15TH NALSAR B.R.

SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

CLARIFICATIONS TO THE
MOOT PROPOSITION

1. Are “Reserve Bank of Eurekatia” and “National Bank of Eurekatia” used interchangeably in
the moot proposition?

Yes. Wherever there is a reference to the “Reserve Bank of Eurekatia” in the Proposition,
Annexures, and other relevant parts, participants must read it as the “National Bank of
Eurekatia”.

2. The finance act and the consequent amendments were passed in 2024 (1st issue) while in India
it was passed in 2017-18 along with other amendments which are not there in Proposition. So
can we consider those amendments also or not.

The instructions in the “Note for the Participants” along with the main Proposition are
categorically clear. Requires no further clarification.

3. In passage 6, it has been mentioned that 'the finance act enabled the EFB scheme by making
specific amendments to the National bank of Eurakatia act 1951, the representation of the
people act 1951 and income tax act 1961. Also, in the passage number 6 last line it has been
mentioned that " apart from these two, no other legislative changes were made by the finance
act to facilitate the EFB scheme". Here, both the statements are contradictory. if three acts are
amended then how it is said in the last line that "only two changes were made". And can we
assume that all the amendments made under the companies act 2013, also applies to this moot
problem EFB scheme? Are all the amendments made to facilitate the 'electoral bond scheme'
also apply to 'EFB' scheme?

With respect to the first question, the Proposition intended to state that only two
substantive changes have been made. The third change is to the National Bank of
Eurekatia Act 1951 for facilitating the issuance and deposits of the EFBs and regulating
the related logistics. See the Annexures for clarity. Regarding the last two questions, the
instructions in the “Note for the Participants” along with the main Proposition are
instructive. Requires no further clarification.

4. Based on Section 2(d)(iii) of the Electoral Finance Bond Scheme, 2024, does Companies Act,
2013 find applicability in Issue 1(A)?

1
 15TH NALSAR B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

Carefully read the Proposition, instructions in the “Note for the Participants”, and the
relevant Annexure to get clarity. Requires no further clarification.

5. Can the Companies Act, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act & the RBI apply with the
amendments done by actual Finance Act, 2017 of India?

The Proposition, instructions in the “Note for the Participants”, and the annexures are
sufficient to know how to proceed in this regard. Requires no further clarification.

6. Para 6 beginning says 3 acts were amended. Last line of the para says only 2 were amended.
Kindly clarify.

The Proposition intended to state that only two substantive changes have been made. The
third change is to the National Bank of Eurekatia Act 1951 for facilitating the issuance
and deposits of the EFBs. See the relevant Annexure for clarity.

7. Under which provision of the Finance Act 2024, has the EFB scheme been introduced?

The Finance Act through its several provisions have amended the various connected
statutes to create the EFB Scheme.

8. What is the amendment made to the National Bank Act?

Please see the answer to Question No. 5. Requires no further clarification.

9. With respect to Issue 1- Was the Finance Bill passed in both House of Parliament?

Requires no clarification.

10. Is there a mechanism in place for the National Bank of Eurekatia to link a specific donor to the
payee of the EFBs? If yes, does the National Bank collect and store such data?

The Annexures are self-explanatory and the instructions in the “Note for the
Participants” must be closely read to get clarity.

11. Is there a mechanism in place regulating how the EFBs purchased by the donors, physically
reach the political party for encashment?

Requires no clarification. See the relevant Annexure for any pertinent information on
this, if any.

12. Is the NI Act applicable on EFB?

No.

2
 15TH NALSAR B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

13. What does "Extraordinary, PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)" means in Annexure-I at
Page 9 below the 'Gazette of Eurekatia' of the Moot Proposition?

Requires no clarification.

14. 'F. No. 4(23)-B(W&M)/2017 RAJ DUTT, Jt. Secy' mentioned at the end of Annexure-I (Page
11) states year of 2017 whereas the Finance Act is of year 2024. Kindly clarify.

The year written as 2017 is a typographical error. Read it as “2024”.

15. The Point 3 of Note to Participants specifies that the Legal System of India and Eurekatia
applies "as it is". However, there is no clarification with respect to whether the political
conditions in both the countries are similar and whether the statistical data in both the countries
is the same. For example, Annexure II of the Proposition contains statistical data with respect
to MPs with criminal cases against them. There are various reports by multiple think-tanks and
organizations regarding the same variable or ancillary variables in India. Can those be cited
and relied upon for making arguments regarding or on behalf of Republic of Eurekatia as well?

Political conditions are also similar subject to the factual modifications explicitly made
in the Proposition regarding Eurekatia. Data from India regarding the particular issue
raised in the question may be used for persuasion and backing your legal arguments.

16. Whether the statements, correspondence, rules and regulations of the Reserve bank of
Eurekatia is pari materia to that of Reserve bank of India.

Yes, but the peculiarities associated with National Bank of Eurekatia, to the extent
indicated in the Proposition, should be considered while relying on them.

17. Whether the statements, rules, regulations, and correspondence by Election commission of
Eurekatia is pari materia to that of Election commission of India.

Yes, but the peculiarities associated with Election Commission of Eurekatia, to the extent
indicated in the Proposition, should be considered while relying on them.

18. In pursuant to issue 3, whether the new section would be applicable to the sitting members of
the parliament and the assembly as well, who have already been elected? Or is the law
concerned with only people who are still contesting for elections?

The textual language of the statutory provision is clear to indicate whether sitting
legislators would or not be bound, and when would they be bound, if at all, by this law.
Further clarification is unnecessary.

19. In pursuant to issue 3, does the term person also includes those members who are nominated,
appointed or elected with the votes of already elected members?

3
 15TH NALSAR B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

Applies only to directly or indirectly elected legislators.

20. In the passage number 16 of moot problem, it has been mentioned that Mahesh Diwan is an
under-trial prisoner in Vihar jail under the charge of sedition. He is under-trial for the charge
of sedition only or some other charges are also framed against him?

Requires no clarification.

21. The data is annexure 2 is released by Tajio institute, which is an 'independent think tank' as
mentioned in moot problem. Can we also question this data? As this data is published by an
independent think tank.

The report by the Institute is based on an analysis of publicly available data officially
released by the relevant State agencies. For the purposes of this competition, the data
must be taken to be validly collected and presented.

22. In the point 10 of the facts, the percentage provided for the 2015 Parliamentary elections and
further details for the same has been stated in the Annexure II but the collected data in the
Annexure II is of 2020 parliamentary election. So, Where have we looked to find the same?

The Tajio Institute has conducted a continuous study of several consecutive

parliamentary elections. The Proposition along with the Annexure II provides some of
the significant details from their reports on the 2015 and 2020 parliamentary election
results. There is no confusion in this regard.

23. In Section 7 of the Gazette of Eurekatia, it has been written that format of application for
purchase of bonds specified in the Annexure II but the Annexure II talks about the Data
collected by the Tajio Institute for Kanoon Reforms. So, what format are we expected to
adhere?

Please read the gazetted Notification of the EFB Scheme closely and distinguish between
the Annexures to the Proposition and Annexures to the Scheme’s gazetted Notification.

24. "Whether the process of apportionment of seats to different states, and to reserved categories
in the State, contravenes is unconstitutional?" Is there an issue with the drafting of this line
specifically the last three words?

Issue B framed by the Supreme Court of Eurekatia has suffered an inadvertent error in
sentence construction, specifically at this part: “contravenes is unconstitutional?”. Please
read Issue B in the following manner: “Whether the constitutional amendment which
introduced the freeze on delimitation is unconstitutional? Whether the current process of
apportionment of seats to different states, and to reserved categories in the State of
Omegaland contravene the principle of equality of representation?”.

4
 15TH NALSAR B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

25. Can we argue upon role of the Election Commission as well as reports and letters written by
the election commission to the Ministry of Finance and etc?

Requires no clarification. Read the instructions in the “Note for the Participants” for
clarity.

26. As per P5; can you inform on which Law Report of Law Commission of India the 333rd
Eurekatia Law Commissions report is based upon?

It is not necessarily based on any specific Law Commission of India report.

27. Whether statistics and/or information relating to politics and data can be used which might be
contradictory to the facts (eg: Names of political parties) or the timeline (eg: Dates and election
times).

Requires no clarification. The details in the Proposition and instructions in the “Note for
the Participants” are sufficient in this regard.

28. Clarification on the elaboration of word "Framing of charges". Whether it is the pretrial framed
charges or is the final charges framed by the court.

The question seeks conceptual clarification about a relevant stage of criminal

proceedings. The same does not deserve to be clarified as it must be researched by the
participants themselves.

29. Will data of India, like the number of Registered political parties, be applicable in Eurekatia?

The instructions in the “Note for the Participants” are indicative of how you should
proceed in this regard.

30. How can annual audit report include funding for a year when an entire year has not been
completed since the scheme?

The factual data must be viewed as valid for all the purposes concerning Issue A.
Consider it as information from Annual Audit Reports which has been filed in two parts
and hence, the data for the initial months of the given year, even though not completed,
is out in the public.

31. Kindly state the dates of different petitions filed, and which writ petition number is assigned
to which particular case.

The dates on which these petitions were filed are irrelevant. Sufficient other information
about the petitions is there in the Proposition. Petition numbers as identified in the
Supreme Court’s Order can be assigned to the writ petitions filed in each of the issues
according to the chronological order of their discussion in the Proposition.

5
 15TH NALSAR B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

32. What’s the allowed percentage of plagiarism?

The permissible limit for plagiarism is 15%. Note that the plagiarism check will be
limited to the “Arguments Advanced” section of the memorandums submitted by the
participants.

33. Are there any restrictions regarding the order of presentation of issues during the oral rounds?

The order of presentation of issues shall generally flow in the order prescribed in the
proposition. However, the teams can alter the order with permit of the bench judges.

34. Whether in the memorial state of India in cases and arguments should be mentioned as
Eurakatia?

No. Name of India and its states whenever cited in context of caselaw/legislations/rest of
the sources shall be cited in their original format.

35. Whether the statement of facts for the memorial should be a synopsis of the facts or need to
give as given in the moot Proposition.

As far as compliance is made with page limit, the teams can use their own discretion. No
additional facts apart from the text of the proposition shall be introduced.

36. On the cover page, how should we mention the petitioners and respondents, as there are 4
different cases in the Proposition i.e., all the cases names together on the cover.

No clarification required.