Moot Proposition

Indusland Foundation for Democracy v. Union of Indusland

1. Indusland, a country in South Asia observed a Parliamentary Form of Democracy for

more than seven decades. It has adopted a written constitution greatly influenced by
the cardinal principles of civilized and democratic society from all over the world.
The democratic setup in Indusland is considered as one of the most successful ones
among the countries that gained independence and adopted democracy after the
Second World War. The written constitution and its cherished principles have played a
significant role in protecting the democracy of Indusland. The multiparty system,
fraternity, secularism, federalism, justice, equality, liberty, dignity, judicial review, and
recognition of the human rights of the citizens are some of the key features of the
Constitution.
2. The parliamentary system of government is the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’
of Indusland. In parliamentary democracy, political parties plays a vital role in
bringing together like-minded people with the same political ideology. In a country
like Indusland, a multiparty system ensures participative democracy by allowing
people to participate in the election process. Fair, free and transparent elections are
sine qua non of the democracy. To ensure free and fair elections, the Constitution of
Indusland has provided for an independent and impartial body in the form of the
Election Commission of Indusland. In the Constituent Assembly, it was unanimously
accepted that the Election Commission should be free from executive influence to
work independently.
3. To ensure effective superintendence, direction and control of elections, the
Constitution of Indusland has provided for the Election Commission. It conducts
elections at national and state level. The Constitution initially provided for the
commission comprising of only one election commissioner but the Election
Commissioner Amendment Act 1989, made it a multi-member body. The
constitutional validity of the said Act is affirmed by the Federal Court of Indusland.
4. Indusland Foundation for Democracy (hereinafter IFD) is a reputed
Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) working for the protection of the basic
human rights of the masses within the legal and constitutional framework. IFD is
involved in creating awareness amongst the people about rights and is internationally
acclaimed for its research activities. To achieve its objective the IFD conducts various
 activities such as training camps, long marches and has filed many Public Interest
Litigations in the constitutional courts of Indusland.
5. The present Public Interest Litigation by IFD is an outcome of its research on
malpractices in the general election of Loksabha and the elections of two state
legislative assemblies in December 2023. Serious allegations of several malpractices
by political parties in these elections harmed the image of the Election Commission as
an independent and impartial functionary. It was further alleged that the commission
was unable to fulfill its constitutional responsibility as it failed to control malpractices
such as bogus voting, impersonations and corruption during elections.
The IFD also pointed out certain lacunas relating to the recent enactment by the
Parliament of Indusland i.e. Chief Election Commissioner and other Election
Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023
(hereinafter the Act of 2023).
6. The IFD further pointed out that the internal working of political parties is not as per
the spirit of the constitution. There are issues relating to their timely internal elections
for various top positions in the organization as elections are not conducted as
prescribed by the constitution of their party. The IFD also urged in its petition that
considering the importance of political parties in parliamentary democracy there is a
dire need for the Election Commission’s supervision over the internal elections of
registered political parties under their respective constitutions. It was asserted that
such supervision would ensure inner-party democracy in each political party. As per a
study and survey conducted by the IFD, almost all resisted political parties are either
run by two or three individuals known as ‘High Command’ or controlled by
family-centric politics. The IFD condemned this ‘High Command Culture’ as it is
going against the very basic principle of democratic polity.
7. The IFD has also criticized the eligibility criteria provided under Section 5 of the said
Act of 2023. The Section provided that ‘the Chief Election Commissioner and other
Election Commissioners shall be appointed from amongst the persons who are
holding or have held a post equivalent to the rank of Secretary to the Government of
India’. As per the petitioner, this provision prohibits the entry of multiple talents into the
Election Commission of Indusland by providing experience in administration as a mandatory
requirement.
8. The petitioner has also prayed for an amendment in the said Act to provide for the
mandatory cooling-off period of two years for civil servants to join the commission.
In support, it was argued that as civil servants come into close contact with
executives, it may lead to undue influence, favoritism, or bias on the part of civil
 servants and the cooling–off period will ensure the independent and impartial working
of the commission.
9. The petition also challenged the selection process of the election commissioners,
specifically Section 6 and Section 7 of the Act of 2023. The recommendation Law
Commission of Indusland and the recent Constitutional Bench Judgment of the
Federal Court of Indusland to appoint the Chief Justice of Indusland as a member of
the Selection Committee is not observed in Section 7. It was further contended the
exclusion of the judiciary from the selection process would make the entire selection
process more executive-oriented making it vulnerable to the governmental process. It
was further underlined that many provisions of the Act of 2023 violate the guarantee
of free and fair elections which is the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’.
10. In response, the Union of Indusland argued that the eligibility criteria for the
appointment of election commissioner provided under the Act aligns with established
practice and is reasonable as vast management of elections requires first-hand
administrative experience at the top level. Further, the cooling–off period was also
said to be unnecessary as it may lead to reluctance on the part of senior bureaucrats to
take any official responsibility after two years of retirement.
11. Regarding the demand for the superintendence of the internal election of registered
political parties by the Election Commission, the respondent vehemently contended it
to be an unfeasible measure leading only to extra burden. The existing mechanism for
the internal election of political parties is advocated to be sufficient.
12. To the allegation of exclusion of the Chief Justice of Indusland as a selection
committee member, the respondent argued that the Chief Justice of Indusland was
never a part of the Selection Committee that appoints the Election Commissioner. The
inclusion of the Chief Justice in the collegium for appointing Election Commissioners
was a mere temporary arrangement. Further, it was also asserted that once the
commissioners get appointed, their working is free from executive control and the
Constitution has given
enough protection to them for the same. It was also argued by the Union of Indusland
that the Act of 2023 enacted by the Parliament was as per the Constitutional Mandate
and specifically it complies with the directions given by the Federal Court in a recent
judgment. The respondent argued that the mechanism provided under the Act of 2023
guarantees free and fair elections and protects the ‘Basic Structure of Constitution’ of
Indusland.
 The matter is put before the Federal Court for a final hearing. The Hon’ble Court will
hear the arguments of both parties on the following important issues.

1. Whether the eligibility criteria provided in Section 5 of the Act of 2023 prohibits
the entry of multiple talents into the Election Commission of Indusland?

2. Whether the cooling-off period for civil servants before joining the commission
will help the Election Commission to work more independently and impartially?

3. Whether the superintendence of the internal election of registered political

parties by the Election Commission is necessary to ensure inner party
democracy?

4. Whether the Chief Justice of Indusland should be a part of the Selection

Committee to appoint the Election Commissioner to ensure that the Commission
is free from executive control?

5. Whether the Act of 2023 in toto violate the guarantee of free and fair elections as
a ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’?

Note:-

● Indusland is a country like India and its laws/rules/regulations/judgments are

pari passu to that of India.

● Disclaimer – This moot problem is imaginary and drafted for academic purposes.
Any resemblance with any fact, case, person, or character is merely coincidental.