TC-422 Respondent

4TH HPNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TEAM CODE: TC-422 R
HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

ARYAVARTA, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Civil Original Jurisdiction
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL
CAPITAL TERRITORY OF INDRAPRASTHA …PETITIONER
VS.
UNION OF ARYAVARTA …RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

1
Sr. No INDEX Page No.
1. List of Abbreviations 3
2. Index of Authorities 4
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5
4 Statement of facts 6
5 Statement of issues 7
5. Summary of Arguments 8
6. Arguments Advanced 14
7. Prayer 24

2
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
& And
i.e. That is
IER Indraprastha Electricity Reform
IERC Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory Commission
GNCTI Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha
NCTI National Capital Territory of Indraprastha
LG Lieutenant Governor
Art. Article
Consti. Constitution
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
Ed. Edition
r/w Read with
SCR Supreme Court Record
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR Air India Reporter
u/s Under section
Vs./v Versus
Art. Article
GNCTI ACT Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha Act
Ltd. Limited
Pvt. Private

3
Ors. Others
Anr. Another
US United States
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES:
1. State of Karnataka vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68 para 72,76,79,104.
2. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1955) SC 549, 1955 2 SCR 225.
3. Emperor v. Sibnath, [1945] UKPC 36 (para157).
4. Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386, 409 (para 59).
5. Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 89.
6. Sukhwinder v. State of Punjab, (para12).
7. NDMC Vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339.
8. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1382.
STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of India, 1950/ The Constitution of Aryavarta, 1950.
2. The Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha Act, 1991/ The
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991.
3. The Aryavarta’s Part C States Act, 1951/ The India’s Part C States Act, 1951.
4. The Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act, 2000 (IER)/ The Delhi Electricity Reform
Act, 2000 (IER).
5. The Aryavarta Electricity Act, 2003/ The India Electricity Act, 2003.
6. The Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha (Amendment) Act,
2023/ The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act,
2023.
7. The General Clauses Act, 1897.
WEBSITES:

4
 Scconline.com
 Prsindia.org
 Livelaw.in
 Manupatra.com
 Aironline.in
Book References:
 Administrative Law by D.D. Basu.
 Constitutional Law of India by D.D. Basu.
 Parliament: Powers, Function and Privilege by Dr. KS Chauhan.
 Shorter Constitution of India 15th edition, D.D. Basu, Lexicon
 Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain
 World’s Parliament by D.K. Wadhwa
 Our Parliament by Subhash Kashyab
 Polity by M. Lakshmikant
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
The respondent humbly submits this memorial before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The respondent invokes Writ jurisdiction under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It sets forth the laws on which
the claims are based.
Article 32. Right to constitutional remedies.

1. The right to move to the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the right 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.
The respondent humbly submits to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

6
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
1. Aryavarta, the world's largest democracy, established a governance

framework that protected fundamental rights, emphasized principles of
equality and justice, and delineated the separation of powers among its
executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Constitution's Founding
Fathers underscored federalism as a crucial constitutional principle for
unifying the country.
2. Aryavarta has 28 states and 8 union territories, and Indraprastha is its
National Capital. Section 21(1) of the Aryavarta’s Part C States Act,
1951 empowered the Legislative Assembly in centrally administered
Indraprastha to make laws on most matters in List II of the Seventh
Schedule, with exceptions including public order, police, municipal
authorities, Union-owned land, offenses, court jurisdiction, and fees.
These limitations ensured central government control and law
enforcement in specified areas.
3. In 1956, Indraprastha became a Union Territory with administration by a
President-appointed Administrator. In 1966, a limited representative
government was established through the Indraprastha Administration
Act. In 1991, the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act introduced
Articles 239-AA and 239-AB, granting a unique constitutional status to
the National Capital Territory of Indraprastha (NCTI) to enhance
residents' participation in governance.
4. In 2015, Common People Party came into power in Indraprastha, the
conflict arose due to disputes between the Indraprastha State Government
and the Lieutenant Governor over matters such as administrative control,
appointments, and legislative authority aggrieved by the conflicts
Indraprastha State Government has filed a case in the Supreme Court of
Aryavarta. The principles of representative democracy and federalism
underlined the entire judgment delivered by Constitution bench in 2018
and interpretation of the Constitution Bench to Article 239-AA. The
ongoing conflict between the Indraprastha Government and the
7
Lieutenant Governor continued to disrupt their operations in NCTI. To

address this, the NCTI Government brought the matter to the Supreme
Court of Aryavarta, questioning its legislative and executive powers
concerning services listed in Schedule VII, List II, and Entry 41 of the
Constitution, as well as the administrative control over officers allocated
to Indraprastha by the Union. In 2023, the Constitution Bench ruled that
irrespective of the allocation of powers between the Government of
NCTI and the Union, any exercise of these powers must adhere to the
substantive requirements of Article 239-AA, emphasizing federalism and
democratic principles. Consequently, the NCTI Government was
affirmed to possess legislative and executive authority over services
listed in Entry 41 of the Constitution.
5. Eight days after the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment, the President
issued the Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha
(Amendment) Ordinance 2023, which amended the 1991 Act, granting
legislative power to the Legislative Assembly, except for Entry 41 in List
II. The Union later passed the Amendment Act in Parliament, converting
the Ordinance into law, effectively superseding the 2018 and 2023
Constitutional Bench judgments regarding NCTI's governance.
6. In the present dispute, the Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act 2000
established the Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory Commission (IERC)
whose members were appointed by the "Government," defined as the
Lieutenant Governor under Article 239AA of the Constitution. The Act
set the term for IERC members at five years or until age 65, with no
reappointment. The dispute centers on the appointment of the
Chairperson of the Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory Commission
(IERC). The Government of NCTI appointed Justice (Retd.) Feroz and
later recommended Justice (Retd.) Subhash Sen for the role, but the
Lieutenant Governor sought clarification from the Ministry of Power
regarding the need for the Chief Justice's consent of which High Court.
By letter dated February 03, 2023, the Ministry of Power, in consultation
with the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of Aryavartha, conveyed
that as per Section 84(2) of the Aryavarta Electricity Act, it is the

8
Hon‘ble Chief Justice of the High Court where the Commission is

situated whose consent is required. By a Letter dated February 13, 2023
the Lieutenant Governor wrote to the Registrar General of the High
Court of Indraprastha requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
Indraprastha to recommend a suitable person for appointment as the
Chairperson of IERC. The Chief Justice of Indraprastha recommended
Justice (Retd.) Vani Patil. However, after Justice (Retd.) Subhash Sen,
On June 16, 2023, Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Subhash Sen cited his
personal reason to express his inability to take charge of the next
Chairperson of IERC. the Government of NCTI recommended Justice
(Retd.) Abhas Bharadwaj. A notification from the Ministry of Home
Affairs appointed Justice (Retd.) Vani Patil. The Government of NCTI
challenged these appointments through a Writ Petition, questioning the
constitutionality of the Government of National Capital Territory of
Indraprastha (Amendment) Act 2023 and the notification of June 21,
2023.
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Aryvartha constituted a constitutional bench to

adjudicate on the following issues:
(A) Whether the Bill passed by the parliament was constitutionally valid and
what are the specific limits of parliament’s authority to create a law under
Article 239-AA (7)?
(B) Whether the appointment by way of the notification dated June 21, 2023,
an arbitrary and mala fide exercise of discretionary power envisaged by
the Union of Aryavartha?
(C) Whether the parliament, through its authority under Article 239- AA (7),
nullify the constitutional principles governing the governance of the
National Capital Territory of Indraprastha?
9
(D) Whether the Notification and the Act constitutionally valid as they
override the legal effect of the 2018 and 2023 constitutional bench
judgments?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
(A) Whether the Bill passed by the parliament was constitutionally valid
and what are the specific limits of the parliament’s authority to create
a law under Article 239-AA (7)?
The Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that
Indraprastha despite of having a separate legislation under Article 239 AA
still remains a union territory. The legislative powers of Indraprastha are
limited. The Respondent further contend that Unions interest in governing
the National Capital should take precedence given its symbolic
importance.
(B) Whether the appointment by the way of notification dated June 21,
10
2023 an arbitrary and mala fide exercise of discretionary power

envisaged by union of Aryavarta?
The Union of aryavarta appointed the Chairperson of IERC. It is a humble
submission that the appointment was made with a bona fide intention, and
the powers to do the same come under the discretionary powers of the
Union.
(C) Whether the parliament, through its authority under Article

239AA(7), nullify the constitutional principles governing the
governance of the National Territory of Indraprastha?
The Respondent contends that the fact that Indraprastha is been given a
separate legislation provides that the Parliament in no way has
undermined the principle of democracy. The constitutional principle of
quasi federalism is upheld where the central retains more authority and
there is a balance between union and the NCTI.
(D) Whether the notification and the act constitutionally as they override
the legal effect of 2018 and 2023 constitutional bench judgement?
The GNCTI Amendment Act, 2023 as well as the appointment of the
Chairperson's Constitutionality when it comes to Union enacting their
powers which are vested to them by the Constitution have been
challenged. The Respondent humbly submits that the Union through the
notification and act has acted in compliance with the Supreme Court
Judgements, upholding the democratic and federal governance.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
(A) Whether the Bill passed by the parliament was constitutionally valid
and what are the specific limits of the parliament’s authority to
create a law under Article 239-AA (7)?
Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Apex Court that Article
239 is an integral part of the Constitution of Aryavarta and the foundation
11
stone of Part VIII and that Article 239AA 1shall be read conjointly with
Article 239 which provides that the ultimate administration with respect
to union territories shall remain with the President acting through its
administrator. Though Indraprastha has got special status by the virtue of
Article 239AA, it is not a state. It is still a union territory and thus is
under the President regardless of the fact it has a legislative assembly.
The legislative Assembly has the power to take care of daily utilities but
the administrative power is with Centre and the President.
Indraprastha is a union territory and by giving full executive powers to
the government of Indraprastha it is being viewed as fully-fledged state
which is not provided by the constitution of Aryavarta.
A.1 Constitutional Authority
Article 239AA(3)(b) 2states that the power conferred upon the Legislative
Assembly of Indraprastha by sub clause (a) of Article 239AA (3) 3shall
not derogate from the powers of the Parliament "to make laws with
respect to any matter for a Union territory or any part thereof". Union
Territories do not have the power to legislate on matters falling under
Entry 41 of the State List because residuary powers are typically vested
in the states and Indraprastha per say is not a state. Entry 41 of List II is
not available to Union Territories, as it cannot have either a State Public
Service or a State Public Service Commission. Therefore, the
Respondent contends that the Union has acted in accordance with the
constitutional provisions and have made the law within its ambit.
It is further contended by the Respondent that the Parliament has
followed due procedure while making the Bill.
The Preamble to the 2023 Ordinance clearly states that the law is made in
exercise of powers under Article 239-AA(3)(b) 4and Article 239-AA (7).
5
Article 239-AA(3)(b) states that Parliament has the power to make laws
with respect to "any matter" for NCTI.
1
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
2
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 3(b) amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
3
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 3(a) amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
4
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 3(b) amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
5
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 7amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
12
Article 239-AA(7)(a)6 grants Parliament the power to enact a law for

"giving effect to, or supplementing" the provisions of Article 239-AA, and
for all matters incidental to it. Article 239-AA(7)(b) 7stipulates that such a
law shall not be deemed to be an amendment to the Constitution even if
the law amends the Constitution or has the effect of amending the
Constitution. Article 239-AA (7) is extracted below:
“(7)(a) Parliament may, by law, make provisions for giving effect to or
supplementing the provisions contained in the foregoing clauses and for
all matters incidental or consequential thereto.
(b) Any such law as is referred to in sub-clause (a) shall not be deemed to
be an amendment of this Constitution for the purpose of Article 368
notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the
effect or amending, this Constitution.”8
Moving further, the Respondent contends that under Article 249 of the
Constitution of Aryavarta, the Parliament is empowered to take up a
legislation by itself of any matter enumerated in the List II in the national
interest. (State of Karnataka vs Union of India9)
A.2.‘in so far as any such matter is applicable to the Union Territories’
The Respondent humbly submits that the expression “in so far as any
such matter is applicable to the Union Territories” in Article 239AA
means that the entries contained in List II are available to NCTI to the
limited extent to which they are applicable to the Union Territories. The
legislative powers of NCTI shall extend to only those matters which are
applicable’ to Union Territories. Since the Constitution uses the term '
applicable’ and not ‘relating’ to Union Territories, the legislative power
of NCTI will extend to an Entry only when the Entry is clearly and
unequivocally applicable to Union Territories as a class. Consequently,
List II has to be read contextually and certain entries can be excluded
from the domain of NCTI.
The control of Union of Aryavarta over ‘service’ has not led to any issue
6
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 7(a)amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
7
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 7(b)amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
8
9
State of Karnataka vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68 para 72,76,79,104.
13
pertaining to the governance of NCTI. The Transaction of Business

Rules,1993 provide for enough powers to the Ministers of NCTI to
ensure supervisory and functional control over civil services to ensure
their proper functioning. In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur vs State of
Punjab 10the principle laid down says that there is existence of legislative
power co-extensive with executive power, which is with respect to only
the Union and the States and is not applicable to Union Territories.
Therefore, Indraprastha being a Union territory cannot contend that the
legislative powers are co-extensive with the executive powers. The Union
Territories have a unique status in Aryavarta’s constitutional framework.
A.3.Maintaining the balance between local interests and national
interests
The Respondents humbly submits that “in so far as any such matter is
applicable to Union Territories” in Article 239AA cannot be interpreted
inclusively, as the Union has a preponderance of interest in the
governance of the national capital and therefore the phrase must be read
in a narrow manner. Indraprastha is not just any Union Territory but also
serves as the seat of the Union Government, where the central
government's key institutions are located. It is not merely a Union
Territory but also a symbolic representation of the nation. Therefore, the
Union believes that national interests should take precedence over local
interests in the administration of Indraprastha. Subsequently, the Union
Government’s authority must be expansive enough to ensure the effective
11
functioning and security of the national capital. Article 249 of the
Constitution of Aryavarta explicitly states that the Parliament may take
up a legislation by itself for any matter enumerated in List II if such a
legislation is ‘necessary or expedient in the national interest’. By the
virtue of this power, Indraprastha as the national capital of Aryavarta,
holds a special significance. It is not just another Union Territory but a
city where the central government, foreign embassies, and important
national institutions are located. Ensuring the effective functioning and
security of the capital is a matter of paramount national interest.
10
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1955) SC 549, 1955 2 SCR 225.
11
ARYAVARTA CONST. art 249, inserted by The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act,2016.
14
Indraprastha's security is a national concern. The central government

needs the authority to make decisions related to law and order,
emergency situations, and the deployment of security forces to safeguard
national security interests, by putting the control over ‘services’ under the
control of the Union is not undermining the governance of Indraprastha
but it is striking a balance between local autonomy and national interest.
(B) Whether the appointment by the way of notification dated June
21, 2023 an arbitrary and mala fide exercise of discretionary power
envisaged by union of Aryavarta?
The Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act 200012 was brought into force by
the Indraprastha Legislative Assembly and, inter alia, constituted the
Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory Commission (IERC).
It is humbly submitted that Section 3(1) 13 of the IER Act envisages the
establishment of an Electricity Regulatory Commission for the NCTI.
Sub-section (2) of the same states the appointment of members and
Chairperson by the “Government”. It is humbly submitted that the
“Government” is defined in Section 2(d) of IER Act as the Lieutenant
Governor referred to in Article 239AA of the Constitution.
In the case of Emperor v. Sibnath14, it was held that in case of mandatory
provisions, the procedure prescribed must be complied with for;
“It is a well-settled general rule that an absolute enactment must be
obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be
obeyed or fulfilled substantially.”
The Government of NCTI ultra vires was appointing the Chairperson of
IERC on the basis of the Aryavarta Electricity Act, 2003; which not only
came after the enactment of the Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act; but
dealt with appointment when it comes to the “States” and not
“Indraprastha”. It is also humbly submitted that appointment of
Chairperson by Lieutenant Governor was an absolute enactment and
powers of which were encroached by GNCTI.
Referring to the Balakrishnan's Committee Report, following has been
12
The Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act, 2000, No. 2, Act of Legislature, 2001 (Aryavarta)
13
The Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act, 2000,§ 3(1), No. 2, Act of Legislature, 2001 (Aryavarta)
14
Emperor v. Sibnath, [1945] UKPC 36 (para157).
15
noted:
“The Committee went into the matter in great detail and considered the
issues after holding discussions with various individuals, associations,
political parties and other experts and taking into account the
arrangements in the National Capitals of other countries with a federal
set-up and also the debates in the Constituent Assembly as also the
reports by earlier Committees and Commissions. After such detailed
inquiry and examination, it recommended that Delhi should continue to
be a Union territory and provided with a Legislative Assembly and a
Council of Ministers responsible to such Assembly with appropriate
powers to deal with matters of concern to the common man. The
Committee also recommended that with a view to ensure stability and
permanence the arrangements should be incorporated in the Constitution
to give the National Capital a special status among the Union
territories.”
It is humbly submitted that the Report shall be considered for the reasons
to understand the intent behind the 1991 Constitutional Amendment and
as to why Indraprastha cannot be construed as a State for the matters
concerning the Chairpersonship of IERC.
According to the Section 615 of Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act,
2000; every member can hold the office for period of five years or until
age of sixty-five and that no person above age of Sixty-two shall be
appointed for the post. It is humbly submitted that when the Government
of NCTI, who anyways does not have legislative competence when it
comes to appointment of the Chairperson; had appointed Hon’ble Justice
(Retd.) Feroz from the Awadh High Court as the Chairperson of IERC,
Hon’ble Justice Feroz was of around above the age of sixty-three. This
shows lack of application of mind with which the Government of NCTI
had functioned on statute which do not even provide them with powers to
do so.
Arbitrary
Arbitrary action is described as one that is irrational and not based on
15
The Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act, 2000,§ 6, No. 2, Act of Legislature, 2001 (Aryavarta
16
sound reason or as one that is unreasonable [Om Kumar v UOI16]

Respondent humbly submits that the appointment by way of notification
is done with absolute fairness and that the need for notification to be
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that President appoints
Hon’ble Justice Vani Patel as the Chairperson of IERC arose because of
the Government of NCTI intervening in the authority of the Union
Government. There were disputes when it comes to appointment of the
Chairperson of IERC and thus, the Union Government exercised their
17
powers bestowed to them under Article 73(1) and Article 239 of the
Constitution of Aryavarta.
There was a proper rationale for the Union to intervene. Not only was the
act intra vires, but also was causing hinderance to the matters which
require Chairperson’s leadership, since Indraprastha has so many
important architectures, government headquarters as well as residence of
many officials, Ministers and Diplomats; Chairperson’s absence would
be felt not only in the Committee but also, the proper functioning of
matters relating to electricity and its supply.
Mala Fide
Respondent humbly submits that the allegations of mala fides are often
more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such
allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility. Therefore, where
a person alleges mala fides, the onus lies heavily on him to prove it
[Sukhwinder v. State of Punjab18] It is because of this onus that
allegations of mala fides, though simpler to allege, become difficult to
prove. It is humbly submitted that for an action to be malice in law, it
needs to be implied by law in certain circumstances, even in absence of
malicious intent or improper motive. It is a humble submission that the
Union had exercised their powers to ensure that the dispute for
appointment does not affect the people residing in Indraprastha.
It is humbly submitted that Section 63(1) of Indraprastha Electricity
Reform Act, 2000 states that in case of inconsistency of laws of
16
Om Kumar v UOI (2001) 2 SCC 386, 409 (para 59)
17
ARYAVARTA CONST. ART. 73 § (1)
18
Sukhwinder v. State of Punjab (para12)
17
Indraprastha and Centre, the former prevails. The aforesaid provisions

imply that The Government of NCTI had been appointing the
Chairperson of IERC which was beyond the powers bestowed to them
under Indraprastha Electricity Reform Act. This act was passed by the
Legislative Assembly so as to have a separate statute and body for
governance and regulations on matters connected with transmission,
generation and distribution of electricity in Indraprastha. Given the state
of administration, the President had to intervene by using their powers
under Article 73(1), Article 53, and Article 239 of the Constitution of
Aryavarta.
It is a humbly submission to this Hon’ble court that the Government of
NCTI had gone ultra vires when it comes to both the authority of being
an appointer or be it the age of Chairperson being appointed. It is a
humble submission that when it comes to any action being reasonable;
the reasonableness should be judged by with reference to the object of the
legislation and not moral considerations. The Contentions given to the
Court by the Government of NCTI are contentions sans reasoning and
mere effort to bail out from a legal wrong done by them. Thus, it is a
humble submission that the appointment by way of notification was a
requirement for if Indraprastha would face any administrative lapse, the
reputation and functioning of the whole of Aryavarta stalls and that it was
not manifestly arbitrary and mala fide exercise of powers.
(C) Whether the parliament, through its authority under Article
239AA(7), nullify the constitutional principles governing the
governance of the National Territory of Indraprastha?
The Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
Parliament in no way has nullified the constitutional principles governing
the governance of NCTI.
C.1Special Provision under Article 239 AA
Indraprastha is a sui-generis model. The Union Territory of Indraprastha
was given a special status by the Constitution (sixty-ninth Amendment)
Act in 1991 which provided for a legislative assembly who will have the
power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National Capital

18
Territory with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List
or Concurrent List except for the entries mentioned under Article 239 AA
3(a)19. The respondent contends that the fact that Indraprastha has its own
legislative assembly and council of ministers which allows for a degree
of self -governance provides that the Parliament in no way is trying to
nullify the constitutional principle of democracy.
C.2.Supremacy of law
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The interpretation of the
Constitution is supposed to be purposive taking into consideration the
need of time and Constitutional principles.
As per the constitutional mandate, the ultimate responsibility with respect
to all matters governing the NCTI fall within the domain of the Union
Government. Giving exclusive legislative or exclusive executive power
on the Legislative Assembly or Council of Ministers of the NCTI it
would result in elevating a Union Territory to the status of a State, which
the Constitution of Aryavarta does not provide for. Parliament, as the
supreme legislative body in Aryavarta, has the authority to enact laws for
NCTI. This authority is derived from the Constitution itself under Article
239 AA 3(b) 20and7(a).21It is humbly submitted that even when Article
239AA(3)(a) stipulates that Legislative Assembly of Indraprastha shall
have the power to legislate in respect of subject matters provided in List
II and List III of the VII Schedule of Constitution of Aryavarta, it
specifically restricts the legislative powers of Legislative Assembly of
Indraprastha to those subject matters which are “applicable to Union
Territories”. The Constitution envisages that List II and List III of the VII
Schedule of the Constitution of Aryavarta contain certain subject matters
which are not applicable to Union Territories. The intention of the
Constitution makers is that even when the subject matters contained in
List II and List III of the VII Schedule become available to the
Legislative Assembly of NCT of Indraprastha, the subject matters in the
said Lists which are not applicable to Union Territories would not
19
20
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.239 AA, cl 3(b)amended by The Constitution (Sixty-nineth Amendment) Act,1991.
21
19
become available to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Indraprastha

and would be beyond its legislative powers.
C.3.Upholding the Principle of Federalism and Quasi-Federalism
The word ‘federalism’ has not been explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution of Aryavarta however it has to be construed as provided
under Article 1 of the Constitution of Aryavarta 22 which states that
Aryavarta, shall be a Union of States. Clause (1)23 further provides that
this union is a federal union, with a distribution of powers of which the
Judiciary is the interpreter. (Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of
Rajasthan24)
In simpler words, federalism is a form of government in which the
powers between the centre and the state have been divided. However,
Aryavarta follows a quasi-federalism where the central or the union
government retains more power. Aryavarta has created a strong central
government nevertheless it has not made the state government weak.
The constitution of Aryavarta under Article 239AA by the way of giving
the legislative power to the Legislative Assembly of Indraprastha to make
laws for the whole or any part of the National Capital Territory with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State list or in the
Concurrent list [except matters with respect to entries mentioned under 3
(a)] in so far as any such matter is applicable to the Union territories
under Article 3(a) proves that the Parliament in no way is undermining
the power of the government of Indraprastha and is upholding the
constitutional principle of federalism by giving them the powers too.
(D) Whether the notification and the act constitutionally as they
override the legal effect of 2018 and 2023 constitutional bench
judgement?
The issue framed by Your Lordship to adjudicate the Writ Petition
involves two aspects i.e.; the “Notification” and the “Act”. Respondent
humbly submits that the Notification herein referred to is the Notification
dated June 21, 2023 which was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs
22
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.1, cl (1), Subs. By the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act,1956.
23
ARYAVARTA CONST.art.1, cl (1), Subs. By the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act,1956.
24
Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 89.
20
which conveyed that the President appoints Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Vani
Patil as Chairperson of IERC. The Act herein referred to impugned
ordinance i.e., is the Government of National Capital Territory of
Indraprastha (Amendment) Act, 2023.
D.1. THE NOTIFICATION:
Respondent humbly submits that Aryavarta Electricity Act, 2003 is an
acted enacted by the Centre for “State Government”. In NDMC Vs. State
of Punjab 25; the issue was whether the property tax levied by NDMC on
the immovable properties of States situated within the Union Territory of
Indraprastha would be covered by the exemption provided in Article 289
of the Constitution of Aryavarta. Indraprastha High Court had been
pleased to hold that the exemption under Article 289 would apply and the
assessment and demand notices of NDMC were quashed. The appeal
came to be decided by a Nine Judge Bench of this Court. The majority
opinion was delivery by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy. The majority held
that States and Union territories are different entities, which is clear from
the scheme of Articles 245 and 246. Following was laid down:
“152. On a consideration of rival contentions, we are inclined to agree
with the respondents-States. The States put together do not exhaust the
territory of India. There are certain territories which do not form part of
any State and yet are the territories of the Union. That the States and the
Union Territories are different entities, is evident from clause (2) of
Article 1 — indeed from the entire scheme of the Constitution. Article
245(1) says that while Parliament may make laws for the whole or any
part of the territory of India, the legislature of a State may make laws for
the whole or any part of the State. Article 1(2) read with Article 245(1)
shows that so far as the Union Territories are concerned, the only
lawmaking body is Parliament. The legislature of a State cannot make
any law for a Union Territory; it can make laws only for that State.
Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Article 246 speak of division of legislative
powers between Parliament and State legislatures. This division is only
between Parliament and the State legislatures, i.e., between the Union
25
NDMC Vs. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339
21
and the States. There is no division of legislative powers between the

Union and Union Territories. Similarly, there is no division of powers
between States and Union Territories. So far as the Union Territories are
concerned, it is clause (4) of Article 246 that is relevant. It says that
Parliament has the power to make laws with respect to any matter for
any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding
that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. Now, the Union
Territory is not included in the territory of any State. If so, Parliament is
the only law-making body available for such Union Territories. It is
equally relevant to mention that the Constitution, as originally enacted,
did not provide for a legislature for any of the Part ‘C’ States (or, for that
matter, Part ‘D’ States). It is only by virtue of the Government of Part ‘C’
States Act, 1951 that some Part ‘C’ States including Delhi got a
legislature. This was put an end to by the States Reorganization Act,
1956. In 1962, the Constitution Fourteenth (Amendment) Act did provide
for creation/constitution of legislatures for Union Territories (excluding,
of course, Delhi) but even here the Constitution did not itself provide for
legislatures for those Part ‘C’ States; it merely empowered Parliament to
provide for the same by making a law. In the year 1991, the Constitution
did provide for a legislature for the Union Territory of Delhi [National
Capital Territory of Delhi] by the Sixty-Ninth (Amendment) Act (Article
239-AA) but even here the legislature so created was not a full-fledged
legislature nor did it have the effect of — assuming that it could — lift the
National Capital Territory of Delhi from Union Territory category to the
category of States within the meaning of Chapter I of Part XI of the
Constitution. All this necessarily means that so far as the Union
Territories are concerned, there is no such thing as List I, List II or List
III. The only legislative body is Parliament — or a legislative body
created by it. Parliament can make any law in respect of the said
territories — subject, of course, to constitutional limitations other than
those specified in Chapter I of Part XI of the Constitution. Above all, the
Union Territories are not “States” as contemplated by Chapter I of Part
XI; they are the territories of the Union falling outside the territories of

22
the States. Once the Union Territory is a part of the Union and not part
of any State, it follows that any tax levied by its legislative body is Union
taxation. Admittedly, it cannot be called “State taxation” — and under
the constitutional scheme, there is no third kind of taxation. Either it is
Union taxation or State taxation.”
Respondent humbly submits that after examining the Constitutional
Scheme delineated by Article 239AA, another constitutional principle
had been laid down by the Constitution Bench that Union territories are
governed by Article 246(4) notwithstanding their differences in
respective set-ups and Indraprastha, now called the “National Capital
Territory of Indraprastha” is yet a Union Territory. The Union territory of
Indraprastha is in a class by itself, certainly not a State. Legislative power
of the Parliament was held to cover Union Territories including
Indraprastha.
Respondent humbly submits that when it comes to appointment of
Hon’ble Justice Vani Patel as the Chairperson of IERC, it was a bona fide
decision by the Union of Aryavarta as the power exercised was under the
scope of constitutional framework. Respondent humbly submits to this
Court that since Government of NCTI never had the executive
competence for appointing Chairperson of IERC, the Appointment by
way of Notification and the GNCTI (Amendment) Act of 2023 are two
separate issues altogether with one not co-relating or stemming from the
other.
D.2. THE ACT:
The Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha
(Amendment) Act, 2023 was enacted to in view of the special status of
the National Capital Territory of Indraprastha, a scheme of administration
has to be formulated by a Parliamentary legislation to balance both local
and national interests to reflect the aspiration of the people through the
joint and collective responsibility of the Government of Aryavarta and
the Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha.
Respondent humbly submits that phrase “in so far as any such matter is
applicable to Union Territories”, the phrase must be read in a restrictive

23
manner to limit the legislative power of NCTI on certain subjects (in

addition to already excluded subjects) in List II.
Respondent humbly submit that unlike Article 254, which provides for
the overriding power of Parliament only on subjects in the Concurrent
List, Parliament has overriding power in relation to the NCTI over
subjects in both List II and List III. The second proviso to Article
239AA(c) provides that Parliament may enact “at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying
or repealing the law so made by the Legislative Assembly” of NCTI.
Respondent further submit that Article 239AA(7)(b) stipulates that such
law shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the
purposes of Article 368, which deals with the power and procedure to
amend the Constitution. Thus, Article 239AA (3) balances between the
interest of NCTI and the Union.
Respondent humbly submits that the phrase “Subject to the provisions of
this Constitution” is not unique to Article 239AA. It has been used in
twenty-two provisions of the Constitution. Notably, the phrase has also
been used in the provisions dealing with the legislative power of
Parliament and the State Assemblies (Article 245) as well as in the
provisions dealing with the executive power of the Union (Article 73(2))
and of the States (Article 162(3)). The phrase is used to indicate that the
legislative power and competence exercised by a legislature must be
within the limits circumscribed by the Constitution. Those boundaries
may differ on a case-to-case basis.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India26 the CJ had sought to judge
Federalism in Aryavarta by the yardstick propounded by KC Wheare, but
not wholly relying on it stating:
“In a sense, therefore, the Indian Union is federal. But, the extent of
federalism in it is largely watered down by the needs of progress and
development of a country which has to be nationally integrated,
politically and economically coordinated, and socially, intellectually, and
spiritually uplifted.”
26
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1382.
24
In this connection, the observation of Sarkaria Commission maybe

observed:
“The primary lesson of India's history is that, in this vast country, only
that polity or system can endure and protect its unity, integrity and
sovereignty against external aggression and internal disruption, which
ensures a strong Centre with paramount powers, accommodating, at the
same time, its traditional diversities. This lesson of history did not go
unnoticed by the framers of the Constitution. Being aware that,
notwithstanding the common cultural heritage without political cohesion,
the country would disintegrate under the pressure of fissiparous forces
they accorded the highest priority to the ensurance of the unity and
integrity of the country.”
Respondent humbly submit that post-independence, being an
underdeveloped country, Aryavarta had to force the pace of economic
development in order to compress into decades the progress of the
centuries. This could be achieved by mobilizing and judiciously using the
national resources and this could be done best only under Central
direction and leadership. The federal portion of our Constitution was so
designed because of the need of the country i.e., national interest, security
and development; and because of the experience of Federal form of
Governance. There exists no “truly federal” system of governance in the
modern times.
Respondent humbly submits that the change and expansion of the role of
federalism in governance has overtime, propounded a need for a strong
and unwavering centre. Though federalism is a fundamental canvas of
governance in Aryavarta; circumstances might cause the Union to
precede in cases when the national interest of the Country is at stake.
Respondent humbly submits that the Constitution of Aryavarta is often
referred to as a federal Constitution with a strong unitary bias, and as far
as Union Territories are concerned, the Constitution is unitary in form
and in spirit. It is submitted that the generic concept of federalism, as
applicable to States cannot apply to Union Territories. Thus, it is argued
that the phrases “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution” and “in so

25
far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories” are to be

interpreted accordingly.
Respondent humbly submits that Indraprastha, being the capital of
Aryavarta, has a number of important functionalities that are supposed to
be fulfilled. Some of them which were enumerated in the erstwhile
Aryavarta Electricity Act, 1910 (which was used as the regulatory Act for
Indraprastha before the present Act) mines, oilfields, railways,
aerodromes, telegraphs, broadcasting stations and any works of defence.
Through electric supply being as properly regulated and supply being as
systematic as it can be, a smooth supply for the same is required.
It is humbly submitted that the legal effect of the Constitutional bench
has not been violated. When it comes to the power for constitution of
Indraprastha Subordinate Services Selection Board is in the hands of the
Government of NCTI. The principles of representative form of
governance has been instilled by formation of the National Capital Civil
Services Authority with Chief Minister of Government of NCTI as
Chairperson.
The purpose of the Amendment is to balance the interest of the Nation as
well as ensuring that the representation of the elected government is
ensured. Under Section 45E of the Amendment Act, a permanent
authority, headed by the Chief Minister of Indraprastha along with the
Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of
Indraprastha and the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of National
Capital Territory of Indraprastha, is being constituted to make
recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor regarding matters
concerning transfer postings, vigilance and other matters. This would
balance the interest of the nation with the interest of the Union territory
of Indraprastha in the administration of the capital to the manifestation of
the will of the people reposed in the Central Government as well as the
Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha.

26
PRAYERS
In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to:
a) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring the Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance
2023, as constitutional;
b) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 as introduced by the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment)
Ordinance 2023, as constitutional;

27
c) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring the appointment

of the Chairperson of Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory
Commission by way of notification dated June 21, 2023 as fair and
bona fide exercise of discretionary power envisaged by the Union of
Aryavarta;
d) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ to affirm and highlight
Article 239 as the foundation of Part VIII, where ultimate
administration in Indraprastha remains with the President;
e) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ acknowledging the
limitations on the Legislative Assembly's power as specified in
Article 239AA(3)(a);
f) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ contending that 'aid and
advice' rendered by the Council of Ministers is not binding on the
Lieutenant Governor, who can form a differing opinion;
g) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ emphasizing the Union
Government's ultimate responsibility for matters in the NCT of
Delhi, preventing it from elevating to the status of a State;
h) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ directing the Government
of NCTI to respect and uphold the constitutional principles as
envisioned in the Constitution of Aryavarta;
i) Any other direction, order, or appropriate writ as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit

28

TC-422 Respondent

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

TC-422 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4TH HPNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

TEAM CODE: TC-422 R

HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

Civil Original Jurisdiction

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2023

UNION OF ARYAVARTA …RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

Sr. No INDEX Page No.

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

IER Indraprastha Electricity Reform

IERC Indraprastha Electricity Regulatory Commission

GNCTI Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha

NCTI National Capital Territory of Indraprastha

r/w Read with

SCR Supreme Court Record

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR Air India Reporter

u/s Under section

GNCTI ACT Government of National Capital Territory of Indraprastha Act

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

The respondent humbly submits this memorial before the Hon’ble

Article 32. Right to constitutional remedies.

The respondent humbly submits to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

1. Aryavarta, the world's largest democracy, established a governance

Lieutenant Governor continued to disrupt their operations in NCTI. To

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

Hon‘ble Chief Justice of the High Court where the Commission is

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Aryvartha constituted a constitutional bench to

2023 an arbitrary and mala fide exercise of discretionary power

(C) Whether the parliament, through its authority under Article

Article 239-AA(7)(a)6 grants Parliament the power to enact a law for

pertaining to the governance of NCTI. The Transaction of Business

Indraprastha's security is a national concern. The central government

sound reason or as one that is unreasonable [Om Kumar v UOI16]

Indraprastha and Centre, the former prevails. The aforesaid provisions

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

become available to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Indraprastha

and the States. There is no division of legislative powers between the

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

manner to limit the legislative power of NCTI on certain subjects (in

In this connection, the observation of Sarkaria Commission maybe

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

far as any such matter is applicable to Union territories” are to be

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

c) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ declaring the appointment

Memorial Submissions on Behalf of Respondent

You might also like