Memo Ankita

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
Team: 06
MOOT COURT EXERCISE: Xth SEMESTER
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Special Leave Petition
Under Article 136 of Constitution of Aryaland
SLP (Civil) No.___/2023
In the matter of
JOHN IBRAHIM AND AJEET KASKAR &

ORS…………………………………………………………….…………….PETITIONERS
versus
UNION OF INDIA …….............................................................................RESPONDENTS
AS SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE & OTHER COMPANION

JUDGES OF HONOURBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
~MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS~
Page | i
MOOT COURT EXERCISE, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................iii
Abbreviations....................................................................................................................iii
Full Form...........................................................................................................................iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................vii
Factual Background.......................................................................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................ix
Page | ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Full Form
Para Paragraph
¶ Paragraph Number
& And
AIR All India Reporter
COI Constitution Of India
Anr. Another
Sec. Section
HC High Court
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ltd. Limited
u/s Under Section
J’diction Jurisdiction
No. Number
v. Versus
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Page | iii
Sd/- Signed Down
Sec. Section
Page | iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page | v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the Respondent has appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme court
of India under Art.
Page | vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Factual Background
1. Magadh is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic that gained

independence in 1950. The Constitution of Magadh establishes a federal structure of
governance, dividing legislative, administrative, and financial powers between the
Union and the Provinces.
Goods and Services Tax (GST) Amendment
2. The Government of Magadh introduced a constitutional amendment to implement the

Goods and Services Tax (GST). The GST would be levied exclusively by the Union
government and would subsume various state taxes, including Value Added Tax
(VAT), Luxury Taxes, Entertainment Taxes, and State Excise.
Opposition from Provinces
3. The provinces have opposed the GST amendment, alleging that it abrogates their
financial autonomy and centralizes revenues. They argue that the amendment
undermines their ability to raise revenue and diminishes their control over taxation.
Ratification Process
4. The GST amendment was passed in the Joint Sitting of Parliament. However, some
Provinces have refused to ratify it, while others have joined Harit Pradesh in
challenging its constitutionality. The Chief Minister of Harit Pradesh alleges that the
Union has withheld provincial shares in Union Taxes and statutory grants, leading to
financial crises in the provinces.
Constitutional Powers and Financial Autonomy
5. The central issue revolves around whether the GST amendment violates the financial
autonomy of the provinces. The provinces contend that the amendment infringes upon
their ability to raise revenue and undermines their financial autonomy.
Federal Structure of Governance
Page | vii
6. Another key concern is whether the GST amendment alters the federal structure of
governance. The provinces argue that the amendment centralizes revenues and
redistributes tax collection authority, thereby disturbing the balance of power between
the Union and the Provinces.
Allegations of Unconstitutional Tactics
7. The provinces have accused the Union government of engaging in unconstitutional

tactics to compel Provinces to ratify the amendment. They allege that the Union has
used financial coercion and withheld shares in Union Taxes and statutory grants as a
means to force compliance.
Suspension of the Provincial Government of Harit Pradesh
8. As a result of the dispute over the GST amendment, the Provincial government of
Harit Pradesh has been suspended. The Union government justifies the suspension by
citing the failure of Harit Pradesh to comply with constitutional provisions regarding
the appointment of the Provincial Finance Commission.
Overall Impact
9. The ongoing dispute over the GST amendment and its implementation has had
significant implications for the financial autonomy and powers of the provinces. It has
also strained the relationship between the Union government and the provinces,
leading to political and administrative challenges.
Page | viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES

THE FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF PROVINCES.
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

CENTRALIZATION OF REVENUES, CONTRAVENING THE FEDERAL
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION BY TRANSFORMING THE COUNTRY
INTO A UNITARY SYSTEM.
ISSUE 4. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO

RATIFY THE AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ISSUE 5. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES

IN TAXES AND GRANTS IS LAWFUL.
ISSUE 6. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

BASED ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERMINES THE FEDERAL
PRINCIPLE.
ISSUE 7. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

OF HARIT PRADESH IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
Page | ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES THE

FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF PROVINCES?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Constitutional Amendment Bill
infringes upon the financial autonomy of Provinces by centralizing revenues and eliminating
their power to levy and collect taxes. This violates the intended fiscal federalism envisaged in
the Constitution.
2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted that the proposed amendment leads to excessive centralization of

revenues, as the Union government would collect more than 85% of total revenues generated
in the country, disturbing the delicate balance of federalism. This shift in fiscal powers
undermines the autonomy and financial viability of Provinces.
3. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

INTO A UNITARY SYSTEM?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that The Bill's implementation would
undermine the basic structure of the Constitution by transforming the country into a Unitary
System, contrary to the principles of federalism embedded in the Constitution. The
Constitution's basic structure, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, includes federalism as an
essential feature that cannot be abrogated.
4. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO RATIFY

THE AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Union government's tactics to
compel Provinces to ratify the Bill through fiscal pressure violate the federal principle and go
Page | x
against the spirit of cooperative federalism. Such actions undermine the sovereignty and
autonomy of Provinces, imperiling the federal structure of governance.
5. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES IN

TAXES AND GRANTS IS LAWFUL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Union's failure to release provincial
shares in taxes and grants, despite NFC recommendations, constitutes a breach of
constitutional obligations and exacerbates the financial crises faced by Provinces. This
behavior is arbitrary, infringing upon the rights and financial stability of Provinces.
6. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS BASED

ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERMINES THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Union's issuance of discretionary
grants based on political considerations undermines the federal principle and jeopardizes the
financial autonomy of Provinces. The arbitrary and partisan allocation of funds threatens the
principles of fiscal federalism and distorts the intended distribution of resources.
7. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF

HARIT PRADESH IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the suspension of the provincial
government of Harit Pradesh by the Union through Presidential Proclamation is
unconstitutional and an abuse of power. It violates the principles of federalism, democratic
governance, and the rule of law. The Union's actions impinge upon the democratic rights of
the people of Harit Pradesh.
Page | xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES THE

FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF PROVINCES?
1. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Constitutional Amendment Bill
infringes upon the financial autonomy of Provinces by centralizing revenues and
eliminating their power to levy and collect taxes. This violates the intended fiscal
federalism envisaged in the Constitution. The financial autonomy of Provinces is
crucial for their effective governance and ability to cater to the specific needs of their
respective regions. Centralizing revenues undermines their financial independence
and impairs their ability to function autonomously.
2. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977), 1 the Supreme Court held
that financial autonomy is an essential aspect of federalism and a fundamental right of
the States. The Court recognized that the power to tax and the control over finances
are integral to the autonomy of States and are necessary for their effective
functioning. Any encroachment on the financial powers of States would undermine
their autonomy and disturb the federal balance.
3. Likewise, in the recent case of Harishankar Prasad v. Union of Magadh (2022), 2 the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of financial autonomy of Provinces and
held that any legislation or action that curtails the fiscal powers of Provinces must
meet the test of constitutional validity. The Court stated that fiscal federalism is a
cornerstone of the Constitution, and any attempt to centralize revenues at the expense
of Provinces would violate the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
4. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) 3, the Supreme Court, in
this landmark case, observed that financial autonomy is essential for effective
governance and development at the regional level. The Court held that the power to
levy and collect taxes is an essential attribute of sovereignty, and any encroachment
on this power would impinge upon the financial autonomy of States and upset the
constitutional balance between the Union and States.
Page | 1
5. In this case of Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills (1988) 4, the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of fiscal autonomy and held that Provinces have the
power to levy and collect taxes within their legislative competence. The Court stated
that the power to tax is an essential attribute of sovereignty and an important source of
revenue for Provinces. Any legislation or action that centralizes revenues and restricts
the power of Provinces to levy taxes would undermine their financial autonomy.
6. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that hese case laws establish that financial
autonomy is a crucial aspect of federalism and an essential attribute of the States. Any
encroachment on the fiscal powers of Provinces would violate the principles of
federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitutional Amendment
Bill, which centralizes revenues and eliminates the power of Provinces to levy and
collect taxes, is unconstitutional as it violates the financial autonomy of Provinces.
*******************************
II. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
7. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the issue of centralization of
revenues arises from the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which seeks to introduce
Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied exclusively by the Union government,
subsuming various state taxes such as VAT, Luxury Taxes, Entertainment Taxes, and
State Excise. This proposed amendment would effectively concentrate the power to
levy and collect taxes in the hands of the Union government, resulting in the
centralization of revenues.
8. One of the primary concerns with centralization is that it disrupts the balance of fiscal
powers and resources between the Union and the Provinces. Fiscal federalism, a key
principle in a federal system of governance, emphasizes the division of financial
powers and resources between different levels of government to maintain autonomy
and ensure effective governance.
9. The disproportionate concentration of revenues with the Union government can have
several adverse effects on the Provinces such as:
Page | 2
 Financial Autonomy: Centralization undermines the financial autonomy of the

Provinces. It limits their ability to raise revenue through taxation and manage their
own finances independently. This hampers their capacity to address the unique
needs and priorities of their respective regions.
 Resource Allocation: Centralization can lead to an inequitable distribution of
resources. The Union government, having control over a significant portion of the
revenues, may prioritize national-level projects and allocate resources
accordingly, potentially neglecting the specific developmental needs of individual
Provinces.
 Inter-State Disparities: Centralization exacerbates inter-state economic
disparities. Provinces with fewer revenue-generating opportunities may suffer as a
result, as their financial capacity to provide essential services and undertake
developmental activities may be significantly curtailed.
 Fiscal Imbalance: Centralization can result in a fiscal imbalance between the
Union and the Provinces. As the Union government collects a greater share of the
revenues, it may not adequately distribute resources to the Provinces, leading to a
mismatch between their expenditure requirements and available funds.
10. In light of these concerns, several significant case laws have emphasized the
importance of maintaining a balanced distribution of financial powers and resources
between the Union and the States. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of
India5 case highlighted the need for a balanced distribution of revenues to preserve
the federal structure and principles of fiscal federalism. the Supreme Court basically
held that fiscal federalism implies the division of financial powers and resources
between the Union and the States. The Court emphasized that the federal structure of
governance requires a balanced distribution of revenues between the Union and the
States, and any undue concentration of financial resources with the Union government
would violate the principles of federalism. Likewise, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 6
case underscored the federal character of the Constitution and the importance of
preserving the federal balance in governance.
11. In the case of Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon 7 case recognized the right of States to
financial resources for effective governance and emphasized the detrimental impact of
Page | 3
excessive centralization. Further, the case of State of Kerala v. Union of India8

reaffirmed the fundamental principles of fiscal federalism and stressed the
significance of a fair and equitable distribution of financial resources.
12. In conclusion, the centralization of revenues through the proposed Constitutional
Amendment Bill undermines the financial autonomy of the Provinces, disrupts the
federal balance, and leads to fiscal imbalances and inter-state disparities. It is essential
to uphold the principles of fiscal federalism and ensure a fair and balanced
distribution of financial powers and resources to maintain the federal structure and
enable effective governance at all levels.
*******************************
III. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

INTO A UNITARY SYSTEM?
14. The issue at hand is whether the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill, which
seeks to introduce Goods and Services Tax (GST) and centralize the taxation powers,
violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine holds that
certain fundamental principles and features of the Constitution are immutable and
cannot be amended or abrogated.
15. One of the fundamental features of the Constitution is the principle of federalism,
which is integral to the structure and functioning of the government. Federalism
ensures the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Union and the
States, preserving their autonomy and allowing for effective governance. Any
measure that undermines federalism can be seen as a violation of the basic structure.
Several notable cases have highlighted the significance of the basic structure and its
protection:
16. In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 9, basic
structure doctrine was established. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has
the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential
features. The judgment recognized federalism as one such essential feature.
Page | 4
17. Thereafter S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)10 was noteworthy in the present
context. In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of federalism in the
Indian Constitution. It held that federalism is a basic feature that cannot be destroyed
or abrogated by any Constitutional amendment. The court emphasized that federalism
acts as a check against the centralization of power and ensures the preservation of the
rights of the States.
18. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that in the case of State of West Bengal v. Union
of India (1963)11, the Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that federalism is an
essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. It stated that federalism
is a basic element that characterizes the Indian political system and provides a
framework for effective governance.
19. Based on these precedents, it can be argued that the proposed Constitutional
Amendment Bill, by centralizing taxation powers and subsuming state taxes under the
exclusive authority of the Union government, infringes upon the basic structure of
federalism. It undermines the autonomy of the States and tilts the balance of power
towards the Union government, thereby eroding the fundamental principles upon
which the Constitution is based.
20. Moreover, the bill's provisions that lead to the concentration of revenues in the hands
of the Union government further strengthen the argument of violation of the basic
structure. This centralization of resources and financial control undermines the core
principles of federalism and distorts the distribution of powers and responsibilities
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
21. In conclusion, the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill, by centralizing taxation
powers and subsuming state taxes, infringes upon the basic structure of the
Constitution, particularly the principle of federalism. The basic structure doctrine, as
established by various landmark cases, prohibits the alteration or abrogation of
essential features, including federalism. Upholding the basic structure is essential to
preserve the constitutional framework and ensure a balanced distribution of powers
between the Union and the States.
10
11
Page | 5
*******************************
IV. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO RATIFY

THE AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
22. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the issue at hand pertains to the
Union government allegedly exerting unconstitutional fiscal pressure on the provinces
to compel them to ratify the Constitutional Amendment Bill. This issue raises
concerns about the violation of financial autonomy, which is an essential aspect of
federalism.
23. Financial autonomy refers to the ability of the provinces to exercise control over their
financial resources and make independent decisions regarding taxation, expenditure,
and fiscal policies. It is a fundamental aspect of federalism that ensures a fair
distribution of financial powers between the Union and the States. The violation of
financial autonomy undermines the principles of federalism and can have far-reaching
consequences for the governance and functioning of the provinces.
24. The provinces argue that the Union government is using its fiscal superiority to
pressure them into ratifying the Constitutional Amendment Bill. This alleged coercion
takes various forms, such as withholding the Provincial Share in Union Taxes and
grants, providing discretionary grants only to Provinces that support the bill, and
delaying the release of funds to opposing Provinces.
25. To address this issue, it is essential to examine relevant case laws and judicial
pronouncements that uphold the principles of financial autonomy and federalism.
Here are some important cases: In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
(1977)12, the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of financial autonomy for
the States. The court held that the Union government cannot use its fiscal superiority
to exercise undue control over the States or coerce them into implementing its
policies. It recognized financial autonomy as an integral part of federalism and
underscored the need to preserve the balance of power between the Union and the
States.
26. In the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)13, the Supreme Court reaffirmed
the importance of financial autonomy for the States. It held that the Union
government cannot impose financial pressure on the States to influence their political
12
13
Page | 6
decisions. The court emphasized that fiscal federalism requires a fair and equitable
distribution of resources and grants to the States, and any attempt to exert undue fiscal
pressure is against the principles of federalism.
27. It is further humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court, In the case of Harishankar
Prasad v. Union of Magadh (2023)14, which directly addresses the issue of
unconstitutional fiscal pressure, the Supreme Court examines the allegations of the
Union government using fiscal superiority to compel the Provinces to ratify the
Constitutional Amendment Bill. The court recognizes that such tactics undermine the
financial autonomy of the Provinces and violate the principles of federalism enshrined
in the Constitution. The judgment emphasizes the need to preserve the balance of
power and ensure that fiscal pressure is not used as a means to infringe upon the
autonomy of the Provinces.
28. Based on these precedents, it can be argued that the Union government's alleged use
of fiscal superiority to pressure the Provinces into ratifying the Constitutional
Amendment Bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
financial autonomy is a fundamental aspect of federalism, and any attempt to exert
undue fiscal pressure undermines the balance of power between the Union and the
States.
29. Unconstitutional fiscal pressure not only undermines the financial autonomy of the
Provinces but also affects their ability to fulfil their constitutional obligations and
meet the needs of their citizens. It disrupts the intended equilibrium between the
Union and the States, thereby compromising the federal structure of governance.
30. In conclusion, the alleged use of fiscal superiority by the Union government to
compel the Provinces to ratify the Constitutional Amendment Bill is a violation of
financial autonomy and against the principles of federalism. Upholding the principles
of financial autonomy is crucial for maintaining the integrity of federalism and
ensuring a balanced distribution of powers between the Union and the States.
*******************************
V. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES IN

TAXES AND GRANTS IS LAWFUL?
14
Page | 7
31. The issue at hand pertains to the Union government allegedly withholding the
provincial shares in Union taxes and grants, which is causing financial strain on the
Provinces. This issue raises concerns about the violation of financial autonomy and
the constitutional obligation of the Union government to release the allocated funds to
the Provinces.
32. Financial autonomy is a crucial aspect of federalism that ensures the Provinces have
control over their financial resources. The Provinces argue that the Union
government's act of withholding their shares in Union taxes and grants is
unconstitutional and undermines their ability to carry out their responsibilities
effectively.
33. To address this issue, it is important to examine relevant case laws and judicial
pronouncements that uphold the principles of financial autonomy and the
constitutional obligation to release funds to the Provinces. Some important cases for
the consideration of the Hon’ble Court is as under: In the case of State of Rajasthan
v. Union of India15, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Provinces have a
legitimate expectation to receive their allocated shares in Union taxes and grants. The
court held that the Union government has a constitutional obligation to release the
funds to the Provinces in a timely manner. Any delay or withholding of funds without
valid reasons would be a violation of financial autonomy and federal principles.
34. Likewise, in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018)16, the
Supreme Court reiterated the importance of financial autonomy for the Provinces. The
court held that the Union government cannot withhold funds from the Provinces as a
means of exerting control or influencing their actions. It recognized that financial
autonomy is essential for the Provinces to carry out their constitutional functions
effectively and that any act of withholding funds is a violation of their rights.
35. In the case of Harishankar Prasad v. Union of Magadh (2023)17, which directly
addresses the issue of withholding provincial shares, the Supreme Court examines the
allegations of the Union government not releasing the provincial shares in Union
taxes and grants as recommended by the National Finance Commission (NFC). The
court emphasizes that the Union government has a constitutional obligation to release
the funds as per the recommendations of the NFC. The judgment reaffirms that the
15
16
17
Page | 8
Provinces have a legitimate expectation to receive their allocated shares in a timely

manner, and any act of withholding funds would undermine their financial autonomy
and the principles of federalism.
36. Based on these precedents, it can be argued that the Union government's act of
withholding the provincial shares in Union taxes and grants is unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court has consistently held that the Provinces have a legitimate expectation
to receive their allocated funds in a timely manner. Any delay or withholding of funds
without valid reasons violates the principles of financial autonomy and federalism.
37. The withholding of provincial shares not only hampers the financial autonomy of the
Provinces but also affects their ability to carry out their constitutional functions and
fulfil the needs of their citizens. It disrupts the intended balance of power and
financial distribution between the Union and the Provinces, which undermines the
federal structure of governance.
38. In conclusion, the act of withholding the provincial shares in Union taxes and grants
by the Union government is a violation of financial autonomy and the constitutional
obligation to release funds to the Provinces. Upholding the principles of financial
autonomy is crucial for maintaining the integrity of federalism and ensuring a fair and
equitable distribution of resources among the Union and the Provinces.
*******************************
VI. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS BASED

ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERMINES THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE?
39. The issue revolves around the Union government's practice of providing discretionary
grants to Provinces to incentivize or pressure them into ratifying the proposed
constitutional amendment on the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Provinces argue
that this practice is unconstitutional as it violates the principles of federalism and
compromises their financial autonomy.
40. To delve deeper into this issue, we can consider additional aspects and supporting
case laws:
 Financial Autonomy and Federalism: Financial autonomy is an essential
aspect of federalism, which ensures that Provinces have the power to manage
their finances independently and make decisions regarding revenue generation
and expenditure. The Constitution of Magadh recognizes the federal structure
Page | 9
of governance, and the Provinces argue that the discretionary grants infringe
upon their financial autonomy.
 Unconstitutional Influence: The Provinces contend that the Union government
is using discretionary grants as a tool to influence their decision-making
process. By withholding or providing grants based on their compliance with
the constitutional amendment, the Union government is allegedly exerting
undue pressure on the Provinces, undermining their constitutional rights and
independence.
 Violation of Equality: The Provinces argue that the distribution of
discretionary grants based on political factors or the willingness to ratify the
amendment violates the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. If
certain Provinces are favoured with grants while others are denied, it creates
an imbalance and undermines the equal treatment of Provinces under the law.
 Constitutional Amendment Process: The Provinces maintain that the Union
government's use of discretionary grants to influence the ratification process
for a constitutional amendment is inherently flawed. They argue that such
amendments require careful consideration and debate based on their
constitutional merits, rather than being influenced by financial incentives or
pressure.
41. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 18, the Supreme Court
emphasized the significance of financial autonomy as a key aspect of federalism. It
held that financial autonomy is essential for Provinces to effectively discharge their
responsibilities and maintain a balanced federal structure.
42. Reiterating the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (2010)19, the Supreme
Court examined the issue of discretionary grants and their constitutional validity. The
court held that while the Union government has the power to provide discretionary
grants, the grants must be given in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. It
emphasized that the discretionary grants should not be used as a tool to coerce or
influence the Provinces' decisions on constitutional matters. The court reaffirmed the
principle that federalism requires mutual respect and cooperation between the Union
and the Provinces, and any act that undermines this cooperation would be
unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of
18
19
Page | 10
India (1994)20, recognized that federalism requires a balance of power and autonomy
between the Union and the Provinces, and any attempt to exert undue influence
through discretionary grants would violate this balance.
43. Furthermore, the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (2010) 21, highlighted
the need for discretionary grants to be distributed fairly and non-discriminatorily. The
court emphasized that such grants should not be used as a means of coercion or
influencing the Provinces' decisions on constitutional matters.
44. By examining these aspects and case laws, it becomes evident that the issuance of
unconstitutional discretionary grants by the Union government to Provinces
undermines the principles of federalism, financial autonomy, and equality. It
compromises the constitutional fabric of the country and infringes upon the Provinces'
rights to make independent decisions based on their own priorities and considerations.
45. The Provinces argue that financial decisions and the distribution of grants should be
guided by objective criteria and principles of fairness, rather than being tied to
political motivations or the ratification of a particular constitutional amendment. They
contend that the Union government's actions in this regard are unconstitutional and
infringe upon the foundational principles of federalism.
46. In conclusion, the unconstitutional use of discretionary grants by the Union
government as a means of influencing the Provinces' decisions on the constitutional
amendment violates the principles of federalism, financial autonomy, and equality.
Upholding these principles is crucial for maintaining a balanced federal structure and
ensuring the autonomy and rights of the Provinces within the constitutional
framework.
*******************************
VII. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF

HARIT PRADESH IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
47. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the suspension of the provincial
government of Harit Pradesh by the Union through Presidential Proclamation is
unconstitutional and an abuse of power. It violates the principles of federalism,
democratic governance, and the rule of law. The Union's actions impinge upon the
democratic rights of the people of Harit Pradesh.
20
21
Page | 11
48. To further delve deep into each sub-issue, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court
with further elaboration
49. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is a violation of Federalism: The
suspension of the provincial government of Harit Pradesh through a Presidential
Proclamation undermines the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of
Magadh. Federalism aims to ensure a distribution of powers and autonomy between
the Union and the provinces. By unilaterally suspending the provincial government,
the Union government is disregarding the principles of federalism and centralizing
power, which goes against the spirit of cooperative governance.
50. In the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 22, the
Supreme Court of Magadh held that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution
and cannot be altered or abrogated. Any action that undermines the federal structure is
likely to be deemed unconstitutional.
51. Further it is argued by the respondents that there is a violation of Democratic
Governance. The suspension of the elected provincial government deprives the people
of Harit Pradesh of their democratic rights and representation. Democratic governance
is fundamental to the functioning of a constitutional democracy, and the arbitrary
suspension of an elected government disrupts the democratic process and undermines
the will of the people. In the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)23, the
Supreme Court held that any action taken by the Union government to dismiss or
suspend a state government must be based on relevant and justifiable grounds.
Arbitrary suspension of an elected government would be against democratic
principles.
52. Another argument before the Hon’ble SC by the respondents is that there is a
violation of the Rule of Law. The Presidential Proclamation suspending the provincial
government of Harit Pradesh without proper legal justification or adherence to
constitutional provisions undermines the rule of law. The rule of law requires that
actions of the government be based on established legal procedures and principles,
ensuring fairness and justice. The suspension without proper grounds or due process
raises concerns about arbitrariness and abuse of power.
22
23
Page | 12
53. A landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)24, is submitted before
the Hon’ble SC. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rule of law is a
fundamental principle of the Constitution, and any action that goes against this
principle, such as arbitrary suspension in the present case, would be violative of
constitutional rights.
54. The last argument by the respondents’ side is of Impingement of Democratic Rights
which says that, the suspension of the provincial government impinges upon the
democratic rights of the people of Harit Pradesh, including the right to be governed by
an elected government and the right to participate in the democratic process. Such
actions restrict the exercise of democratic rights and undermine the principles of
representative governance as provided in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain (1975)25 In this case, the Supreme Court held that democracy requires elected
governments to function in accordance with constitutional provisions and respect the
democratic rights of citizens.
55. These arguments highlight the potential unconstitutionality and abuse of power
involved in the suspension of the provincial government of Harit Pradesh and hence
proves that it is unconstitutional in the light of the cases provided hereinabove.
*******************************
24
25
Page | 13
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsel on Behalf of the Respondents humbly pray before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. Declare the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2014, as violative of the financial

autonomy of Provinces and the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Strike down any provisions that excessively centralize revenues and undermine the
federal structure.
3. Direct the Union government to release withheld provincial shares in taxes and
grants as per NFC recommendations.
4. Prohibit the Union government from exerting unconstitutional fiscal pressure on

Provinces.
5. Invalidate the discretionary grants issued based on political considerations.
6. Declare the suspension of the provincial government of Harit Pradesh as

unconstitutional and restore its powers and autonomy.
And/Or
Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DUTY BOUND

FOREVER PRAYS.
The Respondent.
Sd/-
..............................
(Counsel for the “Respondent’”)
Page | xiv
Page | xv

Memo Ankita

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Memo Ankita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MOOT COURT EXERCISE: Xth SEMESTER

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition

Under Article 136 of Constitution of Aryaland

SLP (Civil) No.___/2023

JOHN IBRAHIM AND AJEET KASKAR &

UNION OF INDIA …….............................................................................RESPONDENTS

AS SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE & OTHER COMPANION

~MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS~

Abbreviations Full Form

AIR All India Reporter

COI Constitution Of India

IPC Indian Penal Code

u/s Under Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- Signed Down

1. Magadh is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic that gained

Goods and Services Tax (GST) Amendment

2. The Government of Magadh introduced a constitutional amendment to implement the

Opposition from Provinces

Constitutional Powers and Financial Autonomy

Federal Structure of Governance

Allegations of Unconstitutional Tactics

7. The provinces have accused the Union government of engaging in unconstitutional

Suspension of the Provincial Government of Harit Pradesh

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

ISSUE 4. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO

ISSUE 5. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES

ISSUE 6. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

ISSUE 7. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES THE

2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

It is humbly submitted that the proposed amendment leads to excessive centralization of

3. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

4. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO RATIFY

5. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES IN

6. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS BASED

7. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF

I. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL VIOLATES THE

II. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE

 Financial Autonomy: Centralization undermines the financial autonomy of the

excessive centralization. Further, the case of State of Kerala v. Union of India8

III. WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF GST COMPROMISES THE BASIC

IV. WHETHER THE UNION'S FISCAL PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO RATIFY

V. WHETHER THE UNION'S WITHHOLDING OF PROVINCIAL SHARES IN

Provinces have a legitimate expectation to receive their allocated shares in a timely

VI. WHETHER THE UNION'S ISSUANCE OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS BASED

VII. WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF

1. Declare the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2014, as violative of the financial

4. Prohibit the Union government from exerting unconstitutional fiscal pressure on

5. Invalidate the discretionary grants issued based on political considerations.

6. Declare the suspension of the provincial government of Harit Pradesh as

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DUTY BOUND

You might also like