R-42

IN THE HON’BLE FEDERAL COURT OF HINDISTAN

In the Matter
of

GOVT. OF GATOCH, MR. SOMESH HAIDER

& MR. CHAMPAK KHAANGOTRA ....PETITIONERS

Versus

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF HINDISTAN ….RESPONDENT

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

4th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………...3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….…4-9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………..………………………10

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...…………………….11-12

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………………..13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………….14

PLEADINGS…..…………………………………………………………………………….15-29

1. Whether the Gatoch had the legislative competence to enact the law or not?.................15-17

2. Whether it is the discretion of the Governor to reserve a Bill for the assent of the President
against the directives of the Federation or not? …………………………………..………….18-20

3. Whether the Federation was competent to give directions to Gatoch with respect to
enforcement of the law? ……………………………………………..……………………20-22

4. Whether the removal of governor was against the Federal principles and was
unconstitutional?.......................................................................................................................23-25

5. Whether the petition filed by the Chief Minister against his dismissal is maintainable or
not?...........................................................................................................................................25-29

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………...30

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 2

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS

Abbreviation Definition
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
GKSM Act, 2014 Gatoch Kormi Shrine Management Act, 2014
GKSMB Gatoch Kormi Shrine Management Board
Govt. Government
KIF Kormi Intellectuals Forum

KSMB Kormi Shrine Management Board

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
V Versus
KSA Kormi Shrines Act, 1925
HPRA Hidamb Province Reorganisation Act, 1966
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Report

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 3

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

S.No. Case Citation Page

No.
1 A D M Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521 19,21
22
2 A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 443 19,20,
21
3 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 19
A.P. Wine Dealers Association And v. Deputy Director (2005) 198 CTR AP 21,26
22,
Of Income-Tax 136, 2005 276 ITR
225 AP
4 AG v. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus (1957) 1 All ER 49 16
5 Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors v. UOI AIR 2014 SC 19,22
6 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331 20,23
7 B.R. Kapoor v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr (2001) 7 SCC 231 22, 28
8 Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. State of U P AIR 1973 SC 231 17
9 Captain Subhash Kumar v. The Principal Officer, 1991 (2) SCC 449 16
Mercantile Marine Deptt
10 Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1956] SCR 393 17
11 Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh v. LVA Dikshitulu AIR 1979 SC 628 15

13 CIT v. S. Teja Singh AIR 1959 SC 352 16

14 Clariant International Ltd. & another v. Securities & AIR 2004 SC 4236 18
Exchange Board of India
15 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk (2003) 3 SCC 57 16
Carriers
16 Dattaji Chirandas v. State Of Gujarat And Anr AIR 1999 Guj 48, 28
(1999) 3 GLR 2189
17 Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648 17
18 Director of Entry Tax v. Sunrise Timber Company (2008) 15 SCC 287. 25
19 Dr. K. Kesava Rao v. UOI and Anr. 2004 (1) ALD 509, 28
2004 (2) ALT 409

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 4

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

20 Edwingson Bareh v. State Of Assam And Ors 1966 SCR (2) 770 18
21 Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee AIR 1954 SC 156 19
22 G.Balachandran v. State Of Kerala I.L.R. 2010(3)Kerala 28
23 G.V. Ramanaiah v. Supdt. of Central Jail, (1974) 3 SCC 531 19,21
24 Girdharilal & Sons v. Balbirnath Mathur AIR 1986 SC 1099 15
25 Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 17
26 Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder AIR 1985 SC 1394 17
Singh
27 Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda (1969) 3 SCC 769 25
28 Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of AIR 1990 SC 1747 18
Vested Forests
29 Haji Esmail Noor Mohammad & Co. v. Competent AIR 1967 SC 1244 29
Officer, Lucknow
30 Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter AIR 1964 SC 1636 25,
31 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1993 SC 1019
32 In Re Special Reference 1 of 2002 (2002) 8 SCC 237 27
33 Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 641 29
34 J.P.Rao v. The Union Of India AIR 2014 (NOC 19,26
411)146
35 Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of W.B AIR 1968 Cal 407 26
36 Keshava Madhava Menon v. The State of [1951] SCR 228 17
Bombay
37 Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 1461 22,25
38 Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, Narsinghpur v. M/s Shiv AIR 2012 SC 3511 17
Shakti Khansari Udyog
39 Kuriakose v. State of Kerala AIR 1977 SC 1509 29
40 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) 3 SCC 431 17
41 M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa Muddala AIR 1961 SC 1107 16
42 M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and 2001 CriLJ 2785, 18, 19
Ors. 2001 (3) MPHT 286

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 5

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

43 M/S Sharma Transport Rep. v. Govt. Of A.P. & Ors AIR 2002 SC 322 26
44 M/s. Bishanbar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. AIR 1982 SC 33 19,21
45 Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. AIR 1970 SC 1126 16
Gurudasmal
46 Maunsell v. Olins (1975) I All ER 16 16
(HL);
47 Municipal Council, Madurai v. Narayanan AIR 1975 SC 2193 16
48 N.D.M.C. & Ors v. M/S. Tanvi Trading & Credit AIR 2009 SC 187 21
49 Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti AIR 2009 SC 187 18
50 National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria (1988) Supp SCC 82 17
51 Nimmaka Jayaraju v. Chief Minister Of A.P. And Ors. 2006 (5) ALT 661 28
52 Osmania University Teacher’s Association v. State of (1987) 4 SCC 671 16
A.P
53 Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court (1985) 3 SCC 103 16
54 Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa AIR 1999 Bom 53 18
(91),
55 Prithi Pal Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1413 15

56 Profulla Kumar Mukerjee v. Bank of Commerce AIR 1947 PC 60 19

Khulna
57 Pu Myllai Hlychho & Ors. v. State of Mizoram AIR (2005) 2 SCC 92 18
58 R. Krishnaiah v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors AIR 2005 AP 10, 19,28
2004 (2) ALD 794
59 R. Krishnaiah v. Union Of India And Ors 2003 (6) ALD 897 26,28
60 Rajasthan Cricket Association v. State Of Rajasthan AIR 2005 Raj 144, 28
RLW 2005 (1) Raj
590
61 Rajendra Singh Verma (D) Thr.Lrs v. Lt.Governor Of 2011 (12) SCR 496 28
NCT Of Delhi & Anr
62 Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549 19,21
63 Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 26,28

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 6

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

64 RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 15

65 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 304 19
66 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918 22,26,
27,28
67 Sat Pal v. State of Punjab (1982) 1 SCC 12 19
68 Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 2511 22
69 Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 SCR (1) 814 18,19
70 Shanti G. Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 2 SCC 505 27
71 Shri Luizinho Joaquim Faleiro v. The State Of Goa, 2003 (2) MhLj 334 28
Through Its Chief
72 Social Action For People'S Rights v. State Of Uttar AIR 2003 All 250 28
Pradesh
73 State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid 1954 SCR 786 20
74 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. M.S. Farooqui AIR 1972 SC 1738 17
75 State of Karnataka v. Union of India 1977 (4) SCC 608 20
76 State of Kerala v. Mar Apptaem Kuri Co. Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 2375
77 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 1361 19,20,
1978 SCR (1) 1 22,26
78 State of UP v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, (1995) SCC Supl. (2) 22
305
79 Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd., (1978) 1 All ER 948 16
(HL)
80 Sudha Rani Garg (Smt.) v. Jagdish Kumar (Dead) & 2004 (8) SCC 329 3 18
Ors.
81 Surya Narain v. Union of India AIR 1982 Raj. 1 20
82 Tata Tea Ltd. v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner 16 December, 2005 26
83 The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Ajay Yadav 2013 SCC Online 18
MP 2465
84 Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1990 SC 123 16
85 U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971) 2 SCC 63 19,21
86 Union of India v. H. S. Dhillon AIR 1972 SC 1061 19
87 Union of India v. S.P. Anand AIR 1998 SC 2615 25
88 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 20

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 7

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

89 UOI v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd (2001) 4 SCC 139 16
88 Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072 17
89 Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman v. State Of AIR 2010 SC 2633 17
Maharashtra
90 Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 752 17

BOOKS REFFERED

 Arvind P. Datar, Commentary On The Constitution Of India (2nd ed. Reprint 2010)
 D.D BASU, Introduction to the Constitution (21st ed. 2013)
 D.D.Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol. 6 (8th ed.2012)
 D.J. De, Constitution Of India (3rd ed. 2008)
 Dr. Durga Basu, Introduction To The Constitution Of India (20th ed. Reprint 2012)
 Dr. J.N.Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India (38th ed. 2002)
 Dr.Durga Basu, Constitutional Law Of India (8th ed. 2011)
 H.M.Seervi, Constitutional Law of India (4th ed.)
 Justice G.P. Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation (12th ed.2010) Lexis Nexis,
India
 Justice. G.P.Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation (12th ed. Reprint 2011)
 M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (5th ed. 2003)
 Maxwell, Interpretation Of Statutes (12th ed. 2006) Lexis Nexis, India,
 N.S. Bindra, Interpretation Of Statutes (9th ed. 2004) , Lexis Nexis, India
 V. Dicey, The Law Of The Constitution (10th ed. 1959)
 Vepa. P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes2008 (5th ed.) , Eastern Book Company, India,

STATUTES/REPORTS REFERRED

 The Constitution Of India, 1950

 The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966
 Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925
 Commission on Centre-State Relations Report Volume II Constitutional Governance
and the management of Centre-State Relations March 2010

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 8

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

 Sarkaria Commission, National Commission to review the working of The

Constitution set up in June 1983
 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX , Tuesday, The 2nd August
1949

WEBSITES REFERRED
 www.lexisnexisacademic.com
 www.vakilno1.com
 www.indiakanoon.org
 www.manupatra.com
 www.tribuneindia.com
 www.wikipedia.org
 www.britannica.com
 www.en.wikisource.org
 www.thehindu.com
 www.law.cornell.edu
 www.thebluebook.com
 www.legalsutra.org
 www.historicalgurudwaras.com
 www.interstatecouncil.nic.in

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 9

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Federal Court of Hindistan has jurisdiction to hear this matter under Article 131, 139A and
Article 32 of the Constitution of Hindistan. The Respondent humbly and respectfully submits to
the jurisdiction of the court.

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 10

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Hidamb is a Province in the Federal Republic of Hindistan whose 60% of the total population
constitutes of Kormi who are a declared religious minority in the Federal Republic of Hindistan
constituting around 2% of the total population of the country. Kormis’ have religious Shrines all
over the country which were previously managed by Mahants but due to allegations of
corruption and non conformity to religion’s outward signs and registration of the properties of
Kormi Shrines in their own names. The Kormis’ started a movement and gained control of the
Shrines at some places forcibly leading to bloodshed. Therefore, Kormi Shrines Act, 1925 was
enacted in Hidamb. It lawfully handed over the management and control of the Shrines to the
representatives of the Kormis. The Act provided for two-tier management of Kormi Shrines.
II
Hidamb was re-organised and a new Province ‘Gatoch’ was carved out of Hidamb through the
Hidamb Province Reorganisation Act, 1966 Section 72 of which laid down that any body
corporate constituted under a Federal Act or Provincial Act for the existing Province of Hidamb
will serves the needs of the successor Provinces or has become an inter- State body corporate,
then, the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate
in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day,
subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Federal Govt., until other
provisions is made by law in respect of the said body corporate. It is to be applied also to KSMB
After demands were raised that Kormis residing in Gatoch were not given adequate
representation in KSMB the legislature of Gatoch enacted GKSM Act, 2014 on 10th May 2014.
III
KIF had started a movement claiming that a National Kormi Shrine Management Act should be
enacted and to provide for a central body for administering and controlling Kormi Shrines in the
entire country.Accordingly federal legislature (House of People) passed a Bill (National Kormi
Shrines Management Bill, 2014) on 16th May 2014, aimed at creating a Central National level
Body for administration and management of Kormi Shrines across the country including Hidamb
and Gatoch. Before the Bill could be passed by the Upper House (Council of States), the House
of People was dissolved on 18th May and a new govt.

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 11

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

IV
The new Federal Govt. of Hindistan issued a direction to the Governor (Champak Khangotra)
through telephone on 10th June 2014 not to give assent to the Bill. Subsequently, on 16th June
2014 federal govt. wrote a letter to the governor to reserve the Bill for the assent of the President.
However, the Governor gave his assent to the Bill on 18th June 2014. The Governor was
removed from his office by the President. The federal govt. issued a direction 02nd July 2014 to
refrain from notifying the date of commencement of the Act. Aggrieved by this, Province of
Gatoch filed a petition against the Federation of Hindistan contending that the Provincial govt.
had the legislative competence to enact the law; and that it is the discretion of the Governor
whether to reserve a Bill for the Assent of the President or not and the Federal Govt. was not
competent to issue directions to the Provincial govt. to refrain from notifying the date of
commencement of an Act passed by the provincial legislature. The Governor challenged his
removal from his office.
V
Also, in Gatoch, elections to Municipalities were not held though their tenure ended on 1st
January. The Governor had written a letter and a report to the Federal Govt. and had
recommended to the Federal Govt. that since Gatoch has failed to conduct elections of
municipalities, the Provincial Govt. of Gatoch could not be carried on in accordance with
constitution and recommended for dismissal of the govt. Responding the Federal Govt. gave
direction to hold the elections. However, elections were not held till date.
VI
Taking cognizance of the said report, the Govt. of Gatoch was dismissed on 10th October by a
Presidential Proclamation and President’s Rule was imposed with immediate effect. The CM of
Gatoch (Mr. Somesh Haider) challenged the order of dismissal of his govt. claiming that his
govt. has been dismissed without following requisite procedure and with mala fide intentions by
the Federal Govt. The constitutionality of the order was challenged. The Proclamation was laid
before House of People on 25th November and was approved by the House of People and by
Council of States on 28th November. Mr. Champak Khangotra also filed a petition in the Federal
Court of Hindistan challenging his removal from office. The Federal Court of Hindistan ordered
all the three petitions to be heard and tried together and the Federal Court constituted a three
judge Bench to hear the matter.

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 12

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

ISSUES RAISED

Issue 1. WHETHER THE GATOCH GOVT. HAD THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

TO ENACT THE LAW OR NOT?

Issue 2. WHETHER IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNOR TO RESERVE A

BILL FOR THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT AGAINST THE DIRECTIVES
OF THE FEDERATION OR NOT?

Issue 3. WHETHER THE FEDERATION WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE DIRECTIONS

TO GATOCH WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW?

Issue 4. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNOR WAS AGAINST THE

FEDERAL PRINCIPLES AND WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Issue 5. WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF GATOCH GOVT. WAS VALID OR NOT?

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 13

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE GATOCH GOVT. HAD THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO ENACT THE LAW OR
NOT?

Firstly, that the Federation had the exclusive legislative power over the subject-matter of law,
i.e., ‘interstate body corporate’, by virtue of A. 246 (1) read with Schedule VII, List I, Entry 44.
Secondly, that Gatoch, with respect to the subject matter being ‘religious institutions’, had
legislative power to enact the law only subject to the Presidential assent by virtue of A. 254(2).

2. WHETHER IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNOR TO RESERVE A BILL FOR THE ASSENT OF
THE PRESIDENT AGAINST THE DIRECTIVES OF THE FEDERATION OR NOT?

Firstly, that the Governor exercises his exceptional discretionary powers under special
circumstances only with respect to his Council of Ministers and not with respect to the
Federation.
Secondly, the executive power of the Federation is co-extensive with its legislative power and the
Federation has the power to issue directives to the Provinces in exercise of its executives and
Provinces are under an obligation to comply with them.

3. WHETHER THE FEDERATION WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO GATOCH WITH

RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW?

That since the subject matter of the law was within the extent of executive power of the
Federation, the directions issued to Gatoch were in valid exercise of its Executive power.

4. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNOR WAS AGAINST THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLES AND WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

That the writ petition of the Governor is not maintainable as removal of the Governor was
constitutional as there were valid and compelling reasons’ to exercise the power of withdrawal of
pleasure by the President as these were ‘rare and exceptional circumstances.’

5. WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF GATOCH GOVT. WAS VALID OR NOT?

Proclamation of emergency is valid as there was failure of constitutional machinery in Gatoch.

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 14

 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE GATOCH GOVT. HAD THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO

ENACT THE LAW OR NOT?

It is reverentially submitted by the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court that the Govt. of
Gatoch did not have the legislative competence to enact Gatoch Kormi Shrine Management Act,
2014.

1.1 THAT THE FEDERATION HAD THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE SUBJECT-

MATTER OF LAW

According to the Constitution, federation has the exclusive legislative power over the ‘inter-state
body corporates’1, which is the subject matter of law.2

The Hidamb Province Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter ‘HPRA 1996’) was a federal law3,
which expressly treated Kormi Shrines Management Board (hereinafter KSMB) as not merely a ‘body
corporate’ but as an inter-state body corporate4 serving needs of successor Provinces irrespective
of whether been constituted under a Federal or Provincial law5 and by virtue of that it became a
federal subject.6

The said statute also expressly conferred exclusive executive powers on the Federation with
respect to subject matter of the law.7 It is a settled principle of federalism that executive and
legislative powers of both sets of Govt. s are co-extensive to each other.8

It is also a settled principle of interpretation that a statute must be interpreted in the light of the
intention of the legislature – the mens or sentential legis,9 as a whole in its context – ex
visceribus actus10 and in way to make it effective – ut res magis valeat quam pereat.11

1
Article 246 (1) read with Schedule VII, List I, Entry 44 of the Constitution
2
Section 72 (1) read with (3) HPRA
3
Article 3
4
Section 72 (3) HPRA
5
Id (1)
6
Article 246(1)
7
Ibid
8
Article 54 (1) read with 73(1) and 154 (1) read with 162 (1)
9
RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628; Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh v. LVA Dikshitulu,
AIR 1979 SC 628; Prithi Pal Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413; Girdharilal & Sons v. Balbirnath
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 15
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Therefore, the Federation had the exclusive legislative power with respect to the subject matter
and although it was not expressly provided by the said statute like in the case of executive power.

Moreover, in the instant case, the Federal Government was in the process of enacting a comprehensive
national law on the said subject, and got widespread support.12 Also, three other provinces of Hindistan
requested the Federal Govt. to pass a law for their states with respect to management of Kormi Shrines.13

Whereas, in the instant case, Gatoch usurped this power of the Federation by legislating on the
said subject matter of the law, against the direction issued by the Federation.14

Hence, the Federation had the exclusive legislative power over the subject matter of law.

1.2 IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GATOCH GOVT. HAD THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ENACT THE LAW
ONLY SUBJECT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT.

The scheme of distribution of legislative powers between union and state are a substantial reproduction of
Ss. 99 and 100 0f the Government of India Act, 1935. In consequence, the principles of interpretation
applied to those sections have been extended to the articles as well.

According to the Constitution, the Federation and Provinces have concurrent legislative powers
with respect to ‘religious institutions’,15 which is also subject matter of the law.16

However, if any provision of a Provincial law made on a subject matter in exercise of such
power is repugnant to any provision of Federal law made on same subject in exercise of same

Mathur, AIR 1986 SC 1099; Maunsell v. Olins, (1975) I All ER 16 (HL); Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.,
(1978) 1 All ER 948 (HL).
10
Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1985) 3 SCC 103; Osmania University Teacher’s Association v. State of A.P.,
(1987) 4 SCC 671; Captain Subhash Kumar v. The Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Deptt., 1991 (2) SCC
449; Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (2001) 4 SCC 139 (Constitution Bench); AG
v. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49.
11
CIT v. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352; M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa Muddala, AIR 1961 SC 1107; Tinsukhia
Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1990 SC 123; Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Gurudasmal, AIR 1970 SC 1126; Municipal Council, Madurai v. Narayanan, AIR 1975 SC 2193; Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57.
12
Moot Proposition, ¶9
13
Id. ¶8
14
Order dated 16/6/14; Moot Proposition, ¶9
15
Article 246 (2) read with Schedule VII, List III, Entry 26
16
Article 72 (3) HPRA
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 16
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

powers, then the latter will prevail over the former.17 The Provincial law, to the extent of
repugnancy, would be void under the ‘Doctrine of Repugnancy’.18

Repugnancy means production of conflicting results when both the laws are applied to the same
set of facts and it arises when the provisions of the two laws are fully inconsistent and absolutely
irreconcilable and that it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other, i.e., when one
statute says ‘do’ while the other says ‘do not’.19

Such overriding effect has been given to Federal law over Provincial law because, under the
Constitution, the concurrent legislative power of Federation is supreme to that of Province.20

Further, the provisions of a Provincial law made in exercise of concurrent legislative power on a
subject matter will override the provisions of Federal law made in exercise of same power over
same subject matter to the extent of repugnancy in the respective Province, if it has been
assented to by the President.21 This is an exception to the doctrine of ‘repugnancy’.22

However, in the instant case, the provisions of HPRA and GSKM Bill were ‘repugnant’ to each
other to the extent that latter constituted GKSMB23 to replace KSMB recognised by the former24
with respect to the administration of Kormi Shrines in Gatoch. Moreover, GSKM Bill was not
reserved for the assent of the President, against the direction issued by the Federation to the
Province in this regard.25

Hence, Gatoch had legislative power to enact the law only subject to the Presidential assent.

17
Article 254 (1) of the Constitution
18
Keshava Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (1951) SCR 228; Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC
752 Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1956) SCR 393; Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1959 SC 648; M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431; National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Shri
Kishan Bhageria (1988) Supp SCC 82; Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 2072; Govt. of
A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212; Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman v. State Of Maharashtra &
Ors AIR 2010 SC 2633; State of Kerala v. Mar Apptaem Kuri Co. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2375.
19
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. M.S. Farooqui AIR 1972 SC 1738; Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 231.
20
Article 246 (2)
21
Article 254 (2); Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsinghpur v. M/s Shiv Shakti Khansari Udyog AIR 2012 SC 3511;
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh, AIR 1985 SC 1394 followed.
22
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1993 SC 1019; Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, AIR
1954 SC 752.
23
Moot Proposition ¶ 6
24
Id ¶ 7
25
Order dated 16/6/14, id ¶ 9
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 17
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

2. WHETHER IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNOR TO RESERVE A BILL

FOR THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT AGAINST THE DIRECTIVES OF THE
FEDERATION OR NOT?

It is most respectfully submitted by the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court that it is not the
discretion of the Governor to reserve a Bill for the assent of the President against the directives
of the Federation.

2.1 THAT IT IS NOT A DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNOR AGAINST THE FEDERATION

According to the Constitution, the rule is that the Governor acts on aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers under general circumstances and the exception is that he may also act in his
discretion under special circumstances.26

It is a settled principle that while interpretation of legal provision, its language should be read as
it is and addition/subtraction of words should be avoided as to do so would amount to legislation
and not interpretation – Casus omissus.27

Therefore, the Governor exercises his exceptional discretionary powers under special
circumstances only with respect to his Council of Ministers and not with respect to the
Federation.

In a series of judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the nature of discretionary powers
of the Governor has been discussed and exercise of such powers against Council of Ministers has
been held to be valid but never against the Federation.28

26
Article 163 (1); Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, AIR 1999 Bom 53 (91), (¶ 29 &36); Shamsher
Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 SCR (1) 814; Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of
India, AIR 2004 SC 4236 (¶ 26); Edwingson Bareh v. State Of Assam And Ors., 1966 SCR (2) 770; Sudha Rani
Garg (Smt.) v. Jagdish Kumar (Dead) & Ors., 2004 (8) SCC 329 3 (Para 9); M.P. Special Police Establishment v.
State of M.P. and Ors., 2001 CriLJ 2785, 2001 (3) MPHT 286 (Constitutional Bench) (¶ 11 & 12); Pu Myllai
Hlychho & Ors. v. State of Mizoram, AIR (2005) 2 SCC 92 (¶ 12 and 13); The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Ajay
Yadav 2013 SCC Online MP 2465
27
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, AIR 1990 SC 1747; Nagar Palika Nigam v.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, AIR 2009 SC 187.
28
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192; M.P. Police Special Establishment v. State of M.P.,(2004)
8 SCC 788.
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 18
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Whereas, in the instant case, the Governor could have exercised his discretionary power with
respect to the assent to the GSKM Bill only against the Council of Ministers, and not against the
Federation.

Hence, it is not the discretion of the Governor against the Federation.

2.2 THAT FEDERATION HAD THE POWER TO DIRECT THE GOVERNOR

The constitution imposes an obligation upon the Federation “to protect the Provinces from
internal and external disturbances and to ensure that the Provincial Government is carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”29

Further, the executive power of the Federation30 is co-extensive with its legislative power31 and
the Federation has the power to issue directives to the Provinces in exercise of its executive
powers, and Provinces are under an obligation to comply with them.32

It is a settled principle that while interpretation of a legal provision, the historical facts and
surrounding circumstances which led to its enactment can be looked into to understand its
subject matter – Travaux preparatories.33

According to the Constituent Assembly, a Governor has dual role to play that of a constitutional
head of a Province and that of a representative of the Federation in the Province serving as a link
between the Federation and the Province to maintain the unity and integrity of the country.34

Therefore, the Federation can issue directions to the Governor because former appoints latter at
its pleasure35 as the constitutional head of a Province in order to ensure smooth administrative
relations between Federation and Provinces.

29
Article 355; State Of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (1) 1; J.P.Rao v. The Union Of India AIR 2014
(NOC 411)146; Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors v. Union Of India, AIR 2014 SC; R. Krishnaiah v. State Of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2005 AP 10.
30
Article 53 read with 73; Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee, AIR 1954 SC 156 at p. 163; Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State
of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549; M/s. Bishanbar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 33; U.N.R.
Rao v. Indira Gandhi, (1971) 2 SCC 63; A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 443; G.V.
Ramanaiah v. Supdt. of Central Jail, (1974) 3 SCC 531.
31
Article 246 (1&2) read with Schedule VII, List I & III; Profulla Kumar Mukerjee v. Bank of Commerce Khulna,
AIR 1947 PC 60; Union of India v. H. S. Dhillon, AIR 1972 SC 1061.
32
Article 256 & 257; Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521; State of
Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361; Sat Pal v. State of Punjab, (1982) 1 SCC 12.
33
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 304; A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
34
VIII Constitutional Assembly Debates, 489 & 495.
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 19
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Accordingly, in the instant case, directions were issued by the Federation to the Governor
because:

(i) It was a duty of Federation to protect Hidamb from the wide scale violent protests
whose threat was reported in consequence of passage of GSKM.36
(ii) It had the executive power over the subject matter of the GSKM and was coming up
with a comprehensive law on the same.37
(iii) The Governor was a link between Federation and Province to ensure the smooth
administrative relations which were at threat due to the GSKM.38

Hence, Federation had the power to direct the Governor.

3. WHETHER THE FEDERATION WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO

GATOCH WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW?

It is reverentially submitted by the Respondent that the Federation was competent to give
directions to Gatoch with respect to enforcement of the law.

3.1 THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAW WAS WITHIN THE EXTENT OF EXECUTIVE POWER
OF THE FEDERATION

According to the Constitution, the extent39 of the executive power40 of the Federation is co-
extensive with the legislative power of the Parliament.41

Accordingly, in the instant case, Parliament had the legislative power over the subject matter of
the law i.e. KSMB because: either (i) it was an exclusive federal subject by virtue of being an

35
Article 156 (1); Surya Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj. 1; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC
870; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398; State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, 1954 SCR 786;
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India 1977 (3) SCC 592; State of Karnataka v. Union of India, 1977 (4) SCC
608; B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 311.
36
Moot Proposition ¶ 9
37
Id ¶ 8
38
Id
39
Article 73; N.D.M.C. v. M/S. Tanvi Trading & Credit, 1991 191 ITR 307 SC.
40
Article 53; G.V. Ramanaiah v. Supdt. of Central Jail, (1974) 3 SCC 531; Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1955 SC 549; M/s. Bishanbar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 33; U.N.R. Rao v.
Indira Gandhi, (1971) 2 SCC 63; A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 443.
41
Article 246 (1)&(2) read with Schedule VII, List I & II
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 20
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

‘inter-state body corporate’42 under HPRA43 serving needs of successor provinces;44 or (ii) it was
a concurrent subject by virtue of being a ‘religious institution’45 as it managed and administered
Kormi Shrines.46

Moreover, the Federal Government was in process of enacting a comprehensive national law on
the subject matter47 as Kormi Shrines were located all over the country48 and the Kormi
community including KIF (Registered Society comprising community’s intellectuals) were in
favour of such an enactment.49

Even the previous Federal Government was in process of enacting the same on request from
other Provinces, the Bill was even approved by the House of People, but before it could be
passed by the Council of States, the general elections took place and the new Federal
Government came to power.50

Therefore, both the powers being co-extensive, the Federation had the executive power over
subject matter of the law, since the Parliament had the legislative power over it. Hence, the
subject matter of the law was within the extent of the executive power of the Federation.

3.2 THAT THE FEDERATION ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO GATOCH GOVT. IN VALID EXERCISE OF ITS

EXECUTIVE POWER

According to the Constitution, the Federation can issue directions to the Provinces in exercise of
its executive power and the Provinces are under an obligation to follow them.51 Also, it is the

duty of the Federation to protect the Provinces from internal disturbances and ensure that the
Provincial Govt. is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.52

42
Schedule VII, List I, Entry 44
43
Section 72 (3) read with (1) of HPRA 1966
44
Moot Proposition, ¶5
45
Schedule VII, List III, Entry 26
46
Moot Proposition, ¶4
47
Id ¶9
48
Id ¶1
49
Id ¶7
50
Id ¶8
51
Article 256 & 257; Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521; Sat Pal v.
State of Punjab, (1982) 1 SCC 12; A.P. Wine Dealers Association v. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, (2005)
198 CTR AP 136.
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 21
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Accordingly, in the instant case, the Federation issued directions to Gatoch with respect to the
Kormi Shrines while exercising its executive powers.53 Also, such directions were issued in
furtherance of the duty to protect Hidamb from wide scale violent protest threats reported by
intelligence agencies,54 and to ensure that the Gatoch Govt. complies with federalism i.e. basic
feature of Constitution55 by reserving the GSKM for the Presidential assent.56

Hence, the Federation issued directions to the Gatoch in valid exercise of its executive power.

3.3 THAT THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF THE LAW WAS NOT WITHIN THE EXTENT OF THE

EXECUTIVE POWER OF GATOCH GOVT.

According to the Constitution, the extent of executive powers of the Province is also co-
extensive with the legislative powers of the Provincial Legislatures.57

Whereas, in the instant case, the Provincial Legislature had no legislative power over the subject
matter of the law i.e. KSMB because: (i) Either it was a Federal subject by virtue of being treated
as an ‘inter-state body corporate’58 by the HPRA59 serving needs of successor Provinces;60 or (ii)
it was a concurrent subject by virtue of being a ‘religious institution’61 managing and
administering Kormi Shrines62 over which a Federal law i.e. HPRA63 already existed i.e.
Repugnancy subject to Presidential assent.64

Therefore, Gatoch had no executive power over subject matter of the law because the Gatoch
Legislature had no legislative power over it and both the powers being co-extensive.

Hence, subject matter of the law was not within the extent of the executive power of Gatoch.

52
Article 355; State Of Rajasthan v. Union Of India, 1978 SCR (1) 1; Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union Of
India & Ors AIR 2014 SC.
53
Orders dated 10/6/14 & 16/6/14
54
Moot Proposition ¶9
55
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 1461; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 (4) SCC 1.
56
Order dated 10/6/14 & 16/6/14; Moot Proposition ¶9
57
Article 154 read with 164; Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2511; B.R. Kapoor v. State Of
Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231; State Of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, (1995) SCC Supl. (2) 305.
58
Schedule VII, List I, Entry 44; Supra 4
59
Section 72 (3) read with (1)
60
Moot Proposition ¶6
61
Schedule VII, List III, Entry 26; Supra 7
62
Moot Proposition ¶4
63
Section 72
64
Article 254 of the Constitution
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 22
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

4. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNOR WAS AGAINST THE FEDERAL

PRINCIPLES AND WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It is most respectfully submitted by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court that the removal of
the Governor was not against the federal principles and constitutional.

4.1 THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS CONSTITUTIONAL

According to the Constitution, the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the
President65 and the said constitutional provision is based on the ‘doctrine of pleasure.’66

In a landmark judgment67 delivered by the Apex Court68 on 7th May 2010, this provision of the
Constitution was discussed at length and it was held as following:69

(i) The President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any
reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.70
(ii) The power can be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and
compelling reasons.71
(iii) As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of
the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to a limited judicial
review.72
(iv) If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either
arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical, only then the Court will upon the
Central Govt. to disclose to the Court, the material upon which the President had
taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure.73

65
Article 156 (1) of the Constitution
66
Borrowed from English Common Law Rule, under which servants under British Crown held office during the
pleasure of King.
67
5 Judge Constitution Bench constituted under Article 145 (2) of the Constitution comprising K.G. Balakrishnan,
C.J. And S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy And P. Sathasivam, J.J.
68
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331.
69
Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. V. Raveendran, J. without dissenting opinion. (Emphasised)
70
Id para 83 (i) and 51 to 53
71
Id 83 (ii) & 82
72
Id 82 & 83 (iv)
73
Id 83
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 23
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

(v) The Court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or
that the material or reasons are insufficient.74

In the instant case, the Governor of Province violated following provisions of the Constitution
and against his oath to defend the same75 by giving assent to the GSKM Bill 2014:

(i) Administrative relations76 between Federation and Provinces because of not

following the valid77 directions issued by the Federation not to give assent to the
GSKM Bill 2014.78
Moreover, there were intelligence reports of wide scale violent protests in Hidamb.79
(ii) Legislative relations80 between Federation and Provinces because the Bill was not
within the competence of Province81 being on either a Federal subject82 or a
Concurrent subject83 hit by doctrine of repugnancy,84 i.e., either he should have
withheld the assent or should have reserved it for the consideration of the President
and his assent.85 Moreover, Federation was in the process of enacting a
comprehensive national law on the subject.86
(iii) By virtue of breach of the aforesaid constitutional provisions, the federal feature of
the Constitution was also breached and which has been held to be a part of basic
structure of the Constitution.87

Therefore, there were ‘valid and compelling reasons’ to exercise the power of withdrawal of
pleasure by the President as these were ‘rare and exceptional circumstances.’

There is a consensus that behavior unbecoming of a Governor, as in the present case, is a valid
ground for his removal.88 Hence, the removal of the Governor was constitutional.

74
Ibid
75
Article 159
76
Part XI; Chapter II
77
Supra 35
78
Moot Proposition ¶ 9 (on 10th & 16th of June 2014)
79
Ibid
80
Part XI; Chapter I
81
Supra 36
82
Article 246 (1) read with Schedule VII, List I, Entry 44
83
Id (2), List III, Entry 26
84
Article 254 (2)
85
Article 200
86
Moot Proposition ¶ 9
87
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1974 SC 146.
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 24
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

4.2 THAT THE REMOVAL IF THE GOVERNOR WAS NOT AGAINST THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLES

The removal of Governor would have been against the federal principles had it been the case of
exercise of power of withdrawal of pleasure by the President in an arbitrary, mala fide,
discriminatory, unreasonable, whimsical or capricious way.

In the instant case, as it has already been stated,89 the removal of Governor was due to ‘valid and
compelling reasons’ under ‘rare and exceptional circumstances’, hence, it was not violative of
federal principles.

4.3 THAT NO PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED

It is a settled law that if the petition makes a frivolous, vexatious or prima facie unjust claim, the
court may decline to entertain the petition.90

If the Court finds that the writ petition on its face does not raise any triable issue, it is liable to be
dismissed in limine.91

In the instant case, there was no violation fundamental rights 92 of the Governor guaranteed by
the Constitution, hence, the petition filed by him93 is not maintainable.

5. WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF GATOCH GOVT. WAS VALID OR NOT?

It is most respectfully submitted by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Court that the dismissal
Gatoch Govt. was valid.

5.1 THAT THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE PROVINCE WAS

CONSTITUTIONAL.

According to the Constitution, there can be proclamation of the President’s rule in a Province
when the President is satisfied, on Governor’s report or otherwise, that Provincial Govt. cannot
be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.94
88
Supra 2 para 82, 83 (ii) & 69
89
Supra 68
90
Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769
91
Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1964 SC 1636; Union of India v. S.P. Anand, AIR 1998 SC
2615; Director of Entry Tax v. Sunrise Timber Company, (2008) 15 SCC 287.
92
Part III of the Constitution
93
Moot Proposition ¶ 14
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 25
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

It has been held by the Apex Court that violation of basic feature of the Constitution in the
Province tantamount to that Provincial Govt. cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.95

Further, it has been expressly provided that if Province fails to follow directions issued by the
Federation,96 it amounts to that Provincial Govt. cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.97

It can be concluded from the aforesaid provisions that there can be proclamation of the
President’s rule in a Province if Provincial Govt. fails to follow directions issued by the
Federation.98

Moreover, it is the duty of Federation to protect from internal and external disturbances and to
ensure that Provincial Govt. is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.99

Accordingly, in the instant case, there was failure of constitutional machinery in Gatoch because:

(i) The Provincial Govt. failed to follow the directions issued by the Federation to the
effect that the GKSM Bill 2014 shall not be assented to by the Governor and reserved
for the consideration of the President.100 (Orders dated 10/6/14 & 16/6/14)
(ii) The Provincial Govt. failed to conduct elections to the Municipalities within the time
period prescribed by the Constitution101 which ended on 1st January 2014102 in spite

94
Article 356 (1); Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1; State of Rajasthan v. Union of India,
AIR 1977 SC 1361.
95
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2000.
96
Article 256 & 257; State Of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (1) 1; M/S Sharma Transport v. Govt. Of A.P
AIR 2002 SC 322; A.P. Wine Dealers Association v. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax (2005) 198 CTR AP 136;
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of W.B., AIR 1968 Cal 407.
97
Article 365; S.R. Bommai v. Union Of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918; Tata Tea Ltd. v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner
(2006) 203 CTR Ker 353; R. Krishnaiah v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors., 2003 (6) ALD 897.
98
Article 256 & 257 r/w 365.
99
Article 355; Urged upon the Govt. to apply Article 355 of the Constitution to restore peace in Gujarat on 6 May,
2002; J.P.Rao v. The Union Of India, AIR 2014 (NOC 411)146; Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors v. Union
of India & Ors AIR 2014 SC; R. Krishnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. 2003 (6) ALD 897.
100
Moot Proposition ¶9
101
Article 243 U; In Re Special Reference 1 of 2002, (2002) 8 SCC 237; Shanti G. Patel v. State of Maharashtra,
(2006) 2 SCC 505.
102
Moot Proposition ¶9
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 26
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

of the direction issued by the Federation to hold them immediately. 103 (Order date
15/4/14)
(iii) The Provincial Govt. violated federalism,104 which has been held to be a basic
feature105 of the Constitution, by enacting the GSKM Act 2014 without being
competent to do so and that too against the directives issued by the Federation. 106
(Orders dated 10/6/14 & 16/6/14)

Further, the Governor had recommended proclamation of the President’s rule in the Province to
the Federation107 (Report dated 1st February 2014) because Provincial Govt. had failed to
conduct elections to the Municipalities as per the constitutional mandate and consequently
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.108

Therefore, there were enough grounds for the President to be satisfied that the Provincial Govt.
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the decision of
proclamation of the President’s rule in the Province109 (Order dated 10/10/14) was taken in light
of the duty of federation to ensure that Provincial Govt. is carried as per the Constitution.

Hence, the proclamation of the President’s rule in the Province was constitutional

5.2 THAT GOVT. OF GATOCH WAS DISMISSED FOLLOWING THE REQUISITE

According to the Constitution, after the proclamation of the President’s rule in a Province, 110 the
President may assume all or any of the powers of the Council of Ministers and all or any of the
powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor.111

One of the powers of the Governor is to remove Council of Ministers from their office as they
hold office during his pleasure,112 the Governor acts on aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers113 and one of the power of the Council of Ministers is that they can resign anytime.

103
Moot Proposition ¶ 11
104
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
105
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 146.
106
Moot Proposition ¶9
107
Moot Proposition ¶11
108
Ibid
109
Moot Proposition ¶12
110
Supra 1
111
Id (a)
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 27
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

It can be concluded from the aforesaid provisions that the President may dismiss the Provincial
Govt. after the proclamation of the President’s rule in a Province by virtue of the law that he
assumes role of both the Governor and the Council of Ministers during such period.

Further, unlike dissolution of Legislative Assembly,114 dismissal of Council of Ministers is not

an ‘irreversible step’115 which the President is prohibited from taking before the approval of the
proclamation of the President’s rule in a Province by the Parliament.116
Dissolution of Legislative Assembly is an ‘irreversible’ step because, once it is dissolved, fresh
elections are to be conducted and the same cannot be reinstated in the office.117 Whereas,
dismissal of Council of Ministers is not such a step because they can always be reinstated in the
office subject to majority in the Legislative Assembly.118 (which is always required)
Accordingly, in the instant case, the President dismissed the Council of Ministers of Province119
(Order dated 10/10/14) in furtherance of the exercise of powers conferred on him during the
proclamation of the President’s rule in a Province. Hence, the Gatoch Govt. was dismissed
following the requisite procedure.

5.3 THAT THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE ON PART OF FEDERATION

The Constitution prescribes multiple party political system. 120 Candidates belonging to various
political parties contest the federal and provincial elections and Govt. s at both Federal and
Provincial levels come to power by virtue of the mandate of the people placed upon them by
casting their votes. Under such a system, it is likely that the political party at power in the

112
Article 164 (2); Social Action for People's Rights v. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2003 All 250; B.R. Kapoor v.
State Of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231; Nimmaka Jayaraju v. Chief Minister Of A.P. And Ors. 2006 (5) ALT
661.
113
Article 163 (1); M.P. Special Police v. State Of M.P 2001 CriLJ 2785; Dattaji Chirandas v.
State Of Gujarat And Anr. AIR 1999 Guj 48; Dr. K. Kesava Rao v. Union Of India &
Anr., 2004 (1) ALD 50; Rajendra Singh Verma (D) Thr.Lrs v. Lt..Governor of NCT of Delhi
& Anr, 2011 (12) SCR 496; G.Balachandran v. State Of Kerala, I.L.R. 2010(3) Ker; R. Krishnaiah v. Union Of
India And Ors, 2003 (6) ALD 897.
114
Article 174 (2) (b); Shri Luizinho Joaquim Faleiro v. The State Of Goa, Through Its Chief 2003 (2) MhLj 334.
115
Supra 2
116
Article 356 (3); Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR
1994 SC 1918; R. Krishnaiah v. Union of India And Ors, AIR 2005 AP 10; Rajasthan Cricket Association v.
State Of Rajasthan AIR 2005 Raj 144.
117
Article 172
118
Article 164
119
Moot Proposition ¶12
120
H.M.Seervi, Constitutional Law of India, vol. III (4 th ed.)
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 28
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Federation may also be at power in some Provinces and that does not mean ipso facto that the
Federation would be biased in favour of those Provinces & against other Provinces in which
some other political party is at power, unless some material is brought on record to support such
an allegation. Similarly, coalition system is a part of such a system and just because coalition
partners of the Federation are at power in a Province does not mean ipso facto that the latter
would appease the former unless some material is brought on record to support such an
allegation. Allegations without evidence amount to defamation.
Whereas, in the instant case, the Chief Minister made allegations against the constitutionally
elected Govt. of Federation of mala fide against his Provincial Govt. and in favour of
appeasement of its constitutionally elected coalition partners at power in Hidamb without any
evidence amounting to defamation.121 Hence, there was no mala fide on part of the Federation.

5.5 THAT NO PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED

In the light of aforesaid submissions, it is further submitted that fundamental rights of the Chief
Minister under the Constitution were not violated and the fundamental right122 to constitutional
remedy123 to move a petition before this Hon’ble Court is available only when such rights of a
petitioner are violated. Hence, no prima facie case is established.

121
Moot Proposition ¶12
122
Part III of the Constitution
123
Article 32; Haji Esmail Noor Mohammad & Co. v. Competent Officer, Lucknow, AIR 1967 SC 1244; Kuriakose
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1977 SC 1509; Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 641 (¶ 200
& 207)
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 29
 4TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts established, issues raised, pleadings advanced, and authorities
cited, it is most humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that it may be pleased to:

1. DECLARE that the enactment of GSKM by the Legislature of Gatoch was unconstitutional.

2. HOLD that the administrative directions issued by the Federation to the Governor vide Letter
dated 16th June 2014 were constitutional

3. HOLD that the administrative directions issued by the Federation to the Gatoch Govt. vide
Letter dated 2nd July 2014 were constitutional.

4. DISMISS the Petition dated 8th August 2014, filed by Mr. Champak Khangotra, challenging
his removal from Office of Governor of the Province.

5. DECLARE that the Proclamation of President’s Rule in Gatoch was constitutional.

6. DISMISS the Petition dated 18th October 2014, filed by Mr. Somesh Haider, challenging the
dismissal of his Govt.

And pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of of justice.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: S/d 1

Place: 2

(Counsels For The Respondent)

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 30