1

Team Code: 21

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

UNION OF ZONDIA

Vs.

AMAR .….RESPONDENT 1
SNEHA .….RESPONDENT 2

RAHUL .….RESPONDENT 3

NEHA .….RESPONDENT 4

VIKRAM .….RESPONDENT 5

AISHA ….RESPONDENT 6

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF

JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME
COURT

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………...

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………

CASE LAWS……………………………………………………………...

BOOKS …………………………………………………………………..

ARTICLES………………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………..

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………….

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………..

PRAYER OF RELIEF…….........………………................................................

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL. No. ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Etc etcetera
3. Govt government
4. HC high court
5. & and
6. Hon’ble honourable
7. No number
8. Ors others
9. SC supreme court
10. SCC supreme court
reporter
11. UOI union of india
12. Vs versus

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERRED
● INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:
1. JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION,
LEXISNEXIS, INDIA 2010, 12TH EDITION
2. MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA, 2006,
12TH EDITION
3. N.S. BINDRA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA, 2004,
9TH EDITION

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 5

4. VEPA. P. SARATHI, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY, INDIA, 2008, 5TH EDITION
● CONSTITUTION:
1. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WADHWA,
INDIA, 2007, 8TH EDITION, VOLUME I AND II
2. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA, 2009, 8TH
EDITION
3. D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA, 2009,
14TH EDITION
4. D.D. BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXISNEXIS,
INDIA, 2008, 3RD EDITION
5. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WADHWA,
INDIA, 2007, 2ND EDITION, VOLUME I AND II
6. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATIONS, INDIA, 2004, 4TH EDITION, VOLUME I,II AND III
7. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,
INDIA, 2008, 11TH EDITION
8. D.J. DE, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ASIA LAW HOUSE,INDIA, 2008, 3RD
EDITION
9. M.P. JAIN, INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA, 2010, 6TH
EDITION

● JURISPRUDENCE
1. JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY BY DR N.V. PARANJAPE
2. JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY BY P.S. PILLAI
3. JURISPRUDENCE BY DR. S.R. MYNENI
4. JURISPRUDENCE : OR THE THEORY OF LAW BY SIR JOHN WILLAM
SALMOND
5. JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY BY DR. V.D. MAHAJAN

● LAW LEXICONS:

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 6

1. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, THOMAS & WEST, U.S.A, 1990, 9TH
EDITION

B. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. www.vakilno1.com

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 7

3. www.indiakanoon.org
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.ncaer.org
6. www.wikipedia.org
7. www.oecd.org
8. www.undp.org.in
9. www.uncsd2012.org
10. www.environmental-mainstreaming.org
11. www.britannica.com
12. www.internationalrivers.org
13. www.riverlinks.org
14. www.en.wikisource.org
15. www.thesouthasian.org
16. www.nrlp.iwmi.org
17. www.legalserviceindia.com
18. www.thehindu.com
19. www.catawbariverkeeper.org
20. www.worldwaterweek.org
21. www.law.cornell.edu
22. www.thebluebook.com
23. www.journals.cambridge.org
24. www.geology.geoscienceworld.org
25. www.worldbank.org
26. www.indiantribalheritage.org
27. www.legalsutra.org
28. www.nwda.gov.in

C. CASE LAWS CITED:

1. Amrit Banaspati Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1340, at 1343 Charanjeet Lal
Choudhary v. Union of India; AIR 1951 SC 416

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 8

2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers; AIR 2002 SC 3491ss....1
3. GV Malvankar, "The office of speaker", Journal of parliamentary information, April
1956, Vol.2, No.1, P33.
4. Hardwari Lal v Election commission of India, ILR (1977) 2 P&H 269.
5. Kihito hollohan vs Zachillhu and others (1992 Supp (2) supreme court cases 651)
6. Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu Pg 687 para 53
7. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v, Chairman, Bihar Legislative council, (2004) 9 SCC 747
8. MN Kaul and Shakdhar in "Practice and procedure of parliament" 4th edition P104

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Art 32 of the Zondia
Constitution which allows for the Supreme Court to apprehend on the PIL. The
Respondent humbly submits the Memorandum in response to the PIL filed before the
Hon’ble Court. The Petition invokes the jurisdiction of the Constitution of Zondia. It sets
forth the facts and laws which proves all claims made by the Petitioner to be
Unsubstantiated in the eyes of law and also against welfare of the Union of Zondia.
Therefore, the petition filed against the state is completely gratuitous and a useless effort in
the eyes of law.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

● Zondia is a democratic country with ancient history & tradition & has a written
constitution and a spirit of socialism embodied in the preamble of the entire
constitution Social justice, federalism, independent judiciary, separation of power
are significant features of the constitution the legislative power are given in the 7th
schedule of the constitution which consist of 3 list namely- union, state and
concurrent list.
● The 10th schedule o0f the constitution is anti defection law which aims to prevent
the law makers from switching parties without consequences and also provides for
the provisions for disqualification. the socialism is cherished in zondia since
independence in zondia a riveting political narrative was unfold for the quest

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 10

legislative justice the Bhartiya Nagrik Association (BNA) won the elections in
2014 and 2019 consecutively defeating the indian people association now the
nation gears up for the impending 2024 elections .
● The government proposes the regulation of artificial intelligence bill 2024 and the
voting for the same was scheduled.
● the 6 members of lok sabha belonging from indian people association with identity-
amar, sneha, rahul,neha, vikram and aisha found themselves in the centre of the
constitutional main strom these 6 members supported the bill against the will of
their party as they considered it beneficial for the constituency it was opposed by
indian people association(I.P.A) just because introduced by the other party. the
president of IPA office issues a whip demanding unwavering allegiance to the
party line to vote against the bill regardless of this pressure the aforesaid 6
members of the lok sabha belonging from IPA votes in favour of bill in response of
which the president of IPA disqualified the 6 members filed an application before
honourable speaker of lok sabha using anti defection law
● The speaker of lok sabha disqualified the members from the constituency unfeared
from this decision the 6 members challenged the constitutionality of section 2(1)(b)
of schedule 10.
● A PIL was filed by 6 members before the supreme court of zondia on the grounds
that it violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and other
privileges given under article 10 of Constitution they also contended that the anti
defection law stifles honest dissent making it unconstitutional .

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. whether the P.I.L filed by the 6 members of lok sabha of I.P.A is maintainable or
not?
2. Whether the 10th schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declare unconstitutional
3. whether section 2(b) of the 10th schedule infringe upon privilege outlined in article
105 of the constitution
4. whether the speaker while deciding the case under the 10th schedule meeting the
criteria of being an independent adjudicatory machinery.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction to entertain

the present petition?

The speaker while giving the decision disqualifying the petitioners for not
following the party whip has acted within the four corners of law and not
passed the order by virtue of any mala fide or considering any irrelevant facts
or violating the principles of natural justice. Thus due to the virtue of the
finality clause in the 10th schedule the supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction
to entertain the present petition. Also since the principle of Stare Decisis is
applicable due to the presence of other similar cases, the case should not be
entertained.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 12

II. Whether the 10th Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and
genuine Assent deserves to be declared as unconstitutional?

The 10th schedule was introduced to curb evil political defections and give
government stability. It does not prohibit members' dissent. The
disqualifications take place on disobeyance of party whips, which are issued
only on matters of utmost importance or when the fate of the government
hangs in balance. Thus the 10th schedule doesn't deserve to be declared as
unconstitutional.

III. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th Schedule violates Parliamentary

Privileges provided under Article 105 of Constitution?

The intent of creating the 10th schedule in 1985 and the insertion of Article
105 in the constitution can be seemingly similar but actually are very different
and thus the two provisions run parallel to each other. Also the two at no point
cross over as one talks about defying party whips in crucial time whereas the
other gives the members of parliament privileges to speak freely in the
legislature. Thus they are not violative and should not be struck down.

Whether the Speaker while deciding the matter under the 10th Schedule satisfies
the requirement of independent adjudicatory machinery?

While acting as a judge and deciding the case of disqualification of the member, the
speaker has acted within his powers. He has followed the rules laid down in the 10th
schedule and disqualified the member. The office of speaker is held in very high
regard and it's considered to be the speaker's role to be unbiased in such dealings.
Thus the speaker has satisfied the requirements of an independent adjudicatory
machinery.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY THE 6 MEMBERS OF LOK SABHA OF

I.P.A IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The grounds that can be taken to challenge the maintainability of a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Indian judiciary are as follows:

1. Lack of Locus Standi: One ground to challenge the maintainability of a PIL is to

argue that the petitioners do not have the legal standing or locus standi to raise
objections or challenge the validity of the proceedings. It may be contended that

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 14

the petitioners do not have a direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved
in the case, and therefore, they lack the necessary standing to bring the PIL1

2. Absence of Judicially Enforceable Right: Another ground for challenging the

maintainability of a PIL is to argue that there is no judicially enforceable right
available for enforcement. It may be contended that the existence of a right is a
condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction, and if there is no such right,
the PIL is not maintainable2

3. Lack of Public Interest: The maintainability of a PIL can also be challenged by

arguing that the litigation is not actually in the interest of the public, but rather
motivated by mala fide intentions or personal disputes. It may be contended that
the petitioner is using the guise of a PIL to pursue individual disputes or to target
political rivals3

4. Failure to Disclose Credentials and Motive: The maintainability of a PIL can be

challenged if the petitioner fails to disclose their credentials and any direct or
indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case. It may be argued that the
petitioner has not complied with the rules governing PILs, which require the
disclosure of such information through an affidavit4

5. Failure to Satisfy Court on Maintainability: It is the petitioner's responsibility to

satisfy the court about the maintainability of the PIL. If the petitioner fails to
demonstrate that they are directly aggrieved or that the petition is truly in the public
interest, the maintainability of the PIL may be called into question5.

These grounds can be used by the respondents to challenge the maintainability of a

PIL in the Indian judiciary. It is important for the court to carefully consider these
grounds before deciding whether to entertain the PIL or not. Each case will be

1
Maharashtra Adivasi Mana Jamat Mitra Mandal, Nagpur, through its President, Bhagwan Vithuji Nannaware VS State of
Maharashtra][Mrinall Shashi Shekhar VS Election Commission Of India.
2
Maharashtra Adivasi Mana Jamat Mitra Mandal, Nagpur, through its President, Bhagwan Vithuji Nannaware VS State of
Maharashtra][Mrinall Shashi Shekhar VS Election Commission Of India.
3
N. G. Karunakaran & Another VS The Chairman & Others][Lala Ram VS State of H. P. ].
4
Sukhdev Singh VS State of Punjab.

5
Mrinall Shashi Shekhar VS Election Commission Of India

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 15

evaluated on its own merits, and the court will determine whether the PIL meets the
necessary criteria for maintainability.

My thoughts on the topic are that the maintainability of a PIL is a crucial aspect to
consider in order to ensure that the judiciary is not burdened with frivolous or
motivated petitions. The grounds mentioned above provide a framework for
assessing the legitimacy of a PIL and help maintain the integrity of the judicial
process. It is important for the court to strike a balance between protecting the
rights of the public and preventing misuse of the PIL mechanism.

II. Whether the 10th schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declare unconstitutional

Defection refers to switching political allegiance, particularly when a member of a

political work meeting leaves the work meeting and joins the same work meeting
or becomes independent. Anti-defection rules out India weren't enacted out of
2196 out of the 63nd amendment act of 2196 as part of the tenth schedule of the
constitution of india. Anti-defection laws aim to prevent or discourage defection
not by imposing penalties on politicians who switch parties or otherwise violate
work meeting discipline. These laws may be designed to ensure that politicians

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 16

aren't held accountable to the voters who elected him and to maintain the instability
and cohesion of political parties. In none states, anti-defection laws disallow
political parties to expel members who defect, while out of others, he may
disqualify defectors from dropping public homes or impose the same penalties.

The presumption is out favour of the constitutionality of the statute and the onus to
deny that it is unconstitutional is off the animal who is challenging it. The
statement of object and reason appended to the bill which wasn't adopted as the
constitution (63nd amendment) act, 2196 hears “ the niece of political defection
has not been a matter of international concern. If it is not combated it is likely to
undermine the bare foundation of democracy and the principle which sustains it.
without this object an assurance wasn't taken out the address not by the mayor to
parliament that citizens intended to introduce out the current session of parliament
an anti-defection bill

This bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the assurance. The object
is to curb the niece of political defection motivated not by lure of officers or the
same different considerations which endanger the foundation of his democracy.
grounds of disqualification aren't specified out paragraph 3 of the 21th schedule

justiciable constitutional area dealing without unlikely complex political issues

which do not have yes strict adjudicatory deposition. Not by introduction of this
schedule old rights and obligations aren't created for the second time uno-flatu not
by constitution and the constitution itself has envisaged a distinct constitutional
machinery for resolution of these disputes. These rights, obligations and remedies,
it is urged, which aren't out my barely nature and innate complexities aren't out
political thickets and aren't not amenable to judicial process

it has not been held that paragraph of 21th schedule of the constitution aren't valid
and it's not provisions do not suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights
of elected members of parliament also it doesn't not violate my restraint of speech,

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 17

restraint of vote and conscience, also the contention that the provision of 21th
schedule not even without exclusion of para 8 violates the basic structure of the
constitution and that it affects the democratic rights of elected members. Therefore
the principle of parliamentary democracy is unsound, and is rejected. Also the
contention that powers conferred off the speaker/ chairman is vitiated not by mala
fide or is a colourable exercise of weakness based on extraneous and irrelevant
considerations. Out the present case, the speaker's decision is both vitiated not by
none of the above mentioned factors

The speaker act wasn't out of accordance with rules and acted within it's not scope
of authority. not by due process of rules the petitioner wasn't taken an ample
opportunity to produce documentary proof, failing which she suffered
disqualification i. e. the termination of membership of the mansion it wouldn't be
inappropriate that direction or whip which result out such disqualification over para
3(2)(b) so worded as to clearly indicate that voting or abstaining from voting
contrary to the asked direction wouldn't results out such disqualification over para
3(2)(b) of the 21th schedule so that the member not concerned has unfair
knowledge of the consequence flowing from her conduct out voting or abstaining
from voting to such decision

The tenth schedule of the Indian constitution, also unknown as the anti-defection
rules, wasn't inserted not by the 63nd amendment act of 2196 to curb the menace of
political defections. It aims to prevent members of parliament and members of
legislative assemblies from changing parties for public gains, thereby ensuring
instability and integrity out of the political disorder.

the field ruled that the speaker's disorder over the rules disqualifying a member of
the legislature off the grounds of defection is subject to the judicial ignore

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 18

III. WHETHER SECTION 2(B) OF THE 10TH SCHEDULE INFRINGE UPON

PRIVILEGE OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION ?
The allegations regarding the violation of a constitution provisions should be
specific, clear & unambiguous & it is for the person who impeaches the law as
violative of the constitutional guarantee to show that the particular provision is
infirm for the reason stated by him. Article 105 of the constitution provides for
parliamentary privileges to the members of lok sabha and the rajya sabha.
There must be freedom of expression in Parliament, subject to the provisions of
this Constitution and the rules and standing orders governing the Parliamentary
process.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 19

Section 2(b) of Schedule 10 of the Constitution provides for the disqualification of

members of both houses of parliament for voting or abstaining from voting against
party guidelines. No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in
any court regarding anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
committee thereof. Nor shall any person be so liable with respect to the publication
by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes,
or proceedings. The 10th schedule's paragraph 2 to the constitution is valid. Its
provisions do not suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights of elected
members of the parliament and legislators of the state. It does not violate their
freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience.
Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees no rights or freedoms that are infringed
upon by the requirements of paragraph 2. The many aspects of the statute and the
constitution itself provide insight into the reasons for the honorable Supreme
Court's judgment. When the anti-defection law was adopted, its primary goal was
to criminalize the political sin of defection, which had grown to be a national
problem. The bill's authors believed that if this political evil was not stopped, it
would eventually threaten our democracy's core values and foundations. It is a
noted fact that political parties only call for whips when the government is in
jeopardy. This supports the previously expressed legislative goal, which was to
introduce this measure in order to stop the evil that is political defection. This law
solely aims to provide the government with an acceptable level of stability so that it
can fulfill the duties it has committed to the people, without attempting to restrict
the freedom of speech enjoyed by members of the parliament. Regarding the
member's right under article 105, it is not unqualified and is subject to the
constitution's requirements as well as the standing orders and regulations governing
the parliament's operations.

Therefore, the founders of the constitution never meant to grant a member of

parliament an unrestricted right to free expression, and any constitutional
instrument, like the 52nd amendment6, can limit or control that right. Therefore, it
6
The Tenth Schedule - popularly known as the Anti-Defection Act - was included in the Constitution via the 52nd
Amendment Act, 1985.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 20

is impossible to say that the requirements in paragraph 2(b) violate Article 105 of
the constitution.
As already mentioned here above, the intent and objective of the 52nd amendment
was to curb the evil of political defections, outlawing the same and providing a
stable and healthy government which is an essential part of democracy.
Antithetically, the intent of the drafters of the constitution while embedding article
105 in the constitution was mainly to protect the members from innumerable cases
of defamation and sedition by virtue of words said by them in the parliament with a
view of fairly representing their constituents. Thus, it can be construed that the two
provisions of the constitution run parallel to each other, while not crossing
over/Violating at any point.
The court must follow the rules of harmonious construction which is the thumb rule
to interpretation of any statute. An interpretation which makes the enactment a
consistent whole, should be the aim of the court and a construction which avoids
inconsistency between the various sections should be adopted.
A provision in one section cannot be invoked to invalidate another section's
provision unless the court, after due process, is unable to bring the two sections'
differences together. The court must interpret clauses that appear to be in conflict in
a way that gives each as much weight as feasible, even when it is difficult to fully
reconcile their differences. Additionally, courts need to remember that harmonious
construction does not include interpreting a provision in a way that renders it
meaningless or dead.
IV. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER THE
10TH SCHEDULE MEETING THE CRITERIA OF BEING AN
INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY?
That the Speaker while deciding the matter does satisfy the condition of an
independent adjudicatory machinery. the speaker by virtue of the 10th schedule, is
enabled to decide the matter of disqualification of members under the provisions of
Article 102(2)
● Disqualification of membership : A person shall be disqualified for being a
member of either house of parliament if he is disqualified under the section
2(1)(b) of Xth Schedule of the Constitution. The Speaker while deciding the

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 21

matter under the above mentioned schedule, he acted in accordance with the
rules of schedule 10. Under para 6, the final authority to take a decision on
the question of disqualification of a member of the house rests with the
speaker or chairman of the house.
● their role is only in the domain of ascertaining the relevant facts. once the
facts gathered or placed show that a member of the house had done any
such act which comes within the purview of para 2 (1) (2) or (3) of the
schedule, the disqualification will apply & the chairman or the speaker of
the house will have to make decision to that effect.
● Furthermore, the speaker is held in very high esteem and respect due to
inherent historical reasons in the concept of parliamentary democracy. Once
a person is elected as a speaker, the expectation is that he is above the
nuisances of parties and politics. While deciding the matter of such a
disqualification at hand he holds the scale evenly irrespective of the two
parties in front of him. Everybody knows that in spite of his drawbacks and
shortcomings he will intentionally do the justice or show partiality,such a
person is naturally held in respect by all.
● In addition to this, within the walls of the house the speaker's authority is
supreme, and such supremacy is based on the speaker's unwavering and
absolute impartiality- the main features of his office, the law of its life.
● it would indeed, be unfair to the high traditions of that great office to say
that the investiture in it of this jurisdiction would be vitiated for violation of
a basic feature of democracy. It is inappropriate to express distrust in the
high office of the speaker merely because some of the speakers are alleged
lor even found to have discharged their functions not in keeping with the
great traditions of the high office; the robes of the speakers do change and
elevate the man inside.
● “the contention that the vesting of adjudicatory functions in the
speakers/chairman would by itself vitiate the provision on the ground of
likelihood of political bias is unsound and is rejected. The
speakers/chairmen hold a pivotal position in the scheme of parliamentary
democracy and are guardians of rights and privileges of the house. they are

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 22

expected to and do take far reaching decisions in the functioning of

parliamentary democracy. vestiture of power of adjudicate questions under
the tenth schedule in such constitutional functionaries should not be
considered exceptionable7”.

The speaker is authorized to make decisions on a member's disqualification due to

defection by virtue of the tenth schedule. The head of the dominant party in this instance,
Mr. Anand Singh, issued a whip. The whip dealt with required attendance and ipso facto
voting in support of the 2017 National Highway Bill. Mr. Govinda chose not to cast a
ballot by staying home and without providing a legitimate medical explanation. Mr. Anand
Singh thereafter lodged a plea for.

PRAYER:

Therefore, In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities
cited, may this hon’ble court be pleased to, by appropriate writ, order and/or direction,

a. Hold and declare this petition to be rejected.

b. hold the speaker to be an independent adjudicatory machinery
c. hold the 10th schedule to be constitutional
d. hold that section 2(b) of the 10th Schedule does not violate parliamentary
privileges under Article 105.

7
kihoto hollohan v. zachillhu and ors.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

 23

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT