TL -19BLB1015

1
Dr. A T Markose Memorial Technology Law Moot Court Competition

VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT- 2024

Before.

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PETITION NO: XXXX

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

IN THE MATTER OF
RAVI KUMAR ....................……………………………..……………………PETITIONERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA…………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENT
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Sr. Content Page Number
1. Statement of Facts............................................................................................ 2.
2. Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................. 3.
3. Index of Authorities.......................................................................................... 4.
4. Compendium of Cases...................................................................................... 5.
5. Statement of Issues........................................................................................... 6.
6. Pleadings............................................................................................................ 7.
7. Prayer................................................................................................................. 11.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________

AMENDMENT: The Constitutions (One Hundred Third Amendment) Act of 2019 went into effect on January
14, 2019. By fusing Articles 15(6) and 16(6), the Indian Parliament created a new group of reserves known as
the "economically weaker section". A maximum of 10% reservation for the comparatively less fortunate
residents, excluding members of schedule caste, schedule tribe, and the non-creamy layer of other backward
classes, has been granted to the state, among other powers.

WRIT PETITIONS: The Indian constitutional court consisting of five judges heard the matter concerning the
Constitution (the one hundred and third amendment act). The bench decided the matter in question based on four
different rulings with different grounds. Justice Kali and the Chief Justice of Mewar delivered a dissenting
opinion, arguing that the 2019 Constitution (the one hundred and third amendment) act violates the essential
structure of the Constitution by going against equality principles, including the exclusion of SC, ST, and OBC.
The amendment was affirmed in three separate rulings that each had a different justification.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Respondent has appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 for the writ petition in the case of Ravi Kumar v. Union of India

_________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________

STATUTES

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

D.J. De, The Constitution of India, 2nd ed. (2005).

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th ed. (2010).
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th ed. (2018).
V.N. Shukla’s, Constitution of India, 11th ed. (2008).
NITI Aayog Report on National Multidimensional Poverty Index, 2021

DICTIONARIES, ONLINE DATABASE AND WEBSITE

B.A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (2004)

www.scconline.com

www.manupatrafast.com

www.advance.lexis.com

www.legalservicesIndia.com

www.lawyerservies.in

https://egateway.chennai.vit.ac.in/database

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

COMPENDIUM OF CASES
_________________________________________________________________________________________

S.No CASE NUMBER CITATION

1. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963 AIR 6497

2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors SCC 2178

3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India 6 SCC 1 138

4. Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021) 8 SCC 1

5. Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India(1) (WP No. 55/ 2019)

6. Dayaram Khemkaran Verma v. State of 2016 SCC Online

Gujarat Gujarat 182145

7. B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and (2021) 8 SCC 1

Ors

8. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India And Ors. (2017) 9 SCC

9. KC Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka SCC 714

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
_________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE: 1

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE: 2

WHETHER THE INTERSECTIONALITY OF FACTORS IN THE UNIVERSITY’S RESERVAION

POLICIES ARE A CONCERN?

ISSUE: 3

EVALUATING THE BALANCE BETWEEN AFFIIRMATIVE ACTION THROUGH ACTION

THROUGH RESERVATIONS AND ENSURING MERIT-BASED ADMISSIONS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024

PLEADINGS
_________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

1. The university’s reservation policies are constitutionally valid and in accordance with the principles
outlined in the older cases and the recent considerations raised in the Janhit Abhiyan case1.
2. The university has followed the 103rd Constitution Amendment, which empowers the State to make
special provisions, including reservation, for the economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens other
than the Scheduled Castes (SC), the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and the non-creamy layer of the Other
Backward Classes (OBC).
3. The 103rd Constitution Amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting
reservation based on economic criteria. It is an enabling provision that gives discretion to the State to
make such reservation, subject to a maximum of 10%, in order to achieve the Preambular goal of
‘JUSTICE, social, economic and political’. It does not mandate or compel the State to make such
reservation.
4. The 103rd Constitution Amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution by excluding
the SCs, STs and OBCs from the scope of EWS reservation. It does not take away or abridge the existing
special provisions of affirmative action for these classes under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). It only
creates a separate category of EWS for those citizens who do not fall under any of the existing categories
of reservation and who are economically disadvantaged.
5. The 103rd Constitution Amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution by breaching
the 50% ceiling of reservation. The 50% ceiling is not a rigid or inflexible rule, but a guideline that can
be relaxed in exceptional circumstances to accommodate the compelling interests of different sections of
society. The 103rd Constitution Amendment is such an exceptional circumstance, as it seeks to address
the economic backwardness of a large segment of population that has been historically excluded from the
benefits of reservation. The 10% limit prescribed by the amendment is reasonable and proportionate to
the extent of the problem.
6. The university’s reservation policies are consistent with the older cases that have upheld the constitutional
validity of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the basis of social and educational backwardness
and inadequate representation. The university has not disturbed or diluted the existing reservation for

1 Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India, (WP No. 55/ 2019)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7
 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024
these classes, but has only added a new category of reservation for the EWS, who are also backward and
inadequately represented, but on the basis of economic criteria. The university has not used economic
criteria as the sole basis for reservation, but as one of the relevant factors, along with other indicators of
backwardness, such as educational attainment, occupation, income, assets, etc.
7. The university’s reservation policies are also in line with the recent considerations raised in the Janhit
Abhiyan case2, which has referred the challenge to the 103rd Constitution Amendment to a larger bench
for determination of the substantial questions of interpretation of the Constitution. The university has not
prejudged or pre-empted the outcome of the pending case, but has acted in good faith and in compliance
with the law as it stands today. The university has also taken care to ensure that the reservation for the
EWS does not adversely affect the quality of education or the efficiency of administration, as mandated
by Article 335 of the Constitution. The university has adopted a transparent and objective process of
identification and verification of the EWS candidates, based on the income and asset criteria prescribed
by the Government of India. The university has also maintained proper reservation registers and roster
registers, as per the UGC guidelines, to monitor the implementation of the reservation policy. The
university has also provided relaxation and concessions to the EWS candidates, such as relaxation in the
minimum qualifying marks, age limit, application fee, etc., to facilitate their access to education and
employment opportunities.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE INTERSECTIONALITY OF FACTORS IN THE UNIVERSITY’S

RESERVAION POLICIES ARE A CONCERN?
8. The university’s reservation policies adequately address the intersectionality of factors such as economic
status and educational backwardness, as suggested by the Janhit Abhiyan case. The Janhit Abhiyan case
upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment, which enabled the state to provide 10%
reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens, other than the Scheduled Castes (SC),
Scheduled Tribes (ST), and non-creamy layer of Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Supreme Court, by
a 3:2 majority, held that the amendment did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and that
economic criteria could be a valid basis for affirmative action, along with social and educational criteria.

9. The university’s reservation policies are in consonance with the Janhit Abhiyan case, as they aim to
achieve the constitutional goals of social justice, equality of opportunity, and diversity in higher education.
The university has adopted a holistic and inclusive approach to reservation, by considering the
intersectionality of various factors that affect the access and participation of marginalized groups in
education. The university has not only reserved seats for SC, ST, and OBC students, but also for EWS
students, who may belong to any caste or community, but are economically disadvantaged. The university
has also taken into account the educational backwardness of certain regions, districts, and rural areas, and

2 Supra Note 1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8
 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024
has provided reservation for students hailing from such areas. The university has also given preference to
female students, students with disabilities, and students from minority communities, in order to promote
their representation and empowerment in education.

10. The university’s reservation policies are based on empirical data, rational criteria, and constitutional
principles. The university has conducted periodic surveys and studies to identify the socio-economic and
educational status of various groups of students, and has devised its reservation policies accordingly. The
university has also followed the guidelines and directions issued by the central and state governments, the
University Grants Commission, and the Supreme Court, regarding the implementation of reservation
policies. The university has also ensured that the reservation policies do not compromise the quality and
standards of education, and do not exceed the 50% ceiling limit prescribed by the Supreme Court in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India.

11. Therefore, the university’s reservation policies are constitutionally valid, reasonable, and effective, and
do not require any interference or modification. The university’s reservation policies are in line with the
Janhit Abhiyan case, which recognized the need and scope for affirmative action based on economic
criteria, along with social and educational criteria. The university’s reservation policies are also consistent
with the constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and dignity, and the Preambular vision of a just and
inclusive society.
ISSUE 3: EVALUATING THE BALANCE BETWEEN AFFIIRMATIVE ACTION THROUGH
ACTION THROUGH RESERVATIONS AND ENSURING MERIT-BASED ADMISSIONS

12. On the basis of numerous reports and statistical data, it has been argued that moving away from caste-
based reservations and towards economic reservation is the need of the hour and a necessary first step
towards achieving economic and social justice. This position was also expressed in Constituent Assembly
debates by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The hon'ble Court made a conscious note in Indra Sawhney3 that certain
groups or classes of individuals might be eligible for benefits of reservation regardless of caste.
13. As per the office of memorandum of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department
of Personnel & Training, the quantum of reservation is set to be 10% in direct recruitment in civil posts
and services in the Government of India. People who do not qualify for the SC, ST, or OBC reservation
programme and whose family's gross yearly income is less than Rs 8OO lakh (Rupees eight lakh only)
are to be designated as EWSs in order to receive the benefits of reservation. Income for the fiscal year
previous to the application year must also include income from all sources, such as salaries, businesses,
professions, and income from farming and other businesses.

3
SCC 2178
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9
 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024
14. In addition, regardless of the family's income, people whose family holds or possesses any of the
following assets are not eligible to be classified as EWS 4: -
a. 5 acres or more of agricultural land;
b. 1000 square feet or more of residential space;
c. 100 square yards or more of residential space in municipalities that have been informed;
d. Residential properties with plots of 200 square yards or more outside of the informed
municipalities.
e. When applying the land or property holding test to establish EWS status, the property owned by
a "Family" in various locations or cities would be combined.
15. For this purpose, the word "Family" will refer to the person requesting the benefit of the reservation, his
or her parents, siblings, and children under the age of 18 as well as his or her partner. The UPA
government established the Major Sinho Commission, which was made up of retired major general S.R.
Sinho, IAS official Narendra Kumar, and retired major general Sinho to investigate economic
backwardness among the general category. The Commission toured all Indian States and Union
Territories and held talks with officials, members of the media, and social activists in order to study
economic backwardness. The Commission communicated with leaders of social science organisations,
distributed questionnaires to state governments, and held workshops and seminars. It suggested that
affirmative action beyond reservations be considered, including improvements in education and skill-
building, health, and hygiene.
16. The UPA administration established The Sinho Committee in 2006 to investigate the situation of the
"General Caste" (non-SC/ST/OBC) or Economically Weaker Sections of the upper castes. Economic
backwardness-based discrimination was not included in the legislative framework (social backwardness
and under-representation were the only prerequisites). The Sinho Commission had a formula and
recommended that: “All BPL families among GC (General Category) as notified from time to time and
all those families among GC whose annual family income from all sources is below the taxable limit
(currently Rs. 1,60,000/ annum and as may be revised from time to time) should be identified as EBCs
(EWS).”
17. The committee, therefore, recommends that the current and ongoing criteria in every ongoing process
where EWS reservation is available be continued and the criteria suggested in this report may be applied
as of the upcoming advertisement/admission cycle after carefully weighing the pros and cons of this issue.

4Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, Official
Memorandum No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res) (notified on 31-1-2019).
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10
 VITSOL FINAL YEAR MOOT COURT, 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel on behalf
of the Respondent humbly pray before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to kindly adjudge and declare that:

(a) The amendment is NOT violative of Article 46 of the Constitution of India.

(b) 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservation is NOT violative of basic structure of the
constitution.

(c) The different reports and studies relied upon by the Parliament and Supreme Court to determine the
Economically Weaker Section ARE sufficient.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, and
for this act of kindness the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent as in duty bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

_______________________

Sd/-

Counsel for Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11