Best and Winner Team's Memo (Petitioner)

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KOOGLISTAN
FIRST P.A INAMDAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

v.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FORUM
AM 9
AM 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Serial No.
Content
Page No.
1.
Index of Authorities
2.
Statement of Jurisdiction
3.
Statement of Facts
4.
Statement of Issues
11
5.
Summary of Arguments
12
6.
Arguments Advanced
14
7.
The Prayer
30
AM 9
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S. NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
LIST OF CASES
A. Thomas v. Dy. Insp. Of Schools (76) A.M. 214,215
A.M Patroni v. Kesavan (1962) 2 Ker. 478 (F.B)
All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1980 (2) SCC 478
Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986
SC 1490
Anjali v. State of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal. 825
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Bihar (58) A.P 359
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 361 : (2007) 5 JT 276.
Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. State of
Karnataka and Ors 2008 K.L.J 1
Azeez Basha v. UOI 1968 AIR 662, 1968 SCR (1) 833
B.C Swain v. W & T Department, (1974) A. Or. 115
Bal Patil v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3172
Bihar S.M.E Board v. M.H.A College, (1990) 1 SCC 428
Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Patna v. Managing Committee of Madarsa
Hanfia Arabic College (1989) Supp. 2 S.C.R 399
Birendranath Gupta v. Delhi Admin. (1990) 1 S.C.R. 805
Brahmachari Sidheshwar v. State of West Bengal, (1995) 4 SCC 646
Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal (2004) 6 SCC 224
C.M St. John Inter College v. Girdharilal, AIR 2001 SC 1891
Charles Robson v. State(78) A.M. 390
Chithra Ghosh and Another v. UOI and others AIR 1970 SC 352
Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors v. Union Of India And Ors (2014) 2 SCC 392
D.A.V College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731
D.N Chanchala v. State of Mysore SCR (Supp.) 608
Dipendranath v. Bihar (62) A.P 101 (F.B.)
Director of S.E., T.N. v. G.Arogiasamy, (71) A.M. 440
Gujarat University v. Krishna Ragunath Mudholkar (1963) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 112
Hari Manderji v. Magadh University (77) A. Pat 1117
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product v. Union of India 2000 (1) SCC 426)
Indulal Hiralal Shah v. S.S Salgaonkar AIR 1983 Bom. 192
Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1968 SC 140
Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768
Joseph Thomas v. Kerala AIR 1958 Ker. 33
K.O. Varkey v. State (69) A. Ker. 191
3
- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER 33.

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
K.S Jayasri v. Kerala (76) A. SC. 2381, (1977) 1 S.C.R 194

Katra Education Society v. U.P (1966) 3 S.C.R. 328
Lily Kurian v. St. Lewina, AIR 1979 SC 52
M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore, (1963) Supp. 1 S.C.R 439
Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose 2007 AIR SCW 132
Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission Bihar & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors.
39.
40.
1984 (4) SCC 500

Mark Netto v. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 83
MCD of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia AIR 1980 SC 360
41.
Moosa v. Kerala AIR 1960 Ker. 355
42.
Muslim Anjuman-e-Taleem v. Bihar University (67) A.P 148
43.
N. Ammad v. Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674)
44.
N.P Unnimoyin Kutty v. Asst. Educational Officer, AIR 1984, Ker. 124
45.
P. Rajendran v. Madras (68) A. SC. 1012, (1968) 2 S.C.R 786
46.
P. Sagar v. State (68) A.A.P. 165,173-4
47.
P. Sundarsan v. A.P (58) A.A.P. 569
48.
P.A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
49.
AM 9
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (2014) 8 SCC
1
50.
R. Chitralekha v. Mysore, 1964 6 S.C.R 368, 369
51.
R.S Nayak v. A.R Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684
52.
Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956
53.
Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465
54.
S.K Patro v. Bihar (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172
55.
Samuel v. District Education Officer, AIR 1982 A.P 64
56.
Satimbla Sharma & Ors v St.Paul Sr.Secondary School & Ors (2011) 13 SCC 760
57.
Shri Krishna v. Gujarat University (62) A. Guj. 88 (F.B.)
58.
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others AIR 1958 SC 538
59.
Sidhrajbhai v. Gujarat (1963) 3 S.C.R 837
60.
Sindhi Educational Society v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT (2010) 8 SCC 49
AM 9
61.
Skaria Francis v. State (67) A. Ker. 128;
62.
Smt. Nanda Ghosh Dastidar v. Guru Nanak Education Trust (84) A. Cal. 40
63.
Smt. Neelu Agrawal v. D.I.O.S. And Ors 2004 (3) AWC 2346
64.
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr, 2012) 6
SCC 102
65.
Sri Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vidyalaya v. West Bengal, AIR 1982 Cal. 101
66.
St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558
67.
St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389
68.
State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza, AIR 1997 SC 2425
69.
State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees and
Others [(1995) 4 SCC 507]
70.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parasram AIR SCW 373
71.
State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial AIR 1970 SC 2079
72.
State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490
73.
Subhashini v. State (66) A. Mys. 40
74.
Sudhindra Chandra Malik v. Bihar, AIR 1982 Pat. 142
75.
T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2002
Madras 42
76.
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355
77.
U.P v. Pradeep Tandon (1975) 2 S.C.R 761, (75) A. SC. 563
78.
University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1952 Mad. 67
79.
V.V Giri v. Depala Suri Dora (1960) 1. S.C.R. 426, (59) A.SC. 1318
80.
Vijaylakshmi v. Punjab University and others. (2003) 8 SCC 440
81.
W.B. (State) v. Guru Nanak Education Trust (87) A. Cal. 232
S.NO.
BOOKS REFERRED
1.
D. D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Thirteenth Edition, Allahabad, 2003.

5
AM 9
2.
M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition, Calcutta, 1998.
3.
Pandey J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, Forty ninth Edition, Allahabad, 2012.
4.
Seervai H.M , Constitutional Law of India, Fourth Edition, Delhi, 1999.
5.
Shukla V.N., Constitution of India, Ninth Edition, Lucknow, 1994.
S.NO.
STATUTES REFERRED
1.
The Constitution of India, 1950
2.
NCMEI Act, 2004
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners appeal in the present case under Article 136 of the Constitution of Kooglistan to
initiate the present proceedings in the supreme court of Kooglistan
Article 136: special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
AM 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I
The State of Kooglistan had a population of 17% Muslims. Mr. M Saeeduzzaman was a social
reformer who was concerned with the condition of Muslims who were socially marginalized and
educationally backward and were very poor which placed obstacles before them to enjoy life
with basic amenities. Mr. Saeeduzzaman with the help of non Muslim friends and a land given
on lease from the government established the Mohammedan College, Raahatganj in 1955. The
founder highlighted the aim for the establishment of The College as educational backwardness of
Muslims, lack of provisions for religious instructions in the Institutions run by the State and wish
of the Muslim community to establish a university for Muslims. The College was run by
Mohammedan College Society.
II
In 1968 Muslims Education Committee passed a resolution to establish a Muslim university at
Raahatganj. In the aforesaid conference Justice S.H Zaidi proposed that degrees of the Muslim
AM 9
university must be at par with government institutions. Hereinafter the University funds
Committee and University Foundation Committee were found.
III
In December 1970, the government agreed to convert The College into a Muslim university. In
1971, Muslim University association was founded to give practical shape to convert
Mohammedan College into a Muslim university. After this, the Raahatganj Muslim University
Act, 1978 was passed by the Parliament. All committees of the Mohammedan College were
dissolved and all the movable and immovable properties owned by the College were transferred
to the newly established Muslim University. All the rights, powers and privileges of the Society
along with debts, liabilities and obligations were transferred to the said University under the Act
of 1978.
IV
The Raahatganj Muslim University Act, 1978 declared that the University is open for all in
matters of admission with recognized degrees, diplomas and certificates. The Act also declared
that the University was also empowered to promote oriental Islamic studies and give religious
instruction in Islamic theology, promote study of religions, civilizations and the culture of
Kooglistan, and to promote educational and cultural advancement of Muslims.
V
The membership of Finance Committee, Academic Council, Executive Council and the
University Court as the Supreme Governing Authority of the University was awarded to certain
officers. The membership of the University Court was however restricted only to Muslims. There
was sprinkling presence of non- Muslim members in other authorities. The authorities were
empowered to make Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations for the University. The President was
designated as the Visitor of the University, and was conferred power to inquire into matters of the
University and issue directions in certain circumstances to be followed by the University.
VI
8
AM 9
In 2001, a new Constitution was adopted in Kooglistan that provided for:

Prohibition of discrimination in favour or against on the ground of religion and sex (under
Article 45) and; provided for the conservation of script, language and culture and guaranteed the
right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice to the minorities (under
Article 50).
VII
In the light of Article 45 of the Constitution, the statutes dealing with the composition of the
University court was amended and the membership was opened for the followers of any religion.
However the presence of non-Muslim members still remained marginal.
VIII
In February 2007, the University due to the declining number of Muslim students approved the
reservation of 50% seats for Muslims. After admissions according to the aforesaid policy the
non-Muslim students who joined the engineering college felt aggrieved, formed an Equal
Opportunity Forum and filed a petition in the High Court against the University. RMU defended
its policy, being a minority institution. The High Court however, held that RMU was neither
established nor was administered by the Muslim community. Thereafter RMU appealed to the
Supreme Court of Kooglistan.
AM 9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF KOOGLISTAN:
I.
WHETHER RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY IS A MINORITY INSTITUTION?
A. Whether Raahatganj Muslim University was established by the members of the Muslim
community?
B. Whether Raahatganj Muslim University is administered by the members of Muslim community?
II.
WHETHER THE RAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY POSSESSES THE RIGHT TO

RESERVE THE SEATS?
10
AM 9
A. Whether being a minority institution R.M.U has the right to reserve seats?
B. Whether the reservation of seats is a violation of the Constitution of Kooglistan?
C. Whether 50% reservation is Constitutional?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.
WHETHER RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY IS A MINORITY
INSTITUTION?
a.
In the resolution for the formation of the Muslim University, Raahatganj
(hereinafter RMU), it was clearly stated that this residential university would be purely
Muslim in character. The rules and regulations will be in conformity with the religious
principles of Islam. Hence RMU is a minority institution, keeping in view the fact that
Muslims form only 17% of the population of Kooglistan and are hence in minority.
b.
In December 1970, the government of Kooglistan had agreed to convert
the College into a Muslim university. Hence, since the government had consented to give
RMU a minority status, the same cannot be debated now.
11
- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER c.
AM 9
RMU is a minority institution well within the meaning of the section 4 of
the RMU Act, 1978. Hence RMU is de jure a minority institution, the status of minority
given to it by the Parliament of Kooglistan.
d.
The ratio decidendi of the High Courts decision was: RMU was neither
established, nor being administered by the Muslim community. This view cannot hold
good on two grounds. Firstly, section 8 of the RMU Act, restricted the membership of
University Court to Muslims, and even after amendment, the membership remained
largely Muslim. Hence RMU was de facto administered by Muslims. Secondly, section 4
of the RMU Act defines University as educational institution of their choice established
by Muslims of Kooglistan. Hence RMU is both administered and established by
Muslims.
II.
WHETHER
BEING
A MINORITY
INSTITUTION,
RAAHATGANJ
MUSLIM
UNIVERSITY POSSESS THE RIGHT TO RESERVE SEATS?
a. The Supreme Court of has allowed 50% reservation in minority institutions in many cases, and
hence the same is constitutional. Hence RMU possesses the right to reserve seats by virtue of
precedents laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.
b. The 50% reservation of seats is well in keeping with the newly enacted Constitution which
clearly provides in Article 50 the right of minorities to administer and establish educational
institution of their choice. Hence choice has been given to the minorities to reserve the seats in
minority institutions established by them.
12
AM 9
c. The right to equality is a fundamental right. Nevertheless the Constitution provides for
affirmative action because of economic and social backwardness of a certain section of the
society. Therefore to give effect to the Constitutional provision for affirmative action, 50% of
reservation is required for the minority. RMU is an institution established by the State of
Kooglistan. Hence reservation of seats by way of affirmative is intra vires the powers possessed
by RMU.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.
WHETHER RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY IS A MINORITY INSTITUTION?

The petitioner most deferentially submits that Raahatganj Muslim University is a
minority institution as it was established by minorities and is administered by minorities.
A. RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MUSLIMS.
Protection of minorities is the hallmark of civilization. Mahatma Gandhi
It has been held that the material factor to attract Article 30 (1) 1 is the establishment of the
i.
institution by the minority concerned2. The petitioner most respectfully submits that since the
1 All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice.
2 Sudhindra Chandra Malik v. Bihar, AIR 1982 Pat. 142; Dipendranath v. Bihar (62) A.P 101 (F.B.);
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Bihar (58) A.P 359; Shri Krishna v. Gujarat University (62) A. Guj. 88 (F.B.);
Gujarat University v. Krishna Ragunath Mudholkar (1963) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 112.
13
AM 9
very inception of the Mohammedan College Raahatganj, the purpose of establishing the
college had been the social and educational backwardness of Muslims of Kooglistan. 3 In
order to improve the living conditions of Muslims, Mr. Saeeduzzaman had decided to
educate them4. At the foundation laying ceremony, the aspects for establishment of the
College that were highlighted were: Educational backwardness of Muslims and the non-use
of educational institutions of State5.
The Muslim Educational Committee in 1968 had passed a resolution for establishing Muslim
University at Raahatganj6, which later materialised into the agreement by the Government in
1970 to convert the College into a Muslim university7.
In the resolution it was stated in clear and unambiguous terms that the residential
university would be purely Muslim in character8. In the light of this resolution two
Committees were formed. The University Funds Committee- for collecting funds to establish
the University, and the University Foundation Committee for converting Mohammedan
College, Raahatganj into a Muslim University. After the Government agreed in 1970 to
convert the College into a Muslim university, another committee Muslim University
Association was founded to give practical shape for converting the College into R.M.U.
All of the above facts lead to one conclusion that R.M.U was established by Muslims, for
Muslims.
3 Page 6 of the moot proposition.

4 Ibid.
5 Id.
7 Ibid.
8 Page 7 of moot proposition.
14
AM 9
In State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial9 it has been held that a Society or a Trust consisting
ii.
of even a single member of minority community may establish an institution. It matters not
if a single philanthropic individual with his own means, institution or the community at large
founds the institution or the community at large contributes the funds. The position in law is
the same and the intention in either case must be to found an institution for the benefit of
a minority community by a member of that community. The Supreme Court has therefore
recognized the right of the minority to establish and administer and institution of their
choice10. Right to education is a fundamental right 11. This right also belongs to the Muslim
minority. And it has also been held that right under Article 30 (1) is a fundamental right
declared in terms absolute12. The institution, that is R.M.U in this case, was absolutely
intended to be for the benefit of the Muslims. This is seen in the resolution by the Muslim
Education Committee:
This residential University would be purely Muslim in character. The rules and
regulations will be in conformity with the religious principles of Islam13.
Hence there is not an iota of doubt that R.M.U was established with the intention to benefit
the Muslim community.
9 AIR 1970 SC 2079.
10 D.A.V College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731; State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza, AIR
1997 SC 2425; Brahmachari Sidheshwar v. State of West Bengal, (1995) 4 SCC 646; St. Xaviers College
v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389; Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956; Lily Kurian v. St.
Lewina, AIR 1979 SC 52; Mark Netto v. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 83; Bihar S.M.E Board v. M.H.A
College, (1990) 1 SCC 428; St.Stephens College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558; C.M St. John
Inter College v. Girdharilal, AIR 2001 SC 1891; Bal Patil v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3172; Azeez
Basha v. UOI1968 AIR 662, 1968 SCR (1) 833; All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1980 (2) SCC 478.
11 Satimbla Sharma & Ors v St.Paul Sr.Secondary School & Ors (2011) 13 SCC 760; State of H.P. v.
H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees and Others [(1995) 4 SCC 507].
12 Sidhrajbhai v. Gujarat (1963) 3 S.C.R 837; Muslim Anjuman-e-Taleem v. Bihar University (67) A.P
148; A.M Patroni v. Kesavan (1962) 2 Ker. 478 (F.B); Director of S.E., T.N. v. G.Arogiasamy, (71) A.M.
440; A. Thomas v. Dy. Insp. Of Schools (76) A.M. 214,215; K.O. Varkey v. State (69) A. Ker. 191.
15
iii.
AM 9
The R.M.U Act, 1978 in under section 14 lays down that the University is empowered to
promote especially educational and cultural advancement of Muslims of Kooglistan14.
This right is also upheld by the Supreme Court in that the object of Article 30 (1) is to
enable the children of minorities to go out in the world fully equipped. It will be wrong to
read Article 30 (1) as restricting the right of minorities to establish 15 and administer
educational institutions of their choice only to cases where such institutions are concerned
with language, script or culture of minorities.16
It was concluded from the above facts that RMU has been established for the Muslims. It is
therefore a minority institution. It is submitted that RMU was established in the exercise of
this fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30.
iv.
It is submitted that section 4 of the Raahatganj Muslim University Act, 1978, has defined the
University as, University means the educational institution of their choice established by the
Muslims of Kooglistan which originated as Mohammedan College Raahatganj and which
was subsequently incorporated as R.M.U Raahatganj17.
Hence the very Act that was enacted by the Parliament of Kooglistan mentions the words
established by the Muslims of Kooglistan. This proves it beyond doubt that it is by the
endeavours and efforts of Muslims that R.M.U has been established.
The petitioner humbly submit to the fact that grants had been received from the Government
in the establishment of R.M.U. However in spite of this fact, R.M.U remains a minority

15 Hari Manderji v. Magadh University (77) A. Pat 1117;Katra Education Society v. U.P (1966) 3
S.C.R. 328; W.B. (State) v. Guru Nanak Education Trust (87) A. Cal. 232; Smt. Nanda Ghosh Dastidar v.
Guru Nanak Education Trust (84) A. Cal. 40;
16 St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
16
AM 9
institution, having been established by the Muslims. It has been held in the case of P.A
Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra18 that a minority institution does not cease to be so, the
moment grant-in-aid is received by the institution. A minority educational institution comes
to be so whether Government declares it as such or not19.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that an institution set up by minorities for educating
members of the minority community does not cease to be a minority institution merely
because it takes aid.20 There is nothing in Article 30(1) which allows the drawing of a
distinction in the exercise of the right under that Article between needy minorities and
affluent ones. Article 30(2) of the Constitution reinforces this when it says, "The State shall
not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational
institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on
religion or language".
Thus, even after the grant of aid by the State to an educational institution under the
management of the minority, the educational institution continues to be a minority
educational institution.
v.
In T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka21 it was held when 'aid' is sought for by the
minority institution to run its institution for the benefit of students belonging to that particular
community, the argument on the basis of Article 29(2) is that if such an institution asks for
aid it does so at the peril of depriving the very persons for whom aid was asked for in the first
place. Apart from this anomalous result, if the taking of aid implies that the minority
institution will be forced to give up or waive its right under Article 30(1), then on the
18 (2005) 6 SCC 537.

19 Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986 SC 1490; N. Ammad v.
Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674); Smt. Neelu Agrawal v. D.I.O.S. And Ors 2004 (3) AWC 2346.
20 St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558.

21 AIR 2003 SC 355.
17
AM 9
principle that it is not permissible to give up or waive fundamental rights, such an

interpretation is not possible.
It is submitted that the right to establish and administer educational institutions 22 of their
choice by the minorities is the most unassailable of rights- a fundamental right. The same
cannot be waived under a claim such as having received grant from the government.
vi.
The Supreme Court has further observed in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra23 that the object underlying Article 30(1) is to see the desire of minorities
being fulfilled that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire
eligibility for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such
intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering public services, educational
institutions imparting higher instructions including general secular education. In the case of
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka24 Khanna, J. then examined Article 30, as
follows- "Clause (1) of Article 30 gives right to all minorities, whether based on religion or
language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Analyzing that
clause it would follow that the right which has been conferred by the clause is no two types
of minorities. Those minorities may be based either on religion or on language. The right
conferred upon the said minorities is to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice.
Hence the SC has not just recognised but promoted the right of minority to establish and
administer educational institutions for the minorities. It has been held that the declaration of
22 Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465.

23 AIR 2005 SC 3236.
24 Supra.
18
AM 9
law made by the Supreme Court cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority 25. It
is submitted therefore that this right should be upheld.
B. RAAHATGANJ
MUSLIM
UNIVERSITY
IS
ADMINISTERED
BY
MUSLIMS
vii.
It is most respectfully submitted that Raahatganj Muslim University is administered by

Muslims. The administrative offices such as Finance Committee, Academic Council,
Executive Council and the University Court as the Supreme Governing authority even though
open for followers of any religion26, are largely held by the Muslim community27. Hence the
only conclusion that can be drawn from this fact is that R.M.U is administered by the Muslim
community. It has been held in re Kerala Education Bill28 that Articles 29(2) and 30(1), read
together, clearly contemplate a minority institution with a sprinkling of outsiders admitted
in it. By admitting a member of non minority into the minority institution it does not shed its
character and cease to be a minority institution.
Therefore, the picture of a minority institution envisaged by the Honble Supreme Court of
India in this case is wholly in consonance with the facts and circumstances of RMU as
mentioned above.
25 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parasram AIR SCW 373, Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of
West Bengal (2004) 6 SCC 224.
27 Page 7 of moot proposition- there was only a sprinkling presence of non-Muslim members in other
authorities.
28 AIR 1958 SC 956.
19
- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER viii.
AM 9
It is submitted that under section 10 of the Raahatganj Muslim University Act, 1978, the
authorities of the University are empowered to make Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations
for smooth conduct of affairs of the University29. Moreover it has been held that minority has
the right to administer minority institutions.30
In Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. State of
Karnataka and Ors.31 that of their choice shows the vast discretion and option which
minorities have in selecting the type of the institution which they want to establish.
Hence a wide discretion has been given to the minority institutions for administration. The
administrative offices were almost in entirety held by Muslims, and, the same administration
has been empowered de jure to make Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Therefore it is as
evident as possible that administration of the University is in the hands of the Muslim
community.
ix.
It humbly submitted that as per the NCMEI Act, 2004, for an institution to be a minority
educational institution, the words established or maintained have been used by the
legislature.32 The word or is normally disjunctive and the word and is normally
conjunctive33, but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention
of the legislature as disclosed from the context 34. As has been established by the arguments
above, R.M.U has both been established and administered by the minority. Hence, R.M.U is
a minority institution as per the NCMEI Act, 2004.
30 Sindhi Educational Society v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT (2010) 8 SCC 49.
31 2008 K.L.J 1.
32 Section 2 (g) of NCMEI Act, 2004.
33 See Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product v. Union of India 2000 (1) SCC 426)
34 See Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1968 SC 140; MCD of Delhi v. Tek Chand
Bhatia AIR 1980 SC 360.
20
AM 9
II. WHETHER BEING A MINORITY INSTITUTION R.M.U POSSESSES A RIGHT

TO RESERVE SEATS?
It is submitted by that Raahatganj Muslim University possesses a right to reserve seats for the
members of the Muslim community.
A. R.M.U BEING A MINORITY INSTITUTION HAS THE RIGHT TO RESERVE

SEATS
i. It is humbly submitted that under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution it has been laid
down:
Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a
distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
Article 30 (1) has been upheld in many cases.35 This very provision enables R.M.U to
conserve the language, script and culture of the Muslim minority. The test is whether the
institution does in any manner serve or promote the interests of the minority to which it
claims to belong36. The reservation was made because of the declining number of Muslim
students in R.M.U37. For this same reason R.M.U has the right to reserve seats for the
35 Mark Netto v. Kerala (79) A. S.C. 83; Charles Robson v. State(78) A.M. 390; Bihar State Madarsa
Education Board Patna v. Managing Committee of Madarsa Hanfia Arabic College (1989) Supp. 2 S.C.R
399; Birendranath Gupta v. Delhi Admin. (1990) 1 S.C.R. 805.
36 Samuel v. District Education Officer, AIR 1982 A.P 64; N.P Unnimoyin Kutty v. Asst. Educational
Officer, AIR 1984, Ker. 124.
21
AM 9
Muslims. The very purpose of R.M.U would be rendered redundant if Muslims could not
benefit from it sufficiently.
ii. It has been held that when members of the minority donated a considerable sum of
money for establishing the institution and the institution was being run to promote the
culture and religious tenets of the minority primarily along with secular education
imparted to the pupils, a majority of whom belonged to the minority in question. The
institution was held entitled to the benefit of Article 30(1)38.
So, the R.M.U going by this ratio should be given all rights under Article 30(1). By virtue
of being empowered by Article 30 (1) R.M.U is empowered to reserve seats. Hence,
reservation of 50% was essential to retain the minority character of R.M.U, and to make
Muslim students benefit from it.
iii. Under section 14 of the R.M.U Act the University was empowered to:
promote oriental Islamic Studies and give religious instructions in Islamic theology on
voluntary basis and to impart moral and physical training; to promote the study of
religions, civilizations and culture of Kooglistan; and to promote especially educational
and cultural advancement of Muslims of Kooglistan.39
With the Muslim students were declining in R.M.U 40 these objectives could not be
realized, hence reservation became essential. And since R.M.U is empowered by Article
30 (1) it was entitled to reserve seats for realizing the purpose for which it was created.
38 Sri Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vidyalaya v. West Bengal, AIR 1982 Cal. 101; Indulal Hiralal Shah v.
S.S Salgaonkar AIR 1983 Bom. 192.
39 Ibid.
22
AM 9
B. RESERVATION OF SEATS IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

i.
It has been held in P.A Inamdars case 41 that it necessarily follows from the law laid
down in T.M.A Pai Foundation case42 that to establish a minority institution the institution
must primarily cater to the requirements of that minority of that State else its character of
minority institution is lost.
It has been held in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat43 that affiliation must be a real
and meaningful exercise of right for minority institutions in the matter of imparting
general secular education. Any law which provides for affiliation on terms which will
involve abridgment of the right of linguistic and religious minorities to administer and
establish educational institutions of their choice will offend Article 30(1): The
educational institutions set up by minorities will be robbed of their utility if boys and
girls cannot be trained in such institutions for university degrees.
Hence it is submitted that to maintain the minority status of R.M.U it is imperative that at
least a 50% reservation be made for Muslims for whom the institution was established.
Without such a reservation, R.M.U may lose its minority status and hence the entire
endeavour made since 1955 for the upliftment of Muslims would be lost.
ii.
Under clause (1) of Article 15 the State cannot discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (4), however,
provides that nothing in the Article shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the scheduled castes and tribes 44. Therefore it is submitted that Article 15
41 Supra.
42 Supra.
43 1974 (1) SCC 717.
44 Chithra Ghosh and Another v. UOI and others AIR 1970 SC 352, D.N Chanchala v. State of Mysore
SCR (Supp.) 608.
23
AM 9
(4) is an exception to 15 (1). Article 15 (4) says that the State is not prevented from
making any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes45.
It has been held that though caste is a relevant test for determining the social
backwardness of citizens, it was not obligatory to apply that test 46. Religion, it is
submitted is a relevant criteria, because it was on this basis that R.M.U was established
by the Government. Therefore reservation is protected under Article 15 (4) of the
Constitution.
It has been held that a minority status cannot be conferred on a minority educational
institution for a particular period to be renewed periodically like a driving license. 47
Therefore to preserve their interest under Article 30 (1), reservation of seats was essential
in R.M.U.
iii.
It is submitted that it has been held that the fundamental right guaranteed by 29 (2) is
abridged to some extent by Article 15 (4) under which seats may be reserved in an
educational institution for certain sections of Indian citizens.48
Therefore the Constitution, by its enabling provision of 15 (4) protects the right of
minorities. Thus, the special provision, of reservation for the advancement of socially and
educationally backward Muslims is provided by the Constitution itself.
45 Moosa v. Kerala AIR 1960 Ker. 355; M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore, (1963) Supp. 1 S.C.R 439; B.C
Swain v. W & T Department, (1974) A. Or. 115.
46 R. Chitralekha v. Mysore, 1964 6 S.C.R 368, 369; Skaria Francis v. State (67) A. Ker. 128; K.S
Jayasri v. Kerala (76) A. SC. 2381, (1977) 1 S.C.R 194; P. Rajendran v. Madras (68) A. SC. 1012, (1968)
2 S.C.R 786; U.P v. Pradeep Tandon (1975) 2 S.C.R 761, (75) A. SC. 563; Subhashini v. State (66) A.
Mys. 40; P. Sundarsan v. A.P (58) A.A.P. 569; V.V Giri v. Depala Suri Dora (1960) 1. S.C.R. 426, (59)
A.SC. 1318; P. Sagar v. State (68) A.A.P. 165,173-4.
47 T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2002 Madras 42.
48 Anjali v. State of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal. 825; University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1952
Mad. 67; Joseph Thomas v. Kerala AIR 1958 Ker. 33; S.K Patro v. Bihar (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172.
24
iv.
AM 9
Article 15 (5) which provides for a special provision for the advancement of socially and
educationally backward classes in so far as the special provision relates to their admission
in educational institutions, does not confer any power to make such special provisions in
minority educational institutions referred to in Article 30 (1). It has been held in Pramati
Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.49 that that clause (5) of
Article 15 is valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution so far as
it relates to the State-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions.
Thus, it is submitted that the intention of the legislature here is to protect the right under
Article 30 (1) given to the minorities. Under Article 30 (1) the right to administer has
been stipulated, and the right to reserve seats comes within this right.
v.
It is most humbly submitted that even though the Constitution of India lays emphasis on
the right to equality, it also lays stress on the fact that affirmative action is required for
the minority. Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of
inequalityTherefore, differential treatment in standards of selection is within the
concept of equality.50The equality means the relative equality, namely the principle to
treat equally what are equal and unequally what are unequal. To treat unequals differently
according to their inequality is not only permitted but required51.
Justice Khanna has held The people inhabiting this vast land profess different religions
and speak different languages. Despite the diversity of religion and language, there runs
through the fabric of the nation the golden thread of a basic innate unity...The closing
49(2014) 8 SCC 1 ; Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr, 2012) 6
SCC 102.
50 State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490; Vijaylakshmi v. Punjab University and others,
(2003) 8 SCC 440.
51 Vijaylakshmi v. Punjab University and others. (2003) 8 SCC 440; St. Xaviers College v. State of
Gujarat, 1974 (1) SCC 717; Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 361 : (2007) 5 JT 276.
25
AM 9
years of the British rule were marked by communal riots and dissentions Demand had
also been made before the partition by sections of people belonging to the minorities for
reservation of seats and separate electorates. In order to bring about integrationSpecial
safeguards were guaranteed for the minorities and they were made a part of the
fundamental rights with a view to instill a sense of confidence and security in the
minorities52.
It is submitted that the noble dream to instill a sense of security has been sought to be
realized through affirmative action and the same should be upheld in R.M.U for Muslims.
vi.
To fulfill the object of making progress at every strata of the society it is required that the
minority be given reservation. The reservation should be based on reasonable
classification of the minority. In the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.
R. Tendolkar & Others53, Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable
classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must
be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group
and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved.
It is submitted that the minority in the present case have been classified on intelligible
differentia. And this classification of the Muslim minority is to achieve the object of their
upliftment from social and educational backwardness.
vii.
It has been held in the case of St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi54 the minorities
have the right to admit their own candidates to maintain the minority character of their
52 St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat 1974 (1) SCC 717

53 AIR 1958 SC 538.
54 (1992) 1 SCC 558
26
AM 9
institutions. That is a necessary concomitant right which flows from the right to establish
and administer educational institution in Article 30(1).
Moreover it has been laid down in T.M.A Pai Foundation case that Article 29(2) does not
create an absolute right for citizens to be admitted into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds. The Supreme Court has
clearly recognized that running a minority institution is also as fundamental and
important as other rights conferred on the citizens of the country55. It has been held by
the Supreme Court in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose56 that even
if the institution is aided, there can be no interference with the said right.
Hence the respondents cannot claim admission only on the ground that R.M.U has
received funding from the Government.
C. RESERVATION OF 50% SEATS IS CONSTITUTIONAL
viii.
It is most respectfully submitted that in T.M.A Pai case 57 an illustration had been given
that fully establishes the petitioners case.
It was as follows A simple illustration would make the position clear. 'Aid' is given to a
minority institution. There are 100 seats available in that institution. There are 150
eligible candidates according to the procedure evolved by the institution. Of the 150, 60
candidates belong to that particular community and 90 to other communities. The
institution will be entitled, under Article 30(1) to admit all 60 minority students first and
then fill the balance 40 seats from the other communities without discrimination in
keeping with Article 29(2).
55 Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission Bihar & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors. 1984 (4) SCC 500.
56 2007 AIR SCW 132.
57 Supra.
27
AM 9
It has been further held in the same case while explaining Article 30, The differential
treatment for the minorities by giving them special rights is intended to bring about an
equilibrium, so that the ideal of equality may not be reduced to a mere abstract idea but
should become a living reality and result in true, genuine equality an equality not merely
in theory but also in fact". Therefore, the case of T.M.A Pai Foundation upholds
reservation of 50% for minorities.
ix.
In Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors v. Union Of India And Ors 58, also known as
the NEET case, it was held:
Out of 100 seats available for the under-graduate MBBS Course, 84 are reserved for
candidates from the Christian community and the remaining are available for selection in
the open category with reservation for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. Similarly, 50% of the Post-graduate seats are reserved for Christian
candidates and the remaining 50% are available for open selection on an All- India
basis.
Justice Krishna Iyer in Jagdish Saran's case59, wherein His Lordship observed that merit
cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human sympathies are equally
important.
Therefore a 50% reservation has been warranted by the Supreme Court for minority
educational institutions. Therefore R.M.U was entitled to reserve 50% of the seats.
x.
It has been held P.A. Inamdar60 is an authority on proposition of law that neither can the
policy of reservation be enforced by the State nor can any quota or percentage of
58 (2014) 2 SCC 392.

59 Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768.
60 Supra.
28
AM 9
admission be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority educational

institution. The State cannot regulate or control admissions in minority educational
institutions so as to compel them to give up a share of the available seats to candidates
chosen by the State. This would amount to nationalisation of seats which has been
specifically disapproved in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case61.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Institution has the right to reserve the seats.
It has been held in St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi
xi.
It is humbly submitted that under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it has been laid
down that :
The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the
weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation62.
State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people63.
In the present case, the Muslim community needs the special care because it is
economically and socially weaker. Therefore we have the above provisions in the
Constitution. Their real effect was to bring about equality by ensuring the preservation of
the minority institutions and by guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the matter of
the administration of these institutions64. Thus, to protect the weaker section from social
injustice and exploitation, affirmative action is absolutely necessary.
61 Supra
62 Article 46 of the Constitution.
63 Article 38 of the Constitution.
64 T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355; R.S Nayak v. A.R Antulay AIR 1984
SC 684.
29
AM 9
THE PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised and arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, this Honourable Court maybe pleased to:
A. Hold that Raahatganj Muslim University is a minority institution.
B. Declare that the reservation of 50% seats by Raahatganj Muslim University for Muslims
is constitutional and can be enforced.
30
AM 9
And any other relief that this Honble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
31

Best and Winner Team's Memo (Petitioner)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best and Winner Team's Memo (Petitioner)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KOOGLISTAN

FIRST P.A INAMDAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER 33.

K.S Jayasri v. Kerala (76) A. SC. 2381, (1977) 1 S.C.R 194

1984 (4) SCC 500

Moosa v. Kerala AIR 1960 Ker. 355

Muslim Anjuman-e-Taleem v. Bihar University (67) A.P 148

N. Ammad v. Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674)

P. Rajendran v. Madras (68) A. SC. 1012, (1968) 2 S.C.R 786

P. Sagar v. State (68) A.A.P. 165,173-4

P. Sundarsan v. A.P (58) A.A.P. 569

P.A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537

R. Chitralekha v. Mysore, 1964 6 S.C.R 368, 369

R.S Nayak v. A.R Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684

Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956

Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465

S.K Patro v. Bihar (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172

Samuel v. District Education Officer, AIR 1982 A.P 64

Shri Krishna v. Gujarat University (62) A. Guj. 88 (F.B.)

Sidhrajbhai v. Gujarat (1963) 3 S.C.R 837

Sindhi Educational Society v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT (2010) 8 SCC 49

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

Skaria Francis v. State (67) A. Ker. 128;

St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558

St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389

State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza, AIR 1997 SC 2425

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parasram AIR SCW 373

State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial AIR 1970 SC 2079

State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490

Subhashini v. State (66) A. Mys. 40

Sudhindra Chandra Malik v. Bihar, AIR 1982 Pat. 142

T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355

U.P v. Pradeep Tandon (1975) 2 S.C.R 761, (75) A. SC. 563

University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1952 Mad. 67

Vijaylakshmi v. Punjab University and others. (2003) 8 SCC 440

W.B. (State) v. Guru Nanak Education Trust (87) A. Cal. 232

D. D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Thirteenth Edition, Allahabad, 2003.

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition, Calcutta, 1998.

Seervai H.M , Constitutional Law of India, Fourth Edition, Delhi, 1999.

Shukla V.N., Constitution of India, Ninth Edition, Lucknow, 1994.

The Constitution of India, 1950

NCMEI Act, 2004

Article 136: special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

In 2001, a new Constitution was adopted in Kooglistan that provided for:

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE

WHETHER RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY IS A MINORITY INSTITUTION?

WHETHER THE RAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY POSSESSES THE RIGHT TO

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER -

WHETHER RAAHATGANJ MUSLIM UNIVERSITY IS A MINORITY

In the resolution for the formation of the Muslim University, Raahatganj

In December 1970, the government of Kooglistan had agreed to convert

- MEMORIAL for the PETITIONER c.

RMU is a minority institution well within the meaning of the section 4 of