MOOT PROBLEM

There are 28 states and eight union territories, each of which operates independently. It
exemplifies the "Unity in Diversity" principle and "Cooperative Federalism." After gaining
independence from colonial rule in 1947, Bhartiyana enacted her constitution in 1950.
Bhartiyana's Constitution bestows upon her the characteristics of democracy, secularism, and
federalism. The Bhartiyana Constitution is widely regarded as the most extensive and
comprehensive in the world. It has established a democratic and federal government in
Bhartiyana, with powers divided between the Central and State governments.

The most unusual case is that of Indraprastha, which is both a Union territory and the
country's capital. Because of its importance as Bhartiyana's capital, the State of Indraprastha
has been granted special status under Article 239AA. Prior to the addition of Article 239AA,
Indraprastha was directly under the control of the Central Government.

With its growing population and cosmopolitan atmosphere, there was a need for the
democratic government to handle Union territory issues similarly to a State government. In
light of this, the state of Indraprastha was granted special status and dubbed "limited
statehood" under Article 239AA. It aimed to give the people of Indraprastha the ability to
have their voices heard through a democratically elected government. At the same time, the
Union Government of Bhartiyana retained direct control over public order, police, and land in
order to maintain the integrity of the national interest. All because Indraprastha was the
country's capital.

The most serious conflict is over administrative control over the terms and conditions of
bureaucratic services, particularly transfer, posting, and appointment of bureaucrats. When a
state operates as a full-fledged state, it requires an organised bureaucracy to carry out its
functions. However, in the case of Indraprastha, the entire bureaucratic control is under the
control of the Union Government of Bhartiyana, which has created a barrier to the effective
administration of the Indraprastha.

In the late 1990s, the constitutional validity of Article 239AA was challenged before the
land's highest court and declared constitutionally valid. The judgement placed a high value on
national interest, integrity, law, and order. Numerous petitions on various conflict issues
between the Indraprastha and Union governments are still pending. The Indraprastha
Government wants full State status, while the Union Government wants to maintain control
over the Indraprastha.

Bhartiyana, a Union of States, has several provisions that give its Constitution unitary
characteristics. The justification for this is national interest, but various jurists and legal
luminaries have described the Indian Constitution as quasi-federal, with a strong centre.
Because of this powerful Central tendency of the Bhartiyana Constitution, the States
frequently have tussles and issues, especially when two different political parties rule in the
Centre and the State. However, in the case of Union territories, it has been resolved because
they are directly under the control of the Central Government.

This step provided a democratic Government to run the administration of the Indraprastha
effectively. Still, it led to raising the tussle between the Indraprastha Government and Union
Government of Bhartiyana on the control and distribution of executive powers. There were
severe tussles between Indraprastha and Union Government arose especially when the
different political parties ruled at both the levels. This also led to several court cases where
Constitutional bench of Apex court of the Country was approached to decide these issues.

Another contentious issue is the role, positioning, and functioning of the Lieutenant
Governor, who is the administrative head of the Indraprastha. He is appointed by the Union
Government. This office is equivalent to the office of the Governor of any State. The
Government of the Indraprastha has cited numerous times that the Lieutenant Governor
should be bound by the aid and advice of the Council of ministers of the Indraprastha as good
as it is in the case of the Governor in other States in accordance of Article 163 of the
Constitution of Bhartiyana. Union Government has defended the above claim of Indraprastha.

Dissatisfied with the delay in hearing the review petition, the Union Government issued an
ordinance nullifying the Apex Court's order and transferring all administrative control to the
Union Government and the Lieutenant Governor, who are not bound by the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers of the Government of Indraprastha. It drew criticism from various
sections of society, who saw the ordinance as an attack on the functioning of Bhartiyana's
judiciary.
Another contentious issue is the role, positioning, and operation of the Lieutenant Governor,
who serves as the administrative head of the Indraprastha. He is appointed by the Union
Government. This position is equivalent to that of the Governor of any state. According to
Article 163 of the Bhartiyana Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor should be bound by the
aid and advice of the Indraprastha Council of Ministers, just as the Governor is in other
States. The Union Government has defended Indraprastha's above claim.

Given these two instances, the Indraprastha Government approached the Apex Court of
Bhartiyana. The Apex Court then referred these issues to a Constitutional bench in April
2023. The Hon'ble Court ruled in favour of the Indraprastha Government and declared that
administrative control is directly under the control of the Indraprastha Government. The court
also ruled that the assistance and advice of the Indraprastha Government's Council of
Ministers binds the Lieutenant Governor.

This judgment attracted sharp reactions from the ruling union government, who sought an
immediate review of the decision. The Apex court fixed the hearing date of the review
petition in October 2023.

Bhartiyana is the world's seventh largest and most populous nation, occupying 2.5% of total
world area and containing approximately 15% of the world's population living in various
social, economic, geographical, and ecological conditions. It is also the world's largest
democratic country, with a wide range of races, religions, castes, tribes, languages, social
customs, cultural and sub-cultural beliefs, and ideologies. It is also a secular country, with the
Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to follow and practise all religious faiths.

The Monsoon session of Bhartiyana's Parliament will be held in October 2023, during which
the Union Government intends to pass the bill on Indraprasthaordinance. Outraged by this
ordinance, the Indraprastha filed a writ petition with the Hon'ble Apex Court of Bhartiyana,
requesting that it be set aside. The court granted the petition and scheduled it to be heard
alongside the review petition in October 2023.

The case is set for arguments and the major issues before the Hon’ble Apex Court of the
Bhartiyana :
 1) whether the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance?
2) Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government
and can the Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?
3) Whether the Highest Court can revoke special status of Indraprastha and convert it
into a full-fledged state?
4) Whether the Government of the Indraprastha can control the administrative control of
the State?
5) Whether the Lieutenant Governor of Indraprastha is parametric to the Governor of
any other States?

All the laws and constitutions of Bhartiyana are analogous to the rules and Constitution of
India. Indian Laws and judgments of the courts in India (based on hierarchy) shall have
persuasive value for this country.

All the names used, and events described in this proposition are fictitious. The resemblance
of any kind and magnitude to any name, person, organization, or event is purely coincidental.
This is an imagined problem/case with the under-given fact matrix. The counsels are
expected to operate within the four walls of the facts and issues.

Both the Central and State governments are free to legislate on their respective subjects, and
neither can interfere in the affairs of the other. Articles 245 and 246 of the Bhartiyana
Constitution, as well as Schedule VII, provide a detailed distribution of powers and subject
matters between the Centre and the State Government.