Anda di halaman 1dari 2

INTERNAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2014

Mr S.P. Jungle v Union of India and Others


The Jamboodweep Democratic Alliance (JWA) of which the Jamboodweep Janata
Party (JJP) was the major partner, swept to power at the centre, in the recently
concluded general elections in India, with a landslide majority. The JWA came to
power with curtains fallling down on the two term reign of the consolidated
Progressive Alliance (CPA).
On the verge of demitting of the office the CPA had taken some crucial
decisions, and made a couple of significant appointments. Gubernatorial posting of
Mr.S.P.Jungle, who was a minister for higher education in the state of Kishkindha
ruled by the Indian National Party (INP), which in turn was a leading partner of CPA
was indeed an important one inter alia. His appointment to the state of Vindhyachal
had raised many an eyebrow since his ancestors hailed from the state, and before
being appointed governor, he had actually been forced to resign as minister on charges
of corruption and molestation of Ms. Kaamini, his Personal Assistant.
With the change of guard at the centre, changes in the policy making and
ideologies were imminent. The new dispensation quickly rolled out its brand policies
and flagship programs without wasting much time.
Soon the entire nation was abuzz, with discussions and deliberations taking
place in diffrent fora, on the pros and cons of the policy detour undertaken by the new
regime. While some political appointees of the previous regime demitted their offices
as the new administration took over, others were formed dilly-dallying. Especially
some governors, including Mr Jungle thought aloud that they were apolitical and
therefore there wasn't any need for them to resign. On its part, the central
government kept on dropping subtle hints and gave vent to its feeling that Governors
work during the pleasure of the President.
In the backdrop of these devolpments, some chose to resign while the others
stuck to their guns. Admidst the raging political turmoil, while speaking in a function
organised to felicitate retired soilders, Mr Jungle made an impromptu observation
about the policies pursued by the current premier and his team.
The next day witnessesd some dramatic devolpments that culminated in the
removal of Mr Jungle from Governorship. When his protestations went unheard, Mr
Jungle filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging among others, the
constitutional vires of the decision to remove him.
The matter has come up for final hearing. The counsels are to argue on following
issues inter alia
1. Whether the Petition is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Central Government enjoys the prerogative of removing a Governor?
3. Whether the Governorship is fraught with political overtones?
4. Whether the Doctrine of Pleasure is antithetical to the independence of
gubernatorial assignments?
5. Whether the impugned decisions of removing the Petitioner is ultra vires the
Constitution and hence void?
Counsels are free to bring up additional matters?