Respondent's Memo

2/17/23, 9:55 PM Respondent's Memo - Indraprastha Moot, 2015 | PDF | Constitution | Social Institutions
Search Read free for 30 days
Documents  Social Science
·
Related · 31 pages
titles2K views
 100% (4)

Respondent's Memo - Indraprastha Moot, 2015
Uploaded by Nandinimmmmmmmmmmmmm
Respondent's Memo, Runners Up Team - Indraprastha Moot, 2015 Full description
     
Save 100% 0% Embed Share Print
Download now  Search document 
https://www.scribd.com/document/332069967/Respondent-s-Memo-Indraprastha-Moot-2015 1/63

TEAM CODE: TC-38R
Team Code:
Related titles

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL HIGH COURT OF ARYAVARTA
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _______ / 2015
- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION -
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA
Rashtriya Congress Party ……………….Petitoner
- versus -
Union of Aryavarta and Ors. .....…………Respondent

s
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE R ESPONDENTS
Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Central High Court of Aryavarta
4TH INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
Related titles

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ VIII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. IX
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ X
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................. 1
1. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE
CENTRAL HIGH COURT............................................................................................................. 1
A. THAT THE CENTRAL HIGH COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
INSTANT PETITION. ...................................................................................................................... 1
B. THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE COURT UNDER
ARTICLE 32. ................................................................................................................................2
C. THAT THE PIL IS MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL INTEREST, THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE. .. 2
D. MOREOVER , POLITICAL PARTIES AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1) (A). ..............................................................................2
E. THAT THE MEMBERS ARE PROTECTED BY PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES. ............................ 3
(a) There is Freedom of Speech in Parliament. ......................................................................... 3
(b) Article 122 further prevents judicial scrutiny. ..................................................................... 4
(c) Principle Of Separation Of Power. ......................................................................................5
2. THAT THE PREAMBLE CAN BE AMENDED ........................................................................ 5
A. THAT ANY AMENDMENT IS SUBJECT TO BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION ............. 5
B. THAT THE PREAMBLE MUST NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ORDINARY RESOLUTION ......................7
C. THAT AN AMENDMENT MUST ADD OR ENHANCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ...........8
3. THAT THE WORD “SECULAR ” SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PREAMBLE .................. 9
A. THE WORD “SECULAR ” IS AMBIGUOUS ................................................................................9
B. EXPRESS USE OF WORD ‘SECULAR ’ STANDS IN CONTRADICTION TO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS

OF CONSTITUTION ..................................................................................................................... 10
I
-Written Submissions on behalf of Respondents-

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
Related titlesC.

THE USE OF THE WORD “SECULAR ” WAS DELIBERATELY AVOIDED BY THE DRAFTERS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ................................................................................................................... 11
D. THE AMENDMENT WAS UNNECESSARY .............................................................................12
4. THAT EXPRESSION ‘SOCIALIST’ SHOULD BE R EMOVED FROM THE PREAMBLE. ........ 13
A. THE EXPRESSION ‘SOCIALIST’ CANNOT BE PRECISELY DEFINED. ....................................... 13
B. CONCEPT IS WITHERING AWAY ........................................................................................ 14
C. ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY ................................................................................................... 15
D. GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE FREEDOM TO DECIDE ITS ECONOMIC POLICY ................... 16
E. ‘SOCIALIST’ IS IN CONTRADICTION TO ARTICLE 14 ...........................................................17
F. I N ARGUENDO, THE INSERTION OF THE EXPRESSION ‘SOCIALIST’ IS UNNECESSARY. .......... 17
THE PRAYER ...................................................................................................................... IX
II
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles

-I NDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
Related titles

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
A.S. Narayan v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1765.................................................................... 9
AkadasiPadhan v. State of Orissa, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691................................................ 14
Athiest Society of India, Nalgonda District Branch v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1992 AP
310........................................................................................................................................ 10
Bal Patil and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3172 ........................ 10, 11
Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333............................................... 17
Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 1124 ................................................... 1
Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR1987 SC 374. ..................................................... 2
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, [1950] 1 SCR 869 ................................................ 2
Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC 870 ..........................................................................1
Dattaji Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590 .......................................2
Davis v. Powell, [1941] 1 KB 519 ............................................................................................. 8
Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam and Anr. v. The Election Commission of India, AIR
2012 SC 219 ........................................................................................................................... 3
Dwarkadas Srinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., AIR 1951 Bom
86.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC .......................................................................... 14
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715 .................. 1
Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1 ................................................................1
Gurtej Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) ILR 1Punjab and Haryana 418 ......................10
I.C. GolakNath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1643 ............................... 7
III
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
Related titles

Start Free Trial
Cancel Anytime.
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
Related titles

Start Free Trial
Cancel Anytime.
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles

Advertisement
Related titles
Related titles
Related titles
Share this document

    
You might
Related titlesalso like

Memorial Appellant(3rd RGNUL National Moot Court Competition, 2014)
Aman Uniyal
BMS Petitioner
karti_am
Respondent_TC 9 (1)
aryan
Magazines Podcasts Sheet music
Surana & Surana National Trial Advocacy Moot & Judgment Writing Competition 2016 - North
akshi
Full Memorial for Petitioner

The Penstand Journal
Memorial Main Petitioner.

NIMISH ARJARIA
Constitution Social Institutions Social Science Public Law
Related titles

Memorial for Petitioners Team '32'
Bharat Vijay
Petitioner(Craf)
Shashank Bajaj
Appellant Memorial
ShreyaTewari
Memorial for Prosecution

Bharat Vijay
CNLU 1st PA Inamdar International Moot Court Competition 2016 (P)

Vidushi Trehan
Best Memorial Rakesh Aggarwal Memorial Moot Court Competition 2016 (P)
Vidushi Trehan
Show more
About Support Legal Social
About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms Instagram
Press Accessibility Privacy Twitter
Our blog Purchase help Copyright Facebook
Join our team! AdChoices Cookie Preferences Pinterest

Related titles

Contact us Publishers Do not sell or share my
personal information
Invite friends
Gifts
Scribd for enterprise
Get our free apps
Books • Audiobooks • Magazines • Podcasts • Sheet music • Documents • Snapshots
Language: English
Copyright © 2023 Scribd Inc.

Respondent&#39;s Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Respondent&#39;s Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent&#39;s Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/17/23, 9:55 PM Respondent's Memo - Indraprastha Moot, 2015 | PDF | Constitution | Social Institutions

Search Read free for 30 days

Documents  Social Science