7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF LINDIYA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

PEOPLES UPLIFTMENT ORGANIZATION AND MR. YASHWANT ANGRE ...PETITIONERS

V.

THE UNION OF LINDIYA ...RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2014

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF LINDIYA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LINDIYA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ i

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................... viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... ix

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... xi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................xii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1

I. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF LINDIYA IS MAINTAINABLE ...................................................................... 1

I.1 That The Petitioners have Locus Standi ....................................................................... 1

I.1.1 That the Rule of Locus Standi is relaxed in the case of a PIL ............................... 1

I.1.2 That the PIL fulfills all criteria to have a locus standi........................................... 2

I.1.4 That criminalization is a bane to politics ............................................................... 3

I.1.3 That de-criminalization of politics is Public Interest ......................................... 3

I.2 That prima-facie case for breach of Fundamental Rights under Article 14 has been
established .......................................................................................................................... 4

I.2.1 That the amendment act is against the principle of reasonableness ...................... 4

I.2.2 That the amendment act makes an unreasonable classification ............................ 5

II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW ....... 6

II.1 That the Legislative Action is Arbitrary ..................................................................... 6

II.1.1. That Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness ................................................................ 6

II.1.2 That the amendment act is not conducive to the functioning of the modern
society ............................................................................................................................ 7

II.1.3 That the amendment act violates Article 14 of the Constitution ....................... 8

i
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

II.2 That the Amendment Act fails to make permissible classification ............................. 9

II.2.1 That there has to be an intelligible differentia for classification .......................... 9

II.2.2 That the object of the amendment act is to allow continuance of convicts as
electors ........................................................................................................................... 9

II.2.3 That decriminalization of politics is the need of the hour .................................. 10

II.2.4 That there is no substantive basis for classification ........................................... 11

II.3 That the Amendment Act cannot overturn the judgment of the court ...................... 11

II.3.1 That no fundamental change in conditions has occurred ................................... 11

II.3.2 That a binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective ................. 12

II.3.3 That the legislation is a colourable legislation ................................................... 12

II.4 That the Amendment Act makes an attempt to preclude Judicial review ................. 13

II.4.1. That the government has made an attempt to preclude judicial review ............ 13

II.4.2 That the consequence of restriction to judicial review is unconstitutionality .... 14

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 16

ii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

& And

Paragraph

Section

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

A.P Andhra Pradesh

Assn. Association

Corpn. Corporation

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

J&K Jammu and Kashmir

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

P. Page

SCC Supreme Court

SC Supreme Court

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

Vol. Volume

v. Versus

W.B. West Bengal

iii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Constitution of India .................................................................................................................. 1

The Represenation of the People Act, 1950............................................................................... 9
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 ............................................................................. 2

BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES

Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily
Thomas Case, 1 International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 66 (2013). ................ 3
Association of Democratic Reforms, Press Release, Analysis of Candidates and elected
MLAs from 2008 Assembly election ............................................................................... 3
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, How Indian Voters Respond to Candidates with Criminal
Charges: Evidence from the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, 49(4) Economic & Political
Weekly 103,105 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 10
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S.
Subbramani & V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 2, 8th ed. 2012 ............................. 5
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani
& V.R. Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 3, 8th ed. 2012 .............................................. 13
Dr. Mallikarjun I Minch, Criminalisation Of Politics And Indian Administration, 2 Spectrum:
A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 34, 34 (2013). ....................................................... 3
Justice M.N Ventakachaliah, Report Of The National Commission To Review The Working
Of The Constitution Of India., Electoral Process and Political Parties 7 (2000) ................. 8
Ministry Of Law And Justice, Government Of India, Dinesh Goswami, Report Of The
Committee On Electoral Reforms .......................................................................................... 8
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India , N.N Vohra, Vohra Committee Report, ..... 10
Ministry Of Law and Justice, Government Of India, Background Paper On Electoral
Reforms, 8, (December, 2010) ............................................................................................. 10
Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs, Government Of India, Indrajit Gupta
Committee Report on state funding of elections, 21, (December, 1998) ............................. 8
T.S Krishnamurthy, The Miracle Of Democracy, Indias Amazing Journey, 219 (2008)
.............................................................................................................................................. 11

iv
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Trilochan Sastry , Towards the De-Criminalization of Elections and Politics, 2 Working

Paper No. 436, Indian Istitute of Management, Bangalore (2013). ....................................... 3
Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others (1982) 3 SCC 235 .......... 3

CASES

A.K. Kaul v.Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1403, .................................................................... 13

A.P. Agarwal v. Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600 ................................................. 7
Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487 .............................. 9
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors. , AIR 1974 SC 1539 .......... 1
Associated Provincial Picture v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 .................................. 6
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374 ....................................................... 1
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar & Others ........................................................ 1
Basheshar Nath v.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149 . 6
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board and Ors., AIR 2007 SC
2276........................................................................................................................................ 8
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570. .................................................................. 4
Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 ................................................... 5
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 .................................................. 9
Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1019 ..................................................................... 6
Golden Granites v. V. K. Shanmugam AIR 1997 Raj 24 .......................................................... 2
Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, ........................................................................ 14
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861. .......................................................... 14
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, ..................................................................... 8
Kalra v. P. E. C., AIR 1984 SC 1361......................................................................................... 7
KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy . State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 .............................................. 6
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 .............................. 4
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 .............................. 4
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725. ............................ 14
Krishnaswami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407 ............................................................. 11
Kuttisankaran Nair v. Kumaran Nair, AIR 1965 Ker 161 ......................................................... 4
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 ...................................................... 14
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597............................................................... 5

v
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Maneka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ........................................................................... 6

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2371 ................................................. 5
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 ...................................................... 14
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234 ....... 9
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 .................................................................... 5
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others (1982) 3 SCC
235.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330 ......................... 1
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, .............. 7
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138 .................................................................... 11
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Milla, AIR 1977 SC 2279 ............................................................................ 13
Raja Ram v. State of U.P. 1998 AIHC 1016 ............................................................................. 2
Rajkrishna v. Binod, AIR 1954 SC 202................................................................................... 14
S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC ............................................................ 1
S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 ...................................................vii
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 ....................................................................... 2
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ....................................................................... 1
S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. v. The State of Mysore, 1995 SCC (6) 16............................................. 12
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918............................................................... 14
Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 ...................................................................... 6
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322 ............................................................. 7
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, AIR 1970 SC 192 .............. 12
Sindri & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1981 SC 844 ............................................... 4
Srinivasa v. Veeraiah, (1992) 3 SCC 63 .................................................................................. 15
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 ............................................................... 11
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 ............................................................... 13
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Ananthi Ammal & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2114............................ 5
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75................................................................ 9
Sukhdev and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1331 ............................................... 1
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 ............................................ 4
Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65 ..................................................................... 4
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010 (12) SCALE
217.......................................................................................................................................... 7

vi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010(12) SCALE
217.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 .................................................. 2
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007)4SCC380 ..................................................... 2

vii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners herein are the Peoples Upliftment Organization, a non-governmental

organization, and Mr. Yashwant Angre. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Lindiya, a
party is permitted to move this Honble Court by way of appropriate proceedings for
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Petitioners have preferred this petition in the form
of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging The Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013.

viii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The material case arises out of a public interest litigation filed by Peoples Upliftment
Organization and Mr. Yashwant Angre against the State of Lindiya before the Supreme Court
of Lindiya to strike down The Lindiyan Representation of The Citizens (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2013.

I. BACKGROUND:

2. The Democratic Republic of Lindiya is a highly populated South-central Asian

country with a glorious and rich heritage. The laws and the Constitution of Lindiya are pari-
materia to those of India. Lindiya is the birthplace of four major religions and other religions
are also observed. Lindiya gained independence in the year 1945. One month after attaining
freedom, Lindiya split into two which was rumoured to be a result of a conflict within the
Lindiyan Development Party (hereinafter, LDP). A new country by the name of Bakel was
created which consisted mainly of the followers of Fargoism faith. Seeds of religious
differences were already sown and on August 25th, 1947, 5000 people died and 100,000 were
rendered homeless in a communal riot.

3. By 2013, Lindiya had become an industrial country and in the year 1991, the
economy was made more market-oriented by initiating economic liberalisation. LDP had
been at the helm of affairs for 34 of the 68 years after independence and for the remaining
years, the Lindiyan Peoples Party (hereinafter, LPP) was in power. While economic growth
at a rapid pace had ameliorated the image of the country, a series of scams involving political
figures since 1995 had damaged the countrys reputation. News articles rebuking candidates
contesting elections became common.

II. RANJEET THADANIS CONVICTION:

4. Mr. Ranjeet Thadani, the leader of the LDP, came from one of the wealthies families
of Lindiya. While it formed the central government from 1990 to 2000, LDP lost public trust
as a result of several scams which ran through their government. LPP came to power after
2000 elections.
5. In May 2005, Mr. Thadani was invited by the Star of Lindiya news channel along
with Mr. Yashwant Angre, leader of the LPP and Mr. Shekhar Verma, senior member of the

ix
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

LPP. Mr. Verma accused the Thadani family of being the reason behind Lindiyas split. Mr.
Thadani responded by saying that the split was a result of the actions of the followers of
Fargoism who, in his opinion, were motivated by their religious needs. He went on to remark
that there was something very unhealthy about the followers of Fargoism, accusing them of
being the reason behind the riots of 1947. There were protests the next day. Mr. Thadani was
charged with section 153A (b) and section 295A of the Lindiyan Penal Code. In September
2007, he was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment by the Sessions Court. Conviction under
section 295A was overturned by the High Court.

III. RANJEET THADANIS RELEASE:

6. By the year 2010, Lindiya had emerged as one of the developed countries of the world
and had made full use of nuclear power for both peaceful as well as military purpose. LDP
returned to power in 2010. Some cabinet ministers had prior criminal records and some were
facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Thadani was
released.

IV. THE AMENDMENT:

7. The desired result of corruption free politics in Lindiya was far from being achieved.
In July 2013, the Supreme Court of Lindiya held that citizens convicted of certain offences
could no longer stand for elections. Immediately after this judgment, the government
amended The Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens Act to reverse the judgment.

V. THE RESULTANT LITIGATION:

8. Peoples Upliftment Organization, an NGO, was working towards clean politics and
constantly demanded that elections should not be contested by those who have a criminal
record, as it offends politics ethics and was not in the best interest of the nation. Mr.
Yashwant Angre remarked in one of his speeches that those who govern this nation must do
so with clean hands. In December 2014, Peoples Upliftment Organization along with Mr.
Yashwant Angre filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of Lindiya to strike down the
amendment.

x
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court of Lindiya is
maintainable.

II. Whether The Lindiyan Representation of the Citizen's (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2013 constitutional.

xi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF LINDIYA IS MAINTAINABLE

Public interest litigation can be filed for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article
32 and if an act of the State runs contrary to the Constitution, the rule of locus standi is
relaxed so as to facilitate justice and further public interest. Article 14 has been violated by
the amendment made by the government, which hampers the interest of the public. The
amendment also furthers the spirit of constitutionalism. It is argued that the present PIL is
maintainable since: I.1] The PIL pertains to decriminalization of Politics which is in public
interest and the petitioners fulfill all conditions to get locus standi; I.2] A prima -facie case
for breach of Article 14 has been established as there is no reasonableness in the amendment
act.

II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW

Any act would be struck down if it is not found to be valid on the touchstone of the
Constitution. The amendment is not good in the eyes of the law as: II.1] The legislative action
in this case is arbitrary as there is substantive unreasonableness in the act; II.2] The
amendment act fails to pass the test of permissible which makes it violative of Article 14;
II.3] The amendment act overturns a judgment which is not permissible in law; II.4] The
amendment act makes an attempt to preclude judicial review, a basic structure of the
Constitution, and such an attempt renders the amendment unconstitutional.

xii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF LINDIYA IS MAINTAINABLE

1. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Lindiya1 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights2, as guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution.3 It is humbly submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation filed to strike
down the Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act, 20134
is maintainable primarily on two grounds: I.1] That the petitioners have locus standi to file
the present PIL; I.2] That there is Prima Facie breach of fundamental rights under Article 14.

I.1 THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI

I.1.1 That the Rule of Locus Standi is relaxed in the case of a PIL
2. In public law, the rule that only the aggrieved person is entitled to seek judicial
redress has been liberalised to include any public-spirited individual or association.5 In
instances of public wrong or injury, if an act or omission by the State runs contrary to the
Constitution then any member of the public has locus standi.6
3. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Amendment Act is against public interest,
and is against part III of the Constitution. The rule of locus standi was relaxed in Bar Council
of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar & Others,7and since the petitioners in this case are acting
bona fide,8 they have a locus standi to file this PIL.
4. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed against the State for the violation of
Fundamental rights9 under Article 32 of the Constitution. PIL is undertaken for the purpose
of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, diffused rights

1 Constitution of Lindiya is pari-materia to the Constitution of India.

2 Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
3 Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors. , AIR 1974 SC 1539 at 10.
4 Herein after referred to as the Amendment Act.
5 S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 at 14-25 (per P. N. Bhagwati, J.); Banwasi Seva
Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374.
6 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330 at 10.
7 Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar & Others, 1976 SCR 306 46.
8 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 at 19A.
9 Sukhdev and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1331, 95.
1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

and interests or vindicating public interest, any citizen acting bona fide has to be accorded
standing.10
5. In the present case, the PIL was filed before the Honble Supreme Court of Lindiya to
strike down the Amendment to Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens Act, 195111 which
was enacted to increase its ambit enough to reverse the Judgment of this Honble Court,
passed on 10th July 2013,12 as it is in contravention with a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Constitution.

I.1.2 That the PIL fulfills all criteria to have a locus standi
6. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India,13 it has been observed that in
determining the question of locus standi in public interest litigation the Court must look
into: (i) the credentials of the applicant; (ii) prima facie correctness of information; (iii)
information should show failure of public duty (iv) must not go into merits of the case.14
7. In the present case, the applicants are an NGO called the Peoples Upliftment
Oraganization, an organization working towards clean politics15and Mr. Yashwant Angre
(Leader of LPP)16. Politicians with a genuine cause are not debarred from participating in
PILs as petitioners17 or respondent,18 and the PIL in question raises a very pertinent issue of
criminalization of politics in Lindiya.
8. Among the cabinet ministers elected in 2010 elections in Linidya, some had prior
criminal records and some were facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.19 The object of the petitioners is to check the entry of convicts in active politics, as
the impugned amendment makes it possible for convicts to contest elections. The amendment
act has already been passed to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court,20 and has been
approved by the President of Lindiya.21 Hence, all conditions of a valid Public Interest
Litigation have been fulfilled.

10
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
11
Herein after referred to as The Act.
12
Factsheet, 14.
13
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380.
14
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 at 27-30.
15
Factsheet
16
Factsheet, 10.
17
Golden Granites v. V. K. Shanmugam AIR 1997 Raj 24.
18
Raja Ram v. State of U.P. 1998 AIHC 1016.
19
Factsheet, 13.
20
Factsheet, 14.
21
Ibid.
2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

I.1.4 That criminalization is a bane to politics

9. The growing criminalisation of politics and politicization of criminals have taken a
heavy toll on policing in the country.22 This phenomenon has further eroded the credibility,
effectiveness, and impartiality of the police and resulted into lack of trust and confidence in
police forces in large sections of the society.23
10. Democracy is disgraced when law-breakers of our country perform the function of
law-makers.24 Criminalization of politics has surpassed all records with 30 percent of the
sitting Members of Parliament of the 15th Lok Sabha and 31% of the Members of Legislative
Assemblies having criminal cases against them.25.
11. Analysis of 62,847 self-declared affidavits of candidates, covering all Assembly and
Lok Sabha elections since 2004, including bye elections, shows that 11,030 (18%) had
27,027 pending criminal cases against them while 5,253 (8%) candidates had 13,984 serious
criminal charges including murder, rape, corruption, extortion, dacoity etc.26
12. The above analysis and data shows the extent of criminalization of politics in the
country and hence the judgment was a necessary step towards decriminalization. A clean
democratic polity is every citizens right because ultimately it is the electorate which has to
suffer due to criminalization of politics.27 Hence this Public Interest Litigation is in interest of
the general public, and thus, maintainable.

I.1.3 That de-criminalization of politics is Public Interest

13. This court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India &
28
Others defined Public Interest Litigation and observed that the Public interest litigation is
a cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of public authority and the
judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges
upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society. In Sindri & Others v. Union

22
Dr. Mallikarjun I Minch, Criminalisation Of Politics And Indian Administration, 2 Spectrum: A Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research 34, 34 (2013).
23
Ibid.
24
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 66 (2013).
25
Association of Democratic Reforms, Press Release, Analysis of Candidates and elected MLAs from
2008 Assembly election.
26
Trilochan Sastry , Towards the De-Criminalization of Elections and Politics, 2 Working Paper No. 436,
Indian Istitute of Management, Bangalore (2013).
27
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 68 (2013).
28
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others (1982) 3 SCC 235 1.
3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

of India & Others29, this court observed that public interest litigation is part of the process of
participative justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal
reception at the judicial doorsteps.
14. Public interest, therefore, means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or
a section of the public is interested30 or the means of concern which is advantageous to
people as a whole.31 This landmark Supreme Court judgment was delivered, whereby citizens
who were convicted of certain offences could no longer stand for election.32 This judgment
was a welcome step as a recent survey shows that a vast majority of the population, about 98
per cent, want criminals out of Parliament and Assemblies33.
15. In the light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the petitioners enjoy locus standi
in this case and hence, the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.

I.2 THAT PRIMA-FACIE CASE FOR BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14
HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED

16. The right to move the Supreme Court where a fundamental right has been infringed is
in itself a fundamental right.34
17. The Supreme Court is constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights,
and it is the duty35 of the Supreme Court to grant relief under Article 32, where the existence
of a fundamental right and its breach, actual or threatened,36 is prima facie established,37
however laudable the object of the respondent might be.38 It is hereby submitted that the
fundamental right under Article 14 stands violated.

I.2.1 That the amendment act is against the principle of reasonableness

18. The Amendment Act was passed to set aside the judgment of this Honble Court, in
39
which it was held that no convicted persons could stand for elections. This was a welcome
judgment as it was a step towards decriminalization of politics in the country.

29
Sindri & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1981 SC 844 6.
30
Kuttisankaran Nair v. Kumaran Nair, AIR 1965 Ker 161 12.
31
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 30.
32
Ibid.
33
Business Line- Avaaz Survey, September 6, 2013.
34
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 21.
35
Ibid.
36
Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
37
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
38
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570.
39
Factsheet, 14.
4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

19. The principle of reasonableness, legally as well as philosophically, is an essential

element of equality or non-arbitrariness which pervades Article 14 as a brooding
omnipresence.40 The politics in the country has seen such lows that all legislations trying to
decriminalize politics have been blocked with alacrity by the political parties themselves.41
20. The amendment act, therefore, makes it possible for convicts of certain offences to
take part in the process of contesting elections which would again defeat the purpose of
decriminalization of politics. Arbitrary action is one that is unreasonable.42 It is hereby
submitted the amendment act is devoid of reason, and is an arbitrary creation of the
legislature.

I.2.2 That the amendment act makes an unreasonable classification

21. By the medium of this amendment act, the government has made an absurd
classification for convicts of certain offences only to ensure that they can contest elections.
The reasonableness of a classification depends upon the purpose for which it is made43 and a
classification made without any substantial basis should be regarded as invalid.44 The object
of the classification and the purpose, for which it was done, in the impugned amendment act,
cannot be said to have any reason or judgment.
22. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India,45 the Supreme Court of India struck
down Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002, for being oppressive, unreasonable and
arbitrary. When a statute is impugned under Article 14, what the Court has to decide is
whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that is must be stuck down.46
23. The Amendment Act violates the principle of reasonableness as it was enacted only
for the purpose of amending the Representation of Citizens Act 1951, to widen its ambit so
that the judgment of court is rendered ineffective,47 and has no other prudent purpose.
24. Thus, it is humbly submitted that there is a clear case of breach of the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of Lindiya and the Public Interest

40
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
41
Anubhav Verma & Kautuk, Decriminalization Of Politics With Special Reference To Lily Thomas Case, 1
International Journal Of Research And Analysis 66, 67 (2013).
42
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
43
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 2, 8th ed. 2012, p. 1384.
44
Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 67.
45
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2371 64.
46
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Ananthi Ammal & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2114 17.
47
Factsheet, 14.
5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

Litigation filed before the Supreme Court is in the interest of the public. Therefore, it is
humbly pleaded, that the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.

II. THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT IS NOT GOOD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW

25. It is humbly submitted, that in the light of the laws, cases and arguments mentioned
below, the Amendment Act is not good in the eyes of law on the basis of following four
grounds : II.1] That the legislative action of state is arbitrary II.2] That the Amendment Act
fails to make a reasonable classification II.3] That the Amendment Act cannot overturn the
Judgment of the court II.4] That the Amendment Act precludes Judicial Review. Article
13(2) of the Constitution of Lindiya makes any law which is inconsistent with this
fundamental right void ab initio.48

II.1 THAT THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS ARBITRARY

26. Article 14 of the Constitution of Lindiya reads as follows:-

14. Equality before law.The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

II.1.1. That Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness

27. Article 14 is an injunction to both the legislative as well as the executive organs of the
State and other subordinate authorities. It protects us from both legislative and executive
tyranny by way of discrimination.49 After 1974, the Honble Supreme Court held in a number
of cases that there was an over-emphasis on the doctrine of classification.50
28. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness.51 Since Maneka Gandhis case,52 the Courts
have adopted the Wednesbury principle53 that if the classification was an arbitrary act of the
State under Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 14 would strike it down.54
29. The expression arbitrarily means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done
capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in nature of
things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on will

48
Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1019.
49
Basheshar Nath v.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149, 25.
50
Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631, 26.
51
Ibid., 6.
52
Maneka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
53
Associated Provincial Picture v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223.
54
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy . State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 14.
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

alone.55 Right to equality means not only the right to be not discriminated, but also protection
against arbitrary or irrational act of the State.56
30. It is respectfully urged that the absence of arbitrary power is an essential of the rule of
law upon which our entire constitutional framework rests its edifice. 57 To complain of a
denial of equality in the sense of non-arbitrariness, the petitioner need not allege
discrimination vis a vis others.58

II.1.2 That the amendment act is not conducive to the functioning of the modern society
31. By the medium of the impugned amendment act, a separate classification is made for
convicts of certain offences, and the object of the classification is to enable them to contest
elections.
32. In Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.59, a test
was laid down by this Honble Court to determine reasonability and rationality of a
classification- is the classification conducive to the functioning of modern society? 60 If it
is, then it is certainly reasonable and rational.
33. In the present case, the purpose of the classification is to make those citizens of
Lindiya, who were convicted of certain offences and debarred by a Supreme Court judgment
from standing for elections61, competent to contest elections.
34. It is humbly submitted that the desire of corruption-free politics in Lindiya was far
from being achieved.62 It was this widespread corruption in politics which was the basis
behind the landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 10, 2013. Even some of the cabinet
ministers of the government of Lindiya, who were elected in the 2010 elections, had prior
criminal records and some were facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.63
35. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution was set up and
one of the suggestions in pursuance of electoral reforms was regarding entry of criminals in

55
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322.
56
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, 9.
57
A.P. Agarwal v. Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600.
58
Kalra v. P. E. C., AIR 1984 SC 1361.
59
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010 (12) SCALE 217.
60
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr., 2010(12) SCALE 217, 28.
61
Factsheet, 14.
62
Ibid.
63
Factsheet, 13.
7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

politics.64 The importance of electoral reforms and obliterating criminalization of politics was
again well elucidated in the Indrajit Gupta Committee Report.65
36. An effective democracy functioning through periodic free and fair elections is part of
the basic structure of the Constitution.66 Rapid criminalization of politics was mentioned as
one of the dangers to free and fair elections in the Dinesh Goswami Report on Electoral
Reforms.67
37. Data suggest that criminal candidates are significantly wealthier than those with
criminal charges.68 So, criminal candidates generate positive externalities to candidates of
their own party since their additional contributions release party funds which can be used in
other constituencies.69 Hence, political parties see these candidates as an advantage.
38. Thus, the purpose of the amendment act is to circumvent the judgment of the Court
in an artful manner to provide a gateway to convicts to enter electoral politics. The
amendment is a crafty scheme of the government and lacks an element of bona fide.
39. It is humbly submitted, therefore, that the classification in question does not seem
conducive to the functioning of modern society, as it defeats the agenda of corruption-free
politics by once allowing the entry of convicts in electoral politics.

II.1.3 That the amendment act violates Article 14 of the Constitution

40. To declare an act ultra vires under Article 14, the Court must be satisfied in respect of
substantive unreasonableness in the statute.70 It has been brought to the knowledge of this
Honble Court that the legislative action of the State in this case was not reasonable and was
manifestly arbitrary.

64
Justice M.N Ventakachaliah, Report Of The National Commission To Review The Working Of The
Constitution Of India., Electoral Process and Political Parties 7 (2000), Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v1ch1.htm , last seen on 1/9/2015
65
Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs, Government Of India, Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on
state funding of elections, 21, (December, 1998) Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Indrajit%20Gupta%20Committee%20Report.pdf last seen on 31/08/2015
66
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, 213.
67
Ministry Of Law And Justice, Government Of India, Dinesh Goswami, Report Of The Committee On
Electoral Reforms, 14 (May, 1990) Available at
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdf. last
seen on 27/08/2015.
68
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, What makes criminals tick in politics, The Financial Express, 10 (Delhi,
29/01/2013).
69
Ibid.
70
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2276 37.
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

41. Whenever there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or the
executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action.71

II.2 THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT FAILS TO MAKE PERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION

II.2.1 That there has to be an intelligible differentia for classification

42. Article 14 lays down that every person is entitled to equality before law and equal
protection of the laws and the State is bound to protect every human being from inequality. 72
It forbids class legislation but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable
grounds of distinction.73
43. As per the classic nexus test enunciated by His Lordship Sudhi Ranjan Das, J. (as he
then was), In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be
fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that
the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.
The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct
and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them.74

II.2.2 That the object of the amendment act is to allow continuance of convicts as electors
44. 16( 1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 195075 provides that a person
shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is for the time being disqualified
from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in
connection with elections.
45. 4 of the Act lays down the qualifications for membership of the House of the People
and one of the qualifications laid down is that the person must be an elector for any
Parliamentary constituency.
46. 5 of the Act lays down the qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly
of a State and one of the qualifications laid down is that he must be an elector for any
Assembly constituency in that State.
47. 62 of the Act entitled Right to vote provides in sub-section (5) that no person shall
vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or

71
Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487.
72
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234.
73
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
74
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
75
Hereinafter, the 1950 Act.
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. The proviso to sub-
section (5) of 62 of the Act, however, states that the sub-section will not apply to a person
subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force.
48. Thus, by 3, the Amendment act purports to enable the continuance as elector in the
Electoral Roll those who would otherwise stand disqualified to be electors.
49. By 2, the Amendment act ensures that disqualifications for membership of
Parliament and State Legislatures takes place only on the basis of the provisions of Chapter
III of the Act.

II.2.3 That decriminalization of politics is the need of the hour

50. The amendment act enables the continuance as elector in the Electoral Roll those who
would otherwise stand disqualified to be electors, thus making them eligible to contest
elections. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of July 10, 2013 is very significant
because it debars convicts of certain offences from standing in elections,76 thus taking a
positive step towards making politics clean.
51. The Vohra Committee appointed by the Government had stated in strong terms that
the nexus between crime syndicates and political personalities is very deep and has developed
into a business partnership in various parts of the country.77 The Committee quoted that the
Mafia network is virtually running a parallel government, pushing the State apparatus into
irrelevance.78
52. Electoral advantage of criminals could arise because they can intimidate prospective
voters of rival parties into staying away from the polls.79 It has also been seen that candidates
with criminal indictments are more likely to be fielded in constituencies where voters are
poorly informed about the characteristics of contesting candidates.80 Thus, it is never a bad
bargain for the political parties to field such candidates as the scenario is mostly a win-win
situation.
53. Since a political party will work towards its own self-interest, the landmark judgment
of this Honble Court was an important judgment. Electoral reforms are crucial to preserve

76
Factsheet, 14.
77
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India , N.N Vohra, Vohra Committee Report,
(October 1993) Available at
http://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/VOHRA%20COMMITTEE%20REPORT_0.pdf. last seen on 25/08/2015.
78
Ministry Of Law and Justice, Government Of India, Background Paper On Electoral Reforms, 8,
(December, 2010) Available at http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/ereforms/bgp.doc, last seen on 17/08/2015.
79
Bhaskar Dutta & Poonam Gupta, How Indian Voters Respond to Candidates with Criminal Charges:
Evidence from the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, 49(4) Economic & Political Weekly 103,105 (2014).
80
Ibid.
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

unfeigned democracy,81 and therefore the judgment of the Court was a dire need and
something which the circumstances demanded.

II.2.4 That there is no substantive basis for classification

54. Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis.82 The intelligible differentia, in
this case, is baseless and meant to create an illusion of a separate class of persons being
formed whereas in actuality it is an unreasonable and arbitrary segregation perpetuated by the
amendment act.
55. The amendment act is also prejudicial to the interests of the people and society at
large as it seeks to permit back-door entry for a group disqualified from being electors to
continue as such.
56. A classification made must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on
some real and substantive distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the legislation.83.
57. Reasons link the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions
drawn therefrom. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the makers were activated
and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the
conclusions reacted. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust falling foul of the noble
mandate of Article 14.84 It is humbly submitted that there exists no reasonable nexus between
the classification made in this case and the object which the amendment act seeks to achieve.
58. In the light of the above, it is submitted before this Honble Court that the amendment
act does not pass the test of permissible violates Article 14 of the Constitution and must be
struck down.

II.3 THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT CANNOT OVERTURN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

II.3.1 That no fundamental change in conditions has occurred

59. A bare perusal of the impugned amendment act shows that there exists a clear and
discernible legislative intent to bypass the final directions contained in the judgment of the
Supreme which is clearly impermissible in the eyes of law.
60. It has been held by this Honble Court that the Courts decision must always bind
unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could

81
T.S Krishnamurthy, The Miracle Of Democracy, Indias Amazing Journey, 219 (2008).
82
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
83
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138.
84
Krishnaswami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407.
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

not have been given in the altered circumstances.85 Even if there is legislative competence, it
is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the Court shall not bind, for it
tantamounts to exercise of judicial power, which the legislature does not possess or
exercise.86
61. The Act was quickly amended after the landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 10,
201387 and no substantial change in circumstances had occurred. Thus, there were no
fundamental alterations in the conditions on which the judgment was based, as Lindiya did
not become free from the predicament of corruption in politics. The judgment was delivered
to counter criminalization in politics, and it was not allowed to meet its objective.

II.3.2 That a binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective

62. It is pleaded before this Court that the Central Government of Lindiya has not shown
due regard and deference to this Honble Courts judgment of July 10, 2013 by seeking to
reverse and nullify the effect of the same by way of an Amendment.88
63. In the case of S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. v. The State of Mysore,89 this Honble Court has
observed that It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding
judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any
legislative power, by enacting a provision which in substance over-rules such judgment and is
not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the
judgment, and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject
sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect.90
64. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the by making a retrospective amendment act,
the government cannot overturn the judgment of the Court.

II.3.3 That the legislation is a colourable legislation

65. To test the true nature and character of the impugned legislation , on the ground of
colourable legislation, the court should be directed towards examining (a) the effect of the
legislation, and (b) the object, the purpose or design thereof.91
66. It is humbly submitted that the real object of the Act is only to overturn the judgment
rendered by this Honble Court by seeking to ensure that a convicted person, who by reason
85
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, AIR 1970 SC 192.
86
Ibid.
87
Factsheet, 14.
88
Ibid.
89
S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. v. The State of Mysore, 1995 SCC (6) 16.
90
S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. v. The State of Mysore, 1995 SCC (6) 16 12.
91
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Milla, AIR 1977 SC 2279.
12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

of such conviction ceases to be an elector, as defined in the Act in relation to the constituency
to mean a person whose name is entered in electoral rolls of the constituency for the time
being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16
of the 1950 Act, continues to be an elector and thus, still be able to contest elections.
67. When power is exercised in bad faith to attain ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of
power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal, it is called a colorable
exercise of power.92 When the custodian of power is influenced in exercise of its power by
considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the action becomes
bad for the reason that power has not been exercised bona fide for the end design.93
68. It is therefore submitted, that since the government exercised its power only to
overturn the judgment, it lacked an element of bona fide. The goal was only to provide a
passage to convicts of certain offences to mainstream electoral politics. The impugned
amendment act, therefore, is a piece of colorable legislation.
69. Thereby, it is submitted before this Honble Court that the impugned amendment act
cannot overturn the landmark judgment of this Honble Court of July 10, 2013.

II.4 THAT THE AMENDMENT ACT MAKES AN ATTEMPT TO PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW

II.4.1. That the government has made an attempt to preclude judicial review
70. Judicial review is the process by which the courts decide whether action of
government officials comply with the Constitution,94 and the power of judicial review is
implicit in a written Constitution.95 It is the power of the Courts to pass upon the
constitutionality of actions taken by any of the co-ordinate branches of government.
71. Judicial review in India deals with three aspects- judicial review of legislative action,
judicial review of judicial decision and judicial review of administrative action.96
72. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,97 it was held that the Constitution has created
an independent judiciary which is vested with the power of judicial review to determine the
validity of legislation, which aims to protect citizens from abuse or misuse of power by any
branch of the State.

92
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 4.
93
Ibid.
94
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 3, 8th ed. 2012, p. 3764.
95
A.K. Kaul v.Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1403, 12.
96
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 55.
97
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

73. The legislature may seek to preclude judicial review, in whole or in part, wither by
direct words, such as final or conclusive98 or indirectly.99 It is submitted that the
legislature by way of amendment act has precluded judicial review by way of 4 in the
amendment which states that Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree
or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have
effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times.
74. It is hereby submitted that by this clause in the amendment act, the government tries
to preclude judicial review. Hence, due to this attempt of the government, it is submitted that
the amendment act should be rendered unconstitutional.

II.4.2 That the consequence of restriction to judicial review is unconstitutionality

75. Any legislative attempt to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article
32100 or of a High Court under Article 226,101 by any device- direct or indirect- would be
struck down as unconstitutional.102.
76. The power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution on the
Supreme Court and the High Courts are an integral part and essential feature of the
Constitution,103 being part of its basic structure.104 Therefore the power of the Supreme Court
and the High Courts to test the constitutionality of legislation can never be ousted or
excluded, even by a provision in the Constitution.105
77. The scope of review under Article 14 will be wider since arbitrariness or unfairness is
regarded as an independent ground of interference under Article 14, 106 and subsequently, if
the finality clause does not rest on any reasonable classification, it would constitute an
arbitrary discrimination.107
78. It has been put forth before this Honble Court that there is no reasonable
classification in the impugned amendment act. A statutory finality clause would also be

98
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Y.V. Chandrachud & S.S. Subbramani & V.R.
Manohar & B.P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 1, 8th ed. 2012, p. 915.
99
Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, 203.
100
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
101
Rajkrishna v. Binod, AIR 1954 SC 202 18.
102
Supra 74 at 1227.
103
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861 7.
104
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, 135-136.
105
Supra 72.
106
Srinivasa v. Veeraiah, (1992) 3 SCC 63, 7.
107
Supra 74 at 1227.
14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

unconstitutional if it offends against a substantive provision of the Constitution such as

Article 14. 108
79. It is humbly, submitted that since the legislature attempted to preclude the amendment
act from judicial review by incorporating a finality cause by way of 4 of the amendment, it
does not pass the test of constitutionality on this ground too, hence it is not good in the eyes
of law.

108
Supra 98.
15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 7TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that this Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

That the Lindiyan Representation of the Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2013 is unconstitutional and consequentially strike down the Lindiyan Representation of the
Citizens (Amendment and Validation) Act.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS