MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER INDEX

OF AUTHORITIES

N115-PETITIONER

NAVITAS, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF LALA LAND

IN THE MATTER OF -

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND )
LOCAL ALLIANCE FOR CHANGE ……………………….………………………..PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF BHILWARA………….……………………………………………......RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND )
LOCAL ALLIANCE FOR CHANGE…………….…………………………………..PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF BHILWARA…………………………..……………………………….RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND)
GEMS PANDA………..……………………………………………………………PETITIONER

v.
MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS……………….……………………….RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER TABLE
OF CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................VII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................................IX

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1

ISSUE (1) : IN THE LIGHT OF PROCEDURAL DEADLOCK IN ARTICLE 200 AND ARTICLE 254

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND, CAN THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS BE READ TO

ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT?...........................................1

A. THE PETITIONER HAS A REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI.................................................1

B STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS CANNOT BE READ ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER

A BILL TO THE PRESIDENt.................................................................................................2

ISSUE (2) : WHETHER THE BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND? ...........................................3

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER TABLE
OF CONTENTS

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

LAND

............................................................................................................................................4

B. BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 VIOLATES ART. 14 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND..................................................................................5

ISSUE 3: WHETHER MR. PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION HAS

BEEN VIOLATED? ......................................................................................................................7

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

LAND

............................................................................................................................................7

B. VIOLATION OF MR PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

UNDER ART. 19(1)(A)1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND.......................................9

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................XX

1
Dream Land Estate v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 29835

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER INDEX
OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

REFERRED CASES

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 562

Innovative Industries Ltd. V. ICICI Bank Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 407

T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, 1983 1 SCC 177

Deep Chand v. State of U.P. , 1959 Supp (2) SCR 8

Royale India Rail Tours Ltd. v. Cox & Kings India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6905

Cox & Kings India Ltd. v. Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC

587

Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175

Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356

Dream Land Estate v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 29835

STATUTES

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 200

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 254

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19

ONLINE SOURCES

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER INDEX
OF AUTHORITIES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378441/

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1847/Freedom-of-Press---Article-19(1)

(a).html

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Little-reason-to-restrict-the-freedom-of-

speech/article11884135.ece

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1580975/

https://www.indianlawsinfo.com/home/section/3567/article-200-in-the-constitution-of-

india/assent-to-bills

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/the-governors-role-in-approving-

a-bill/article38400499.ece

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930681/

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-964-the-doctrine-of-repugnancy-in-the-

indian-constitution.html

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER INDEX
OF AUTHORITIES

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
¶ Paragraph
& And
A.I.R All India Reporter
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Auth. Authority
Bom. Bombay
Cal. Calcutta
CrPC. Criminal Procedure Code
Del. Delhi
H.C. High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
Ibid Ibidem
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ld. Learned
Kar. Karnataka
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
n Supra
No. Number
NCRC National Capital Region Charizard
Ors. Others
§ Section
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
v. Versus
w.r.t With Reference To

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the LaLa Land, under Article

32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

The present memorial on behalf of the Petitioner set froths the facts, contentions, and

argument in the present case.

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

LaLa Land is a democratic country, situated in the continent of Jounpur. Various kingdom

states within the landmass wanted to maintain their separate existence and gain individual

nationhood, rather than join together to form one single nation. It was only due to efforts of

Ms. Unity Woman that they could be convinced otherwise. LaLa Land had adopted a quasi-

federal Constitution. The citizens of LaLa Land are colloquially referred to as Lalos.

Bhilwara is a southern state in the country of LaLa Land. The Southern states of LaLa Land

are more developed than the northern states. The people of southern states think that the

dismal performance of northern states drags the national average down, and that southern

states are anchoring the economy of the country. Since a greater population resides in the

northern states, they command a greater representation in the Centre. Hence, most Central

Government policies focus more on northern states, under the garb of equitable treatment.

Popular Mazdoor Congress (PMC) is the biggest party in India, and has a considerable North

Lalo voter base. It currently has a majority in the Centre and is in power. South Mazdoor

Congress (SMC), on the other hand, is a party whose policies focus more on catering to the

interests of Southern Lalos. It presently has its government in the state of Bhilwara. All

medical institutions in LaLa Land, including the 35 elite government medical educational

institutions, were accessible to students through a national level exam - Medical Entrance

Test of LaLa (MET LaLa) conducted by National Testing Agency under National Medical

Commission Act, 2019. Given the importance of MET LaLa, a number of coaching centres

have sprung up in the country. RELASE OF THE GAME: Shivangi was an 18-year-old

student residing in the Khetri village of Bhilwara. Shivangi could not join a coaching for the

test. Constantly bombarded with advertisements about coaching’s achievements. 5 days

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
STATEMENT OF FACTS
before the exam, she watched a video of MET topper Mr. Gems Panda online, who claimed

that if an aspirant has neither had an education from CBSE board nor attended a coaching, it

is impossible for them to qualify the MET exam. Shivangi’s exam anxiety, combined with the

fear of not being able to fulfil her family’s expectations took over her, and she committed

suicide. The Ministry of Telecommunications, meanwhile, took down the video of Mr. Gems

Panda from all online platforms to prevent any damage. Based on the recommendations of

the MCC , Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 was presented in the State

Legislature to restructure the examination pattern in Bhilwara to meet the needs of the State.

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following issues have been placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudicate

upon:-

ISSUE (1)

In the light of procedural deadlock in Article 200 and Article 254 of the Constitution of

LaLa Land, can the State Assembly’s powers be read to allow them to directly refer a

bill to the President?

ISSUE (2)

Whether the Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 violates Article 14 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land?

ISSUE (3)

Whether Mr Panda’s right to Freedom of Speech and Expression has been violated?

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE (1) : IN THE LIGHT OF PROCEDURAL DEADLOCK IN ARTICLE 200 AND ARTICLE

254 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND, CAN THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS BE

READ TO ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of LaLa Land that the petitioner

Local Alliance for Change had the requisite locus standi to file pleadings/appeals in this

matter because they have sufficient ground to invoke Art. 200 of the Constitution of LaLa

Land in order to make sure that the ends of justice are met.

ISSUE2: WHETHER THE BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND?

It is humbly submitted that the Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 goes

against One Nation One Test policy. The Bill is repugnant with National Medical

Commission Act, 2019 because NMC, 2019 aims to establish equity in accessing medical

education, therefore, becomes void as per Art. 254(1) of the Constitution of LaLa Land. This

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS

Bill would effectively result in exclusivity and reservation to the students of Bhilwara, in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER MR PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION HAS

BEEN VIOLATED?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of LaLa Land that Mr. Gems

Panda’s Right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Indian

Constitution has been violated because he spoke what he had to and his speech didn’t fall

under the ambit of ‘reasonable restrictions’. The Ministry of Telecommunications, took down

the video of Mr. Gems Panda from all online platforms to prevent any damage and this put

restriction on the right to speech of Mr. Panda.

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue (1) : IN THE LIGHT OF PROCEDURAL DEADLOCK IN ARTICLE 200 AND ARTICLE 254

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND, CAN THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS BE READ

TO ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT?

(¶ 1.) It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of LaLa Land that the

petitioner Local Alliance for Change had the requisite locus standi to file pleading in the

matter as firstly, they have a requisite locus standi provided under Art. 200 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land secondly, the petitioner has sufficient grounds to invoke Art.

254(2)2 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

A. THE PETITIONER HAS A REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI

(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of LaLa Land that the

Appellant has the requisite Locus Standi in the appeal filed under Art. 200 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land .3. As according to article 200 “When a Bill has been passed by

the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council,

has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to

the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he

withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the

President: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to

him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message

2
Deep Chand v. State of U.P. , 1959 Supp (2) SCR 8

3
The Constitution Of India 1949, Art. 200

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions

thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such

amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the

House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by

the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for

assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom: Provided further that the

Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any

Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the

powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this

Constitution designed to fill.” The framers of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not

have provided which all cases should be covered as abuse of the process of court. It is for the

Court to take a decision in particular cases.

(¶ 3.) The term locus standi is defined as the

“a right of appearance in a court of justice, on a given question”

(¶ 4.) The traditional view of 'locus standi' has been that the person who is aggrieved or

affected has the standing before the court, i.e., to say he only has a right to move the court for

seeking justice, later with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict Rule with regard to

'locus standi.

(¶ 5.) In the present case, the appellants Local Alliance for Change filed a complaint against

the State of Bhilwara stating that A power of direct reference to the President by State

Assemblies would completely dilute the significance of Governor and reduce their roles to

passive officers.

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
B. STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS CANNOT BE READ ALLOW THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A

BILL TO THE PRESIDENT.

(¶ 6.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner has

sufficient ground under the article 200 to state that the Governor has a significant role to play

in getting the presidential assent.

(¶ 7.) Article 2004 states “When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a

State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both

Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the

Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent

therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President: Provided

that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for

assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the

House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in

particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may

recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall

reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses

with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall

not withhold assent therefrom: Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but

shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the

Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to

endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill .”

4
Royale India Rail Tours Ltd. v. Cox & Kings India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6905

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(¶ 8.) In this situation, the Local Alliance for Change can contend that since the Governor

has power to either assent to the bill or withhold the bill or reserve the bill for consideration

of the president or return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration , Governor has a

significant role to play in reserving the bill for consideration of the President.

(¶ 9.) Therefore, State Assembly’s powers should not be read to allow them to directly refer a

bill to the President.

Issue (2) : WHETHER THE BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND?

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

LAND

(¶ 10.) People have the right to move the Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of their rights granted by part III of the Indian Constitution. In other words one

can move to enforce his/her right to the apex court in way of proper proceedings is assured.

(¶ 17.) Therefore, writ petition filed by LAC saying that Bhilwara Admission to Medical

College Bill, 2022 violates Article 145 of the Constitution of LaLa Land is maintainable

under Art. 32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

B. BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 VIOLATES ART. 14 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND

5
Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175

Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(¶ 18.) Art. 14: Protection of life and liberty and equality before law – ‘No person shall be

deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any

person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory

of India.’

(¶ 19.) Moreover, the BAMC Bill, 2022 goes against the One Nation One Test Policy since it

allows medical admission to only students from State of Bhilwara, is restricted to only one

state not the whole nation.

(¶ 20.) This bill would effectively result in exclusivity and reservation to the student of

Bhilwara, in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

Issue 3: WHETHER MR PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION HAS

BEEN VIOLATED?

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

LAND

(¶ 10.) People have the right to move the Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of their rights granted by part III of the Indian Constitution. In other words one

can move to enforce his/her right to the apex court in way of proper proceedings is assured.

Therefore, Mr. Gems Panda moved to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his

fundamental right.

B. VIOLATION OF MR PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER

ART. 19(1)(A)6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND

6
Dream Land Estate v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 29835

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(¶ 11.) Art. 19(1)(a) : All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression.

(¶ 12.) Mr. Gems Panda in his video talked about the ways to succeed in the MET exam

which was not offensive. Mr. Gems Panda was being restricted in his speech.

(¶ 13.) Therefore, the Ministry of Telecommunication violated his right to freedom of

speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) by taking down that video to avoid further

damage.

NAVITAS, 2022
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND THE AUTHORITIES CITED,

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT TO:

I. ADJUDGE THAT THE COMPLAINANT LOCAL ALLIANCE FOR CHANGE AND MR. GEMS PANDA

HAD THE LOCUS TO FILE PLEADINGS/APPEALS IN THIS MATTER.

II. ADJUDGE THAT THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS CANNOT BE READ TO ALLOW THEM OT

DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT.

III. ADJUDGE THAT THE BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 VIOLATES

ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND.

IV. ADJUDGE THAT MR. GEMS PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION HAS
BEEN VIOLATED .

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE

AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER FACTION SHALL BE DUTY

BOUND FOREVER.

Sd/-____________________________

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

NAVITAS, 2022