IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT, THE

PETITION FILED HEREIN IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

1 Section 6 of the Farmers produce Trade and Commerce Bill, 2020.

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the Facts mentioned, issues raised, arguments raised, and contentions
progressed, it is most humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court might may be satisfied to:

● Hold the Farm Laws as constitutional and valid.

● Hold the present Petition filed is not maintainable as there was no violation of any
Fundamental Right.

AND/OR

Pass other orders that it considers fit in light of Justice, equity , value and Good Conscience.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT