1

1ST LEXOSPERE NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2024
28-30 APRIL, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA

IPA SIX MEMBERS OF LOK SABHA

…………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS
V/S
PRESIDENT OF IPA
……………………………………………………………....Respondent

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 2

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTICULARS PAGE

LIST OF ABBREVITIONS…………………………………………………… 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….. 4

(i)BOOK REFFEERED…………………………………………………….. 4

( ii) CASE REFFERED……………………………………………………….. 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………. 5

STATEMENT OF FACT………………………………………………........... 5-6

ISSUE RAISED…………………………………………………………………….. 7

SUMMARY ARGUMENT……………………………………………………… 7-9

ARGUMENT ADVANCE……………………………………………………….. 9-13

PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………… 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1. &: AND

2. AIR: All India Reporter

3. All :

Allahabad

4. Bom : Bombay

5. Cal: Calcutta

6. Co.: Company

7. Corp.: Corporation

8. Del : Delhi

9. Edn.: Edition

10. Hon’ble: Honourable

11. HC : High Court

12. Ltd: Limited

13. No: Number

14. Ors: Others

15. p: Page

16. pp: Pages

17. Pvt.: Private

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS REFFERED :-

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY SIR J.N.PANNDY

 WEBSITES REFEERED:-

1. WWW.livelaw.com
2. WWW.Ipleder.com
3. WWW.indiankanoon.com
4. WWW.wikipedia.com
5. WWW.lawotopus.com
6. WWW.legalserviceindia.com
7.

*CASE REFFERED:-

1. Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India,

2. Shibu Soren v. Union of India (2010)

3. G. Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (1996):

4. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992):

5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (19946.Renjith V. Union of India

7. Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007):

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners humbly approach before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zondia under Article
32 of Constitution of India, 1950.

The present memorandum set forths the facts, contention and argument in present case.

STATEMENT OF FACT
1. "Zondia" is a democratic country with ancient history, tradition and culture consisting of
29 States and 8 union territories and having a total population of 1.25 Crore. Zondia has a
written constitution and the spirit of socialism embodied in the preamble pervades the entire
constitution. Social Justice, Federalism, Independent Judiciary. Separation of powers are
some of the other significant features.

2. The legislative powers are the same as in the seventh schedule of the Constitution which
consist of three lists namely. Union List, State List, and Concurrent list and The 10th
Schedule of the Zondian Constitution, known as the "Anti-Defection Law," aims to prevent
lawmakers from switching parties without consequences. It outlines provisions for
disqualification as well. The democratic socialism is acknowledged as the cherished goal of
the political system in Zondia since independence. HERE

3. In the bustling corridors of power in Zondia, a riveting political narrative unfurls, shaped
by the tumultuous winds of electoral change and the quest for legislative justice. Against the
backdrop of Bhartiya Nagrik Association's (BNA) triumph in the 2014 and 2019 general
elections defeating Indian People Association (IPA), a new chapter of governance unfolds as

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 6

the nation gears up for the impending 2024 elections. On 10. January 2024, the government
proposes the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Bill, 2024, (Hereinafter Bill). The bill's
voting is scheduled for February 25, 2024.

4. Amidst the political landscape, six IPA Member of Lok Sabha Amar, Sneha, Rahul,
Neha, Vikram, and Aisha find themselves at the center of a constitutional maelstrom. Despite
belonging from the IPA party, a formerly influential entity in Zondian politics, these six
Member of Lok Sabha grapple with the delicate balance between party allegiance and
personal beliefs. They support the bill, considering it beneficial for their constituency.
However, the IPA president opposes the bill, as it was proposed by the BNA government,
believing it could be detrimental from a future perspective. 5. The IPA president, wielding
the authority of his office, issues a whip demanding unwavering allegiance to the party line to
vote against the Bill by issuing the whip on 15 February, 2024.

6. Undeterred by party pressure, the six Member of Lok Sabha follow their conscience and
vote against the party directive. In response, the IPA president quickly requests the
disqualification of the six Member of Lok Sabha on March 9, 2024 while filing an application
before Honb'le Speaker Lok Sabha, using the Anti-Defection Law.

7. On March 25, 2024, after careful examination, the Lok Sabha Speaker disqualifies these
six Member of Lok Sabha. Unfazed by their disqualification, the Member of Lok Sabha
challenge the constitutionality of section 2(b) of the 10th schedule through filing a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates their
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and Privilege under Article 105 of the
Constitution. They contend that the Anti-Defection Law stifles honest dissent, making it
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 7

ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether the PIL filed by the Six Member of Lok Sabha of IPA is Maintainable or
not?

2. Whether the 10th Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?

3. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th Schedule infringe upon Privileges 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?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. Whether the PIL filed by the Six Member of Lok Sabha of IPA is Maintainable or
not?

The IPA president, representing the respondent, humbly submitted that the PIL filed by the
Six Members of Lok Sabha is not maintainable. They contend that the matter primarily
concerns an internal dispute within a political party, rather than a broader issue of public
interest. The Anti-Defection Law, as embodied in the 10th Schedule, is a legislative
mechanism designed to maintain the stability of the government and prevent opportunistic
defections. It is not a matter of public interest per se, but rather an internal mechanism for
ensuring party discipline and integrity. Therefore, they assert that the court should refrain
from intervening in what is essentially a political matter and uphold the principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of political parties.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 8

2. Whether the 10th Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?

The IPA president, representing the respondent, argues that the 10th Schedule is a necessary
legislative tool for maintaining political stability and integrity in Zondia. They contend that
while dissent is indeed a vital aspect of democracy, the anti-defection provisions are aimed
at preventing opportunistic defections and ensuring party discipline. Without such
provisions, there would be rampant instability and political horse-trading, which could
undermine the functioning of the government and erode public trust in the political process.
Therefore, they argue that the court should uphold the constitutionality of the 10th Schedule
as a legitimate means of preserving the integrity of the political system and maintaining the
stability of the government.

3. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th Schedule infringe upon Privileges outlined in
Article 105 of the Constitution?

The IPA president, representing the respondent, argues that section 2(b) of the 10th
Schedule does not infringe upon the privileges outlined in Article 105 of the Constitution.
They contend that while Article 105 grants certain privileges to members of parliament, these
privileges are not absolute and must be balanced against other constitutional considerations,
such as the need to maintain political stability and integrity. The anti-defection provisions of
the 10th Schedule are a legitimate restriction on parliamentary privileges aimed at ensuring
party discipline and preventing opportunistic defections. Therefore, they argue that section
2(b) of the 10th Schedule does not violate Article 105 and should be upheld as a necessary
measure for preserving the integrity of the political system.

4. Whether the Speaker while deciding the case under the 10th Schedule meeting the
criteria of being an independent adjudicatory machinery?

The IPA president, representing the respondent, argues that the Speaker meets the criteria of
being an independent adjudicatory machinery while deciding cases under the 10th Schedule.
They contend that while the Speaker may belong to a political party, they are required to act
impartially and in accordance with constitutional principles when adjudicating defection
cases. The Speaker's decisions are subject to judicial review, providing a check against any
potential bias or unfairness. Moreover, the Speaker's role as an adjudicator is separate from
their role as a member of parliament, and they are expected to uphold the rule of law and
ensure procedural fairness in the discharge of their duties. Therefore, they argue that the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 9

Speaker is a suitable adjudicatory authority for deciding cases under the 10th Schedule, and
there is no need for an alternative mechanism.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the PIL filed by the Six Member of Lok Sabha of IPA is Maintainable
or not?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court of Zondia that

Nature of the Matter: The respondents argue that the PIL filed by the Six Members of Lok
Sabha of IPA is not maintainable because it primarily concerns an internal dispute within a
political party, rather than a broader issue of public interest. The matter revolves around the
application of the Anti-Defection Law, which is a legislative mechanism designed to
maintain the stability of the government and prevent opportunistic defections. As such, it
does not involve a question of constitutional interpretation or a violation of fundamental
rights that would warrant judicial intervention.

Political Question Doctrine: The respondents contend that the issue at hand falls within the
realm of what is traditionally considered a "political question" and is therefore not justiciable
by the courts. The Anti-Defection Law, including its application to specific instances of
defection by lawmakers, is inherently intertwined with the functioning of political parties and
the legislative process. Courts typically refrain from adjudicating on matters that involve
questions of political judgment or policy considerations, as doing so would risk undermining
the separation of powers and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Preservation of Parliamentary Integrity: The respondents argue that the Anti-Defection

Law, as enforced through the 10th Schedule, plays a crucial role in preserving the integrity of
parliamentary democracy in Zondia. By preventing elected representatives from defecting to
other parties for personal gain or political expediency, the law safeguards the stability of the
government and ensures that elected representatives remain accountable to the electorate and
the party that nominated them. Upholding party discipline through anti-defection provisions
is essential for maintaining the coherence and effectiveness of the legislative process.

Precedent and Legislative Intent: The respondents cite precedents from the Supreme Court
of India, which has consistently upheld the constitutionality of anti-defection laws and
affirmed the legitimacy of political parties' authority to enforce party discipline. In the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 10

landmark case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, the Supreme Court held that the Anti-
Defection Law serves the larger public interest by preventing political defections, which can
lead to instability and undermine the democratic mandate. Furthermore, the legislative history
and intent behind the enactment of the Anti-Defection Law demonstrate a clear intention to
curb defections and uphold the principles of party loyalty and parliamentary integrity.

Party Autonomy and Internal Democracy: The respondents emphasize the importance of
party autonomy and internal democracy in the functioning of political parties. Political parties
are voluntary associations formed by like-minded individuals to pursue common goals and
ideologies. Upholding party discipline, including adherence to party directives on voting
matters, is essential for preserving the coherence and effectiveness of political parties as
representative institutions. Allowing individual lawmakers to defy party directives without
consequence would undermine the internal cohesion of parties and compromise their ability
to articulate and implement coherent policy agendas.

2. Whether the 10th Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Zondia that

Legislative Intent and Constitutional Validity: The respondents argue that the 10th
Schedule of the Constitution, which includes provisions aimed at preventing defection by
elected representatives, is consistent with the constitutional framework and serves a
legitimate purpose in maintaining political stability and integrity. The intent behind enacting
the Anti-Defection Law was to address concerns related to defections, which could lead to
political instability and undermine the democratic mandate. The Supreme Court of India, in
the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Defection
Law, affirming its importance in preserving the integrity of the political process and
preventing opportunistic defections.

Prevention of Political Instability: The respondents argue that the Anti-Defection Law is
essential for preventing political instability and ensuring the smooth functioning of the
democratic system. Without mechanisms to deter defections, there would be a heightened risk
of governments being toppled through defections engineered for personal or political gain.
This could lead to frequent changes in government and legislative paralysis, ultimately
undermining the stability and effectiveness of the democratic process. By imposing
consequences for defection, the Anti-Defection Law promotes political accountability and
strengthens the integrity of the electoral mandate.

Preservation of Party Integrity: The respondents emphasize the importance of preserving

the integrity of political parties and upholding party discipline. Political parties are essential
vehicles for representing diverse interests and ideologies within the democratic framework.
Upholding party discipline through anti-defection provisions ensures that elected
representatives remain accountable to the party and its platform, thereby maintaining the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 11

coherence and effectiveness of the party system. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rajendra
Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, recognized the legitimate interest of political parties in
enforcing discipline among their members to maintain internal cohesion and ideological
coherence.

Constitutional Safeguards: The respondents argue that the Anti-Defection Law includes
safeguards to protect the rights of elected representatives and ensure procedural fairness. The
law provides for disqualification of lawmakers only in specific circumstances, such as
voluntarily giving up membership of the party or voting against party directives on certain
crucial matters. These provisions are aimed at preventing arbitrary or unjust disqualifications
and are subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional principles of
fairness and due process. As such, the Anti-Defection Law strikes a balance between
preserving party discipline and safeguarding the rights of elected representatives, in
accordance with constitutional norms and principles.

3. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th Schedule infringe upon Privileges outlined in
Article 105 of the Constitution?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Zondia that

Constitutionality of Section 2(b) of the 10th Schedule: The respondents argue that Section
2(b) of the 10th Schedule does not infringe upon the privileges outlined in Article 105 of the
Constitution. They contend that Article 105 grants certain privileges to members of
parliament, including freedom of speech and expression within the parliamentary
proceedings. However, these privileges are subject to limitations and restrictions necessary
for maintaining parliamentary discipline and integrity.

Purpose of the Anti-Defection Law: The respondents emphasize the underlying purpose of
the Anti-Defection Law, which is to prevent political defections that could undermine the
stability of the government and the integrity of the legislative process. Section 2(b) of the
10th Schedule, which provides for disqualification of lawmakers who defy party directives on
voting matters, is a legitimate means of ensuring party discipline and coherence in
parliamentary proceedings.

Balance of Rights and Responsibilities: The respondents argue that while Article 105
guarantees certain privileges to members of parliament, including freedom of speech and
expression, these privileges must be balanced against the responsibilities and obligations of
elected representatives. Parliamentarians have a duty to uphold the principles of party loyalty
and discipline, as they are elected not just as individuals but as representatives of their
respective parties and constituents.

Precedent and Judicial Interpretation: The respondents cite precedents from the Supreme
Court of India, which has consistently upheld the constitutionality of anti-defection laws and
affirmed the authority of political parties to enforce discipline among their members. In the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 12

case of Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, the Supreme Court held that the
Anti-Defection Law serves a legitimate public interest in preserving the stability of the
government and the integrity of the legislative process. The court also emphasized the
importance of upholding party discipline as essential for maintaining the coherence and
effectiveness of parliamentary democracy.

Legislative Intent and Parliamentary Sovereignty: The respondents argue that Section
2(b) of the 10th Schedule reflects the legislative intent to preserve the integrity of
parliamentary democracy by preventing opportunistic defections and ensuring that elected
representatives remain accountable to the electorate and the party that nominated them.
Upholding party discipline through anti-defection provisions is essential for maintaining the
sovereignty of the legislature and preventing undue influence or manipulation of
parliamentary proceedings. Therefore, they contend that Section 2(b) of the 10th Schedule
does not infringe upon the privileges outlined in Article 105 of the Constitution and should be
upheld as a valid exercise of legislative authority.

4.. Whether the Speaker while deciding the case under the 10th Schedule meeting the
criteria of being an independent adjudicatory machinery?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Zondia that

Impartiality of the Speaker: The respondents argue that the Speaker, while deciding cases
under the 10th Schedule, meets the criteria of being an independent adjudicatory machinery.
Despite being a member of a political party, the Speaker is constitutionally obligated to act
impartially and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Article 100(1) of the
Constitution of Zondia mandates that the Speaker shall have the same powers as a civil court
for summoning witnesses, enforcing attendance, and compelling the production of
documents, ensuring a fair and transparent adjudicatory process.

Judicial Review: The respondents contend that the decisions of the Speaker under the 10th
Schedule are subject to judicial review, providing an additional safeguard against any
potential bias or unfairness. The Supreme Court of Zondia, as the guardian of the
Constitution, has the authority to review the Speaker's decisions to ensure they adhere to
constitutional principles and procedural fairness. In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v.
Zachillhu, the Supreme Court held that the decisions of the Speaker under the Anti-
Defection Law are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent any abuse of power or violation of
fundamental rights.

Separation of Powers: The respondents argue that the Speaker's role as an adjudicator under
the 10th Schedule is distinct from their role as a member of parliament and party leader.
While the Speaker may have political affiliations, they are expected to set aside partisan
considerations and uphold the rule of law in their capacity as an impartial adjudicator. The
principle of separation of powers mandates that each branch of government—legislature,
executive, and judiciary—operate independently and perform its functions without undue

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 13

interference from the others. As such, the Speaker's decisions under the 10th Schedule should
be viewed through the lens of their constitutional duties rather than their political allegiances.

Preservation of Parliamentary Integrity: The respondents emphasize the importance of

preserving the integrity and effectiveness of parliamentary proceedings. The Anti-Defection
Law, including its enforcement mechanisms under the 10th Schedule, is intended to maintain
the stability of the government and uphold the democratic mandate of the electorate.
Allowing lawmakers to defect from their party without consequence would undermine the
coherence and effectiveness of parliamentary democracy, leading to political instability and
legislative gridlock. Therefore, entrusting the Speaker with the authority to adjudicate
defection cases ensures that parliamentary integrity is upheld and the legislative process
remains robust and functional.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 14

PRAYER

In the light of argument advance it is humble submitted "May it please the Honorable Court,

The respondents, representing the interests of parliamentary integrity and democratic stability
in Zondia, humbly submit the following prayer:

1. That this Honorable Court, in its wisdom, may uphold the constitutionality of the
Anti-Defection Law as embodied in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of Zondia,
recognizing its essential role in preserving the integrity of parliamentary democracy
and maintaining political stability.

2. That the PIL filed by the Six Members of Lok Sabha of IPA be declared not
maintainable, as it concerns an internal matter within a political party rather than a
broader issue of public interest, and falls within the domain of political questions not
justiciable by the courts.

3. That the provisions of the 10th Schedule, including section 2(b) thereof, be affirmed
as valid and constitutional, as they serve the larger public interest by preventing
opportunistic defections and upholding party discipline in the legislative process.

4. That the decisions of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the 10th Schedule be
recognized as legitimate and impartial, guided by principles of natural justice and
subject to judicial review to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to constitutional
principles.

5. That this Honorable Court may provide such further relief and remedies as it deems fit
and just in the circumstances.

The respondents, therefore, pray for the favorable consideration of this Honorable Court, and
for justice to be done in accordance with law and equity.

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS