INTERNAL MOOT COURT SELECTION ROUNDS (LEVEL-II),2023 PC-07

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA- MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIARAT

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION BETWEEN

Enzo & Ors. PETITIONER

v.

Registry of the Supreme Court.

RESPONDENT

UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
1st NHRC-DNLU, 2023 Memorial for
APPELLANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

PAGE | 1
INTERNAL MOOT COURT SELECTION ROUNDS (LEVEL-II),2023

CASE CONCERNING PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................................
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................................
PRAYER......................................................................................................................................XXVII

1ST JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 Page | I
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
•THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIARAT, 1950
CASES

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

¶ Paragraph

¶¶ Paragraphs

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another.

Ors. Others.

HC High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Del Delhi

Petitioner Advocate Dimple

& And

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | II

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | III

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Statement of
Jurisdiction]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDIARAT
BY INVOKING HIS RIGHT ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIARAT

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | IV

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Statement of
Issues]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Parties
1. Hon’ble Chief Justice of Indiarat introduced a scheme to provide translated copies of
the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court in the scheduled languages of
Indiarat. He nominated the Registrar of the Supreme Court to frame the criterion for
selection and appointment to the posts and thereafter, make the appointments.
2. Enzo was a candidate with rank 28, he claimed that since he had rank 28 he should
have been appointed to the post of translator-cum-typist and the appointments resulted
in the infringement of his right to equality under article 14.
3. Karthik, making representation for candidates between ranks 31 to 44 who were not
appointed due to only 30 appointments being made, the candidates claimed that their
right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was infringed.
4. Raheem, leading representation of the typists already working with the registry
expected that they will be given preference since they had been working with the
Registry and thus, knew its working better than the candidates who had no experience
with the Registry. The typists claimed that their right to fair treatment under the
Constitution was not adhered to.

Timeline of Events
1. February 16, 2023: The Registry of the Supreme Court released an advertisement
calling for applications by interested persons to apply for the post of official
translators-cum-typists (“post”) for translating and typing the Supreme Court’s
judgments and orders in the scheduled languages.
2. June 5, 2023: The examination process was concluded, and the results carrying the
cumulative marks of the applicants were published in descending order of their
cumulative marks.
3. June 10, 2023: The Chief Justice vide a circular nominated the Registrar (Recruitment
and Personnel) of the Supreme Court (“Registrar”) to frame the criterion for selection
and appointment to the posts and thereafter, make the appointments.
4. July 20, 2023: The Registrar vide a circular published the appointment
of 30 candidates

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | V

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Statement of
Issues]

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~I~

WHETHER ADVOCATE DIMPLE HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER PMLA?

~ II ~

WHETHER THE TWIN CONDITIONS FOR BAIL ARE SATISFIED?

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | VI

 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. NO OFFENCE UNDER PMLA, 2002 IS MADE AGAINST ADVOCATE DIMPLE.
The Appellant respectfully submits that No offence under PMLA, 2002 is made against
Advocate Dimple due to the following reasons: Firstly, no offence is made out against
Arya Soorma and Soorma Metal Forges under 276C and 278B of the Income Tax Act.
Secondly, no scheduled offence has been committed under section 3, PMLA. Thirdly, no
offence is made out under section 120 B, IPC and Dimple is not liable for proceeds of
crime. Fourthly, Dimple is not involved in money laundering and did not receive
proceeds of crime.

II. ADVOCATE DIMPLE IS ENTITLED TO BAIL UNDER SECTION 348

CR.P.C R/W SECTION 45, PMLA

The counsel for the appellants respectfully submits that Dimple is entitled to Bail due to
the following reasons: Firstly, The twin conditions under section 45, PMLA are not
applicable. Secondly, Even if the twin conditions under section 45, PMLA are applicable,
they have been fulfilled without prejudice.

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | XVI

 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER ENZO’S RIGHT TO EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14 HAS BEEN

INFRINGED?

1. It is submitted that Enzo’s right to equality under article 14 has been infringed due to the
selection process because [A] The final appointment done by the registrar is arbitrary; [B]
A fair and just selection process has not been followed.

A. THE FINAL APPOINTMENT DONE BY THE REGISTRAR IS ARBITRARY

2. It is hereby submitted that the final appointment done by the registrar is arbitrary.
“Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian democracy.” 1 The counsel
relying on Justice Bhagwati’s decision2 states that article 14 “ensures fairness” in state
action and any procedure which is not “right and just and fair” and is “arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive” will be invalid under article 14. A procedure which provides impairment
of personal liberty without the observance of the principles of natural justice, could not be
“right and just and fair” and would, therefore, be bad under article 14.
3. Further, to attract Article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is
unreasonable or arbitrary; that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the
object which the Legislature has in view in making the law in question. 3 Article 14 strikes
at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must
necessarily involve the negation of equality.4
4. Further, In order to ensure that discretion is properly exercised, it is necessary that the
statute in question lays down some norms or principles according to which the
5
administrator has to exercise the discretion. When the selection process is an
administrative act, the requirement of reasons is mandatory and the reasons “should
reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. 6Every
action of the state must be informed by reasons and guided by public interest. Actions
1
THOMMEN, J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 212.
2
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

3
Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436 : (1976) 1 SCC 682; Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2009) 4 SCC 753 : (2009) 3 JT 202.

4
A.L. Kalra v. P & E Corpn of India, Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367.

5
R.L. Bansal v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 978: 1992 Supp (2) SCC 318.
6
Union of India v. M.L. Capoor

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | XVII

 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary. Whenever there is arbitrariness in

state action, Art. 14 springs to life and judicial review strikes down such an action.7
5. Thus, in the instant case, the final selection process being based on the registrar’s
discretion is arbitrary and thus not right, just and fair. It also violates the principles of
natural justice and is bad under Article 14. There are no procedures or rules laid own
based upon which the registrar can appoint candidates and thus the selection process does
not have any rational basis. The first part of the selection process judging the candidate on
their education and degrees, written examination and viva voce test has a rational relation
with the objective of selecting the candidates, i.e. for the post of translators-cum-typists.
Thus, the process of selection on registrar’s discretion is arbitrary and involves the
negation of equality.
6. The counsel humbly submits that based on the facts at hand, it is evident that there were
no norms or principles laid down according to which the registrar could exercise his
discretion. Since the registrars actions were uniformed, they can be questioned as
arbitrary relying on Article 14 of the constitution.
7. Furthermore, “Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the
process of public employment”8. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is
unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative
of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative
of Article 16.9 Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness
and equality of treatment.10The counsel submits that since the registrar’s discretion in
appointing typists cum translators is arbitrary and effects matters relating to public
employment, it is violative of both Article 14 and 16 and thus the right to fair and equal
treatment of Enzo is threatened.

B. FAIR AND JUST SELECTION PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

7
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees, Bombay Port, AIR 1989 SC 1642; LIC v. Escorts, AIR
1986 SC 1370 : (1986) 1 SCC 264.

8
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1806
9
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3, 38 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165, 200 : (1974) 2 SCR 348;
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258
10
E.P. Royappa... (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555....

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | XVIII

 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

8. The State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 11 Employers, especially when
it's the State, must follow a fair and just selection process when filling job vacancies.
They cannot arbitrarily abandon the process or choose less qualified candidates over more
qualified ones. Many applicants invest time and money in applying, preparing, and
attending various selection stages, and successful candidates reasonably expect to be
appointed. While appointment is not a vested right, employers must provide valid and
non-arbitrary reasons for not appointing qualified candidates, in line with the principles of
Article 14 of the Constitution.12
9. Thus, since the final discretion in the appointment process was on the registrar, the
selection process was arbitrary and violated Enzo’s right to equality under Article 14.
2.WHETHER KARTHIK’S RIGHT TO PROFESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g)
HAS BEEN INFRINGED?

1.Even though the selected candidate has no vested right in the qualifying examination for
getting appointed against the posts advertised/notified, yet the state cannot withdraw the seats
arbitrarily without there being any bona fide or appropriate reasons and the selection cannot
arbitrarily be restricted to a few candidates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the
availability of qualified candidates13.
2.

PRAYER

In the light of all the submissions made, the PETITIONER hereby respectfully requests the
Tribunal to ADJUDGE and DECLARE that:
1. Adjudge that an offence under PMLA is not made out against Adv. Dimple.
2. Hold that the non-appearance of Adv. Dimple before Enforcement Directorate under
Section 50 of PMLA was sound in law.
3. Declare that Adv dimple is eligible to obtain Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of
CRPC r/w. S. 45 of PMLA.

11
“Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in 1991 SCC (3) 47”
12
Ravinder Singh Vs J&K Sports Council.
13
Robin Singh Mehta and Ors. v.State of H.P. and Ors. [CWP No. 3371/2019]

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | XIX

 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

4. Enlarge the applicant on bail with any reasonable condition which will be abided by the
applicant.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/
(Advocate on behalf of the
PETITIONER)

MNLU NAGPUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Page | XX