NAVITAS 2022

NAVITAS, 2022

Team Code: N115 – Respondent

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF LaLa LAND

(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
NAVITAS 2022

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................I

Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................III

Index of Abbreviations..............................................................................................................V

Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................VI

Statement of Facts..................................................................................................................VII

Issues Raised.........................................................................................................................VIII

Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................IX

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................1

I. THE S T A T E A S S E M B L Y ’ S P O W E R S C A N B E R E A D T O A L L O W
THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

[1.1] The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of LaLa Land

[1.2] Education being a part of concurrent list

II. BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL,2022 DOES NOT

VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND
 [2.1] Article 14 of the Constitution of Lala Land – Reasonable Classification

[2.2] BAMC, 2022 meets the needs of the state

I. MR. GEMS PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS

NOT VIOLATED

[3.1] Article 19

[3.2] Reasonable Restrictions

Prayer for Relief…………………………………………………………………………...11

 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

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 NAVITAS, 2020

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

Hon’ble Honourable

Art. Article

Edn Edition

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Pvt Private

Ltd Limited

CO Company

Govt. Government

Gau Gauhati

Bom Bombay

AP Andhra Pradesh

US United States

AC Appeal Cases

Sol Jo Solicitor’s Journal

JP Justice of the Peace

QB Queen’s Bench

L Ed Lawyer’s Edition

LJKB Law Journal, King’s Bench

EWHC England and Wales High Court

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 NAVITAS, 2020

ALL ER All England Law Reports

WLR Weekly Law Reports

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Union of lala Land , the Respondent has the honour to submit before The Hon'ble

Supreme Court of LaLa Land , the Memorandum for the Respondent under Article 32

of the Constitution of Indica, 1950.

The Constitution of Indica, Article 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 clauses (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.’

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present

case.

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 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.

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 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 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.

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 ISSUES RAISED

I. 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?

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

Constitution of LaLa Land?

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

PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS CAN BE READ TO ALLOW

THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed

before the bench is not maintainable on the grounds that the Petitioner does not have the

requisite locus standi as there was no infringement of the fundamental rights contrary to the

claims of the Petitioner. By the virtue of Article 254, State Assembly’s powers can be read to allow

them to directly refer a bill to the President.

II. BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 DOES NOT

VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that BAMC, 2022 does not go

against One Nation One Test because BAMC does not turn blind eye towards regional and

socio-economic vulnerabilities. It ensures equality as stated in Art. 14 of the Constitution of

LaLa Land.

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 III. MR. GEMS PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS

NOT VIOLATED.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that Mr. Gems Panda’s right to

freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19 is not violated because the act done by the

Ministry of Telecommunication of taking down his video comes under the ambit of

“reasonable restrictions”.

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE STATE ASSEMBLY’S POWERS CAN BE READ TO ALLOW

THEM TO DIRECTLY REFER A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

[1.1] THE MAINTAINABILITY OF A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before

the bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land depends on the facts of each case. The question as to when the

Supreme Court should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right

alleged to have been infringed and the remedy claimed.3 In the present case, the petition is not

maintainable on the grounds that there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights and the

Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies

PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [1.2] EDUCATION BEING A PART OF CONCURRENT LIST

Art. 2541, (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any

provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any

provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent

List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed

before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing

law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the

repugnancy, be void.

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State 1 *** with respect to one of the matters

enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an

earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so

made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the

President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting any law with respect

to the same matter, including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law made by

the State's Legislature.

A bill can be directly sent to the President because the need for power of direct reference stems

from the fact that matters related to education are part of Concurrent List, and State should have

all the operative power to facilitate the same. Governor is a passive presence in any case, since

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

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

PAGE | 12
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
matters of Concurrent List, that might be repugnant to Central laws, need Presidential assent and

the Governor has no role to play in the same.

Also, the States, state-run universities have a right to admit students to undergraduate and

postgraduate medical courses as per their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations and the

same does not violate Part III of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

II. BHILWARA ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE BILL, 2022 DOES NOT

VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA

[2.1] ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LALA LAND – REASONABLE

CLASSIFICATION

"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the

laws within the territory of India."

Reasonable Classification and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons, including citizens, corporations, and foreigners.[3][4]

[5]
 Its provisions have come up for discussion in the Supreme Court in a number of cases and the

case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar reiterated its meaning and scope as

follows. Article 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable', but forbids class

legislation. A classification of groups of people is considered reasonable when:[6]

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

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

PAGE | 13
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 1. The classification is based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons
or things that are grouped from others that are left out of the group, and,
2. The differential has a rational relation with the objective of the act.
In addition, the classification must be non-arbitrary. Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa

(1973) provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act:

"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed,

cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn

enemies… Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both according to political

logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14."

[2.2] BAMC, 2022 MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE STATE

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.

The allotment of all the government seats shall be based solely on the basis of interse merit

obtained in the State-level entrance examination conducted annually by the Government. BAMC

Bill , 2022 does not go against One Nation One Test Policy and would effectively result to

inclusivity. Reservation to the students of Bhilwara is justified by Article 46 of the Constitution

of LaLa Land

PAGE | 14
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 PAGE | 15
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 III. MR. GEMS PANDA’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS

NOT VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Mr. Gems Panda’s Right to

freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not violated.

[3.2] ARTICLE 19 3

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) omitted

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub clause

3
Dream Land Estate v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 29835

PAGE | 16
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the
interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe

(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying
on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
otherwise

[3.1] REASONABLE RESTRICTION

Ministry of Telecommunication was right in taking down Mr. Gems Panda video since the

reason why it was taken down was that of putting reasonable restrictions. According to

Article 19 reasonable restrictions on speech and expression can be imposed in order to

maintain public order.

PAGE | 17
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 PAGE | 18
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of LaLa Land be pleased to:

1. Declare, that in the light of procedural deadlock in Article 200 and Article 254 of the

Constitution of LaLa Land, State Assembly’s powers can be read to allow them to

directly refer a bill to the President.

&

2. Declare, that the Bhilwara Admission to Medical College Bill, 2022 does not violate

Article 14 of the Constitution of LaLa Land.

&

3. Declare, that Mr. Panda’s right to freedom of speech and expression has not been

violated.

PAGE | 19
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 AND / OR

The court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and

good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty-bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

PAGE | 20
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF