Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TEAM CODE: TC 14
Petitioner
V.
UNION OF INDIANA
Respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
STAEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ARGUMENT PRESENTED.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
AGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
1. Govt.
Government
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT
3
4
8
9
11
13
14
21
2. TDP
3. TRP
4. TPP
5. Const.
6. Art.
7. CM
8. MLA
9. S.C.
10. H.C.
11. SCC
12. SCR
13. AIR
14. Jan
15. Dec
16. V.
17. Ors
18. Etc.
19. i.e.
20. &
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
Constitution Of India, 1950
Sarkaria Commission
MM Punchi Commission
TABLE OF CASES
1
5
[2007] RD-SC 609 (17 May 2007)
6
Bajirao Baliram Mali V The State Of Maharashtra on 3
September, 1976 [(1977) 79 BOMLR 189]
7
S.R.Bommai VS. Union of India [1994(2) SCR 644; AIR
1994 SC 1918]
8
AIR 1994 SC 1918, JT 1994 (2) SC 215, 1994 (2) SCALE
37, (1994) 3 SCC 1, 1994 2 SCR 644
9
Surendra Vassant Sirsat Of ... V Legislative Assembly Of
State Of ... on 14 June, 1995 [AIR 1996 Bom 10, 1996 (2)
BomCR 362, (1995) 97 BOMLR 621]
10
WEBSITES
www.indiakanoon.org
www.firstpost.com
www.livemint.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.lexisnexis.com
www.manupatra.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Honorable
Court. The petition invokes Articles 174 and 356 of The Constitution of India 1950. It sets
forth and the laws on which the claims are based.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Tarunachal Pradesh is one of the twenty-nine states of the Republic of Indiana. The Political
Sphere of the State is controlled by three parties; namely Tarunachal Democratic Party
(TDP), Tarunachal Republic Party (TRP) and Tarunachal Peoples Party (TPP). TDP and TRP
have been recognized as the national parties by the Election Commission of Indiana. The
Legislative Assembly comprises of sixty members, directly elected by single seat
constituencies.
In the year 2011, 10th election to the Legislative Assembly of the State was conducted and the
Election Commission declared the result as follows: - TDP- 42 seats, TRP-11 seats, TPP-5
seats and others-2 seats. The TDP thereupon formed the government headed by, Shri. Rai
Prasad as Chief Minister.
The State of Tarunachal Pradesh was prospering well under the leadership of Rai Prasad but
things started turning bad when he started to shuffle the cabinet more than often. The
repeated shuffling let to the dissents within the ruling party. Rai Prasad also developed
strained relationship with J P Pandey who was appointed as the Governor on June, 2015, by
the Centre and almost half his MLAs were against him. On 9th December, 2015 a group of
rebel TDP MLAs approached JP Pandey seeking the impeachment of MR. N. Yadav, the
speaker of the legislative assembly who was the cousin of Rai Prasad. The rebel MLAs
accused him saying that he was trying to get them disqualified from the Assembly. The
Governor agreed that it was an urgent matter and by a notification dated 9 th December, 2015
he called for an emergency session of the Assembly on 16th December, 2015 to take up the
impeachment motion. The Assembly was originally slated to convene on 14th January, 2016.
The Special Session was held in a community hall and was presided over by the Deputy
Speaker Mr. V.K. Punia who was believed to be on the anti-CM side. The session was
attended by 20 MLAs of TDP, 11 MLAs of TRP and 2 independent MLAs. These rebel
MLAs passed the impeachment motion and the session also made no-confidence motion
against the C.M. Rai Prasad. The House elected Prem Chand as the new leader of the House.
The speaker in reciprocation issued an order disqualifying 14 rebel TDP MLAs and on 17 th
December, 2015 and moved to High Court under Art 226 challenging the constitutional
validity of the notification issued by the governor and also ousting of the C.M. Another writ
petition was filed by MLAs to set aside the order of the Speaker.
The Honorable High Court said prima facie the notification appeared to be violation of Art
174 and 175 of the Constitution but, hearing the writ petition of MLA, the Court, set aside the
order of the Speaker in which he had disqualified the membership of 14 MLAs.
The speaker thereafter moved Supreme Court alleging that he had filed an interim application
on the judicial side by seeking recusal of justice A.B.Sharma from hearing his plea in the
High Court. Having been aggrieved by the orders of the High Court of Tarunachal Pradesh all
the parties to the litigation approached the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court referred
the case to the Constitution Bench, the Governor sent a report to the Union Cabinet seeking
the imposition of the Presidents Rule on account of political instability in the State. The TDP
however moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Union Cabinets move to recommend
the Presidents Rule in Tarunachal Pradesh. The President of Indiana later on signed a
Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, imposing Presidents Rule in the State
of Tarunachal Pradesh.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
1) WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS THE POWER TO CONVENE THE
ASSEMBLY SESSION WITHOUT THE AID AND ADVICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT?
A. WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS POWER TO ADVANCE THE
ASSEMBLY SESSION?
B. WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO INTERFERE WITH
THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR?
IS
PRESIDENTS
RULE
APPLICABLE
UNDER
CONSTITUTION?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT
1. The counsel humbly submits before the honorable court that the
Governor does not have the power to convene the Assembly session
without the aid and advice of the Government until and unless there
is a gap of six months between the two sessions of the Assembly as
per Article 174(1) of the Constitution.
2. The counsel humbly submits before the honorable court that as per
Article 145(3) of the Constitution Supreme Court has already
formed a five judge bench, referred as Constitution Bench to decide
the cases involving substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution, therefore there was no question of
imposing Presidents Rule in the state despite ongoing litigation in
Constitution Bench.
3. The counsel humbly submits before the honorable court that as per
Article 352 of the Constitution neither the security of the state was
threatened nor the house was dissolved on the gap of six months
between the two sessions of the State Assembly. Therefore there was
no constitutional breakdown and thus Presidents Rule could not be
imposed.
4. The counsel humbly submits before the honorable court that a
member holding office as a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker cannot be
removed from office unless at least a fourteen days notice has been
given for the intention to remove him from the office under Article
179(c) of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1 Udai Narain Sinha V State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 23 January, 1986[ AIR 1987 All 203]
committee thereof2. The interference of governor in the affairs of the legislative assembly can
prevent it from performing its function properly.
Governor, though being a part of the legislature in an overall scheme has restricted powers
and could not send messages to regulate compositions of the state assembly or its proceedings
or order items of agenda. Assailing the role of the governor for sending messages of the state
assembly and advance its convening to December 16 as against the scheduled assembling on
January 14, the counsel submits that, there is no power vested in the government by the
constitution to pre-pone the assembly session.
Assailing to governors decision to advance the assembly session which was held in
community hall, the Counsels want to say that the constitutional functionary cannot convene,
prorogue or dissolve the house in his discretion and under the constitutional scheme, he has to
act on the aid and advice of the chief minister and his council of ministers i.e. government.
2 Sri Surendra Mohanty V Sri Nabakrishna Choudhury And ... on 26 February, 1958[ AIR 1958 Ori 168, 1958
CriLJ 1055]
State of Madras3, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala4 and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v.
Union of India5.
A. WHEN
IS
PRESIDENTS
RULE
APPLICABLE
UNDER
CONSTITUTION?
As per Article 356 of Constitution
1. If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by
Proclamationassume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and
a.)
all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or
b.)
c.)
High Courts.
2. Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation
3. Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is a Proclamation
revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months
unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both
Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a
Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of
the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place
3 [1950] SCR 88
4 [1973] Suppl. SCR 1
5 [2007] RD-SC 609 (17 May 2007)
during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution
approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no
resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the
People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall cease to operate at
the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits
after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a
resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the
People.
In the present case, it may be noted that such a grave emergency did not exist where,
Governor had to report the matter to President for imposition of Presidents Rule that too
without seeking the advice of his Council of Ministers.
6 Bajirao Baliram Mali V The State Of Maharashtra on 3 September, 1976 [(1977) 79 BOMLR 189]
7 S.R.Bommai VS. Union of India [1994(2) SCR 644; AIR 1994 SC 1918]
B. WHETHER
CONSTITUTIONAL
BREAKDOWN
CALLS
FOR
8 AIR 1994 SC 1918, JT 1994 (2) SC 215, 1994 (2) SCALE 37, (1994) 3 SCC 1, 1994 2 SCR 644
mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the
Governor and his decision shall be final. Therefore, instead of calling for an emergency
session, the Governor could have suspended the order of the members of the House.
In the present case, Governor did not have power to question the decisions taken by the
Speaker or it would be violation of Article 212 of the Constitution. The Counsel would also
like to submit that, in present case no fourteen days notice was given to the Speaker before
passing an impeachment motion against him which appeared to be violation of Article 179(c)
of the Constitution.
Pass an order to remove Presidents rule from the State or pass any order, which the court
may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever.
Sd/-..
(Counsel for the Appellant)