TEAM CODE: I7

KLE SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGE

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2023
April 2023

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TAKESHIA

WRIT PETITION NO.___________/2023

In the Matter of

NOORJAHAN ………………………………………….………PETITIONER

Vs.

UNION OF TAKESHIA………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………….…

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………

TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………...……

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………...…

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………...…

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………..…

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………...…

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE INSTRUMENT,

WITHDRAWING THE RECOGNITION OF RULERS WITHOUT FOLLOWING
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSTITUITONAL PROCEDURES?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTION CAN BE QUESTIONED BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT FOR BREACH OF THE INSRUMENT OF ACCESSION?

THE PRAYER…………………………………………………………………

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. A.I.R All India Reports

2 UOT Union Of Takeshia
3. Ltd. Limited
4. I.C. Indian Cases
5. S.C. Supreme Court
6. Anr Another
7. Sec Section
8. A.C. Appeal Cases
9. Pvt Private
10. Vs. Versus
11. Corp. Corporation

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFEERRED:

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Constitutional Law, M.P. JAIN, 7TH Edition.

2. Constitution of India, V.N.SHUKLA’s, 12THEdition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CASES

CASES REFERRED:

1. HH Maharajadhiraja Madhava Rao v. Union of India (1971) AIR SC 530.

2. Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCR 631.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal (1964) 7 SCR 174.
4. Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (1974) AIR SC 1471.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Takeshia under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Takeshia by filing a Writ of Mandamus, challenging the constitutional validity
of Presidential order Princess Noorjahan and exercise of power by the president. The petitioner
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Article 32 in the Constitution of Takeshia – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by

this Part –

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 clause ( 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.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Takeshia was under foreign imperialism till the mid-1900s, and the princely states,
comprising 44% of the land and 28% of the population, were ruled by hereditary royals
under the condition of allegiance to the Imperial Government.

2. In 1947, Takeshia suffered a partition, and the princely states were given the option to
accede to Takeshia or the newly formed Republic of Pakeshia (ROP) or to remain
independent.

3. The princely states acceded to Takeshia in return for an earmarked sum called the Ivy
Fund paid annually to the rulers of the princely states by signing the Instrument of
Accession.

4. The Ivy Fund agreement was made part of the Constitution by the constituent assembly,
and the population of the princely states was then directly governed by the government
of Takeshia.

5. The financial burden of paying the Ivy Fund became increasingly difficult for Takeshia,
and there was contention that such payments were irreconcilable with the ideals of
democracy as they proliferated special treatment of the ruling class.

6. The government came out with an Amendment to the Constitution of Takeshia for the
Abolition of Ivy Fund and Titles such as 'Maharaja, Raja', but the bill was defeated in
the Upper House.

7. Despite the bill's defeat, an instrument was passed from the Office of the President,
withdrawing the recognition of the rulers of the princely states, thus rendering the ruling
class displeased.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

8. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Takeshia under Article 32
of the Constitution of Takeshia against the Presidential Order, declaring it void and in
violation of the Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE INSTRUMENT,

WITHDRAWING TH ERECOGNITION OF RULERS WITHOUT FOLLOWING
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSTITUITONAL PROCEDURES?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTION CAN BE QUESTIONED BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT FOR BREACH OF THE INSRUMENT OF ACCESSION?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

• Breach of Natural Justice

The Presidential Order withdrawing the recognition of the rulers of princely states was passed
without following the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice require that
a person must be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against
him. In the present case, the rulers of princely states were not given any notice or opportunity
to be heard before withdrawing their recognition. The Government's action is a clear violation
of the principles of natural justice and should be declared void.

• Breach of Instrument of Accession

The Instrument of Accession provided that the rulers of princely states would be recognized as
part of the Union of Takeshia, and in return, they would receive an earmarked sum called the
Ivy Fund. The Government's action of withdrawing the recognition of the rulers of princely
states is a clear breach of the Instrument of Accession. The Government cannot unilaterally
withdraw the recognition of the rulers without following the constitutional procedures and
principles of natural justice.

• Violation of Right to Property and Personal Liberty

The Presidential Order withdrawing the recognition of the rulers of princely states is a violation
of the right to property and personal liberty. The rulers of princely states were entitled to receive
the Ivy Fund as per the Instrument of Accession. The Government's action of withdrawing the
recognition of the rulers without following constitutional procedures and principles of natural
justice deprives them of their property without due process of law. Moreover, withdrawing the
recognition of the rulers without any notice or opportunity to be heard also violates their right
to personal liberty.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Government has a fiduciary duty towards the rulers of princely states to protect their
interests and rights as per the Instrument of Accession. However, the Government's action of
withdrawing the recognition of the rulers without following constitutional procedures and
principles of natural justice is a breach of its fiduciary duty towards the rulers. The Government
cannot take any action that is against the interests of the rulers without following the principles
of natural justice and constitutional procedures.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO.01:

Whether the act of president is justified in making the instrument, withdrawing the
recognition of rulers?

It is contended that the act of the President in making the instrument which withdraws the
recognition of rulers is ultra-vires to the Constitutional procedures and Principles of Natural
Justice.

This argument is justified on the basis of the following grounds:

1.1 That the President has not followed constitutional procedures.

Article 123 of The Constitution1 , gives the power to the President to promulgate
ordinances and is given that the ordinances promulgated the President shall have the
same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. The essentials or the requirements that
are mentioned in The Constitution to promulgate the ordinances are that any time when
both the houses of Parliament are not in session, or the President is satisfied that there
is a circumstance which is necessary for him to take immediate action.

With reference to the facts mentioned above, it is contended that the President has not
followed the essentials or the requirements for Promulgation of Ordinance as both The
Houses were in session and there was no such circumstances where there was a need of
action by the President.

1.2 Withdrawing the recognition of rulers

26th Amendment of the Constitution2 dealt with the removal of privy purse which was a
special privilege provide for rulers. This amendment put to an end to the practice of the
privy purse. This amendment resulted in removal of the privileges of rulers belonging to
princely states and the replacement of the earlier articles by either amending or inserting
new clauses and resulted in adding a new article where the recognition was terminated

1
Constitution of India, 1950
2
Constitution Amendment Act, (twenty-sixth), 1971
 which was given. 26th Amendment omitted Articles 291 and Article 362 of the Constitution
and added Article 363A which states that a prince, chief or another individual that the
President had recognized as the ruler or the successor to the ruler of an Indian State stops
to be recognized in such capacities.

The Supreme Court in the case of H.H Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao v. Union Of India3
where the same set of facts may be observed and there was a question on validity of the action
of the President. It was held that The act of the President is ultra-vires to the constitution when
the Parliament refused to amend the Constitution, the President’s power did not extend that far
by executive action.

The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India4 , it was held
that the executive power vested in the president under the Article 53 of the Constitution is
directed to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution. That power is intended to be
exercise in aid of and not to destroy constitutional institutions.

In the Case of State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal5 , The Supreme Court observed that however
wide the power of the President, it does extend o withdrawing recognition of all the rulers by
a midnight order. The President was incompetent to do so and it must be treated as nullity.

The President is not above the law and all the citizens are equal before the law. The doctrine
of Rule of law states that everyone are equal before the law and the law shall treat everyone
equal and hence, law of the land is supreme.

1.3 Violation of Principle of Natural Justice

Principle of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as
being the minimum protection of the Rights of the individual against the arbitrary
procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority
while making an order affecting those rights.
Audi aletram partem is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair
hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against
them.

3
HH Maharajadhiraja Madhava Rao v. Union of India (1971) AIR SC 530.
4
Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union Of India (1970) 2 SCR 631.
5
State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal (1964) 7 SCR 174.
 It is contended to be the violation of Principle of natural justice as the President has
made instrument or promulgated ordinance without hearing the other side.
The Supreme court in the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat6 , it was
held that an order which infringes a fundamental freedom passed in violation of audi
alteram partem rule is a nullity.
Principle of natural justice is a basic right which is ‘to be heard’ and it’s pure form is
not to penalize anyone without any valid and reasonable grounds. Prior notice is to be
given to a person so he can prepare to know what all charges are framed.
It is thus contended that the impugned instrument or ordinance is violating the principle
of natural justice and also ultra-vires to the constitutional procedures.

6
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (1974) AIR SC 1471.