MOOT COURT PROBLEM

Mr. Aslam had been working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a Development Officer since
the last 20 years. On 21 st May, 2018 a complaint was filed against him by a policy holder alleging corrupt
practices by Aslam. On the basis of the complaint an Inquiry Committee was constituted on 23rd May,
2018 to inquire into the allegations against Mr. Aslam. On 23 rd June, 2018, the Committee furnishes the
inquiry report holding Mr. Aslam guilty of corrupt practices. However, it is noteworthy, that Mr. Aslam
was not allowed to appear before the Committee though his written statement denying the allegations
was accepted by the Committee. During the course of its investigations, the Committee found that one
Ms. Iram working as a clerk in LIC was complicit with Mr. Aslam in his corrupt activities. As such the
Committee recommended their termination from the services. On receipt of the inquiry report, the
Chairman of LIC on 24th June, 2018 issues the termination order of Mr. Aslam whereas Ms. Iram is
penalized by withholding her increments. The leniency in favor of Ms. Iram is justified by LIC relying on
regulation 42 of LIC Rules, 2000 which stipulates ‘that female employees should be dealt leniently in
disciplinary proceedings/matters’. Mr. Aslam aggrieved because of the termination order files a writ
petition before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging violation of his
fundamental rights. In his petition, he alleges firstly, that the termination order is arbitrary because he
has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Secondly, he argues that the
classification made by regulation 42 between male and female employees is an unreasonable
classification. The High Court rejects the petition on the preliminary finding that LIC is not a ‘state’
within the meaning of Article 12. Mr. Aslam be aggrieved by the decision files a writ in the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the constitution canvassing the following grounds:

1. That the judgment passed by the High Court has violated my fundamental right under Article 14.
2. That LIC is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. That the termination order passed by LIC is unconstitutional since he has not been given an
opportunity of being heard.
4. That the regulation 42 of the LIC Rules, 2000 is unconstitutional since it makes an unreasonable
classification.
On appraising the petition, the Chief Justice refers the matter to an eleven member Constitution bench
keeping in view the fact that it discloses issues of substantial constitutional importance. The Constitution
bench frames the following issues:

1. Whether a judicial order itself can be challenged on the grounds that it is violative of Part 3 rd
rights?
2. Whether LIC is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the termination order can be challenged on the grounds of violation of principles of
natural justice?
4. Whether the regulation 42 of the LIC Rules, 2000 is unconstitutional on the touchstone of
doctrine of reasonable classification?

NOTE: THE PROBLEM REVOLVES AROUND ARTICLES 12, 13, 14 and 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION.