MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE :

MARATH WADA MITRA MANDAL’S

SHANKARRAO CHAVAN LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

‘Justice P.B.Sawant Fourth National Moot Court Competition 2016 – 2017’

26th & 27th February 2017

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS LAND

1) VIJAY MOHAN ( PETITIONER)

VS

1) HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOKSABHA

2) RAM SINGH & OTHERS ( RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT

OF THE HON’BLE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS LAND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT – SPEAKER LOK SABHA

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................3

B] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................6

C] STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................7

D] STATEMENT OF ISSUES............................................................................8

E] SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS......................................................................9

F] ARGUMENT ADVANCED.........................................................................10

G] PRAYER FOR RELIEF...............................................................................15

A] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

A. TABLE OF CASES

Sr. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

No.
1. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 621=
1978 AIR 597
2. Ganpati Keshavram Reddy V. Nafisul AIR. 1954 S.C.636
Hussan
3. I.C.Golaknath Vs State of Punjab 1967 AIR 1643, 1967
SCR (2) 762
4. P.V. Narsimha Rao vs State (Cbi/Spe)
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

B. TREATISES, BOOKS, REPORTS AND DIGESTS

Sr. NAME OF BOOK EDITION NAME OF

No. THE
AUTHOR
1. Constitution of India 7th Edition Noshirvan N.
Jhabvala
2. Constitution of India J.N.Pande
3. Indian Penal Code Bare Act

C. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Petitioner for the purposes of this memorandum shall stand for ‘VIJAAY
MOHAN’.

2. Respondent for the purposes of this memorandum shall stand for

‘HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOKSABHA.

D. DYNAMIC LINKS

1. www.indiankanoon.org

2. www.barcouncilofindia.org

3. www.google.com

B] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Art. 32 Remedies for enforcement of right conferred by this part. (

Constitution of India)

1. Right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of the right conferred by this part is guaranteed.

2. Supreme court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,

including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of

3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses

(1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within
the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court under clause (2).

4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended excepts as

otherwise provided for by this constitution.

C] STATEMENT OF FACTS
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Indus land is federal, democratic country having parliamentary form of

government.

2. Mr.Ram Singh is presently representing at Bharatpur constituency in Lok

Sabha and he belong to democratic party.( National and Ruling party)

3. Bharatpur is an industrial hub or historical place and there are visited

millions of people around the world.

4. Democratic party promised many developing projects, when there are come
in power in his hand . The power come in his hand and the democratic party
promised established the Airport at bharatpur and they are declare the suitable
place at Bharatpur.

5. Ram Singh was not happy with decision of the airport authority as in his
opinion compensation offered by the government for the acquisition of fertile
land of farmers was insufficient.

6. The meeting was held with members of parliament but the difference of
opinions resulted in exchange of heated words and the meeting ended without
any conclusion.

7. After few months, Ram Singh was opposed the workers when senior
officers of airport authority and district magistrate are visited the place.

8. Mr.Vijay Mohan is an investigation journalist and he was published one

article in the newspaper subject to “ Lok Sevak or Dhan Sevak Some Untold
Stories of Corruption by the Name” and he also wrote, ‘Ram Singh was
opposed to the airport near bharatpur because Ram Singh had taken
considerable amount of money to help his friend for establishing a sugar
factory and a winery in proposed Airport land.

9. Ram Singh given notice of ‘Contempt of Parliamentary Privileges’ to

speaker of Lok Sabha against Vijay Mohan and editor and sing 42 members of
parliament who are directly or indirectly included in name of article.

10. Speaker has appoint a committee and committees investigation held that
Vijay Mohan guilty of Contempt of Privileges and recommended a
punishment simple imprisonment for four days.

11. Speaker directed the arrest of Vijay Mohan. He was arrested and without
producing him before the Magistrate, was directly sent to Bharatpur Central
Jail.

12.Now due to the inappropriate proceeding of parliament regarding to arrest of

Vijay Mohan can file this writ petition in Hon’ble Federal Court of Indusland.

D] STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 1. Whether the Federal Court of Indus land has jurisdiction to entertain
the petition?

ISSUE 2. Whether the decision of speaker to punish Vijay Mohan violates the
principles of Fair Play and Natural Justice?

ISSUE 3. Whether the arrest of Vijay Mohan and his non production before
Magistrate violates provision of the Constitution?

ISSUE 4. Whether the Member of Parliament alleged to be involved in

corruption can avail the protection of Parliamentary Privileges?

E] SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[ Summary of Arguments ]

1)

F] ARGUMENT IN ADVANCED
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUES 1. Whether the Federal Court of Indus land has jurisdiction to

entertain the petition?

1)Art.122 lies down that the Validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be
called in question in any court. No officer or Member of Parliament who has
authority to regulate the procedure or the conduct of business in subject to the
Jurisdiction of any court in respect of the powers exercise by them.

2)Because, in case of OC. Subramanian V/s Speaker of Madras Legislative

Assembly.

In this case High Court would not issue prohibition to retrain the committee of
Privileges to consider a privilege matter. A High Court would not issue a Writ under
Art.226 to a House of Parliament or the Speaker or any of its officers to restrain the
House from sending any Legislation even if it may be ultra virus Parliament.

Again, the court would not interfere with the legislative process in a House, either in
the formative stage of Law making or others.

Further, the Presiding officer of the House is required to make rules & contravention
of these rules may be trilled breach of the privilege of the House & be punished
accordingly.

3)In Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhi V/s Raj Narayan (AIR 1975 SC2299).

In this case held that the courts cannot go into the question as to the validity of the
proceedings in the House of Parliament.

4) After 44th Amendment Act 1978.

The Parliament has power to punish a person, whether its member or outsider, for its
‘Contempt’or ‘Breach of Privileges’. A House can impose the Punishment in the
form of time & imprisonment.

On April 22,1984 itself in conference of presiding officer of legislative, bodies a

resolution that the legislatures had “Exclusive Jurisdiction” to decide all matters,
relating to the privilege committees without any interfere from court of law.
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 2. Whether the decision of speaker to punish Vijay Mohan violates the
principles of Fair Play and Natural Justice?

1) It does not violates the principle of Fair Play & Natural Justice because,
A House has power to punish a person, whether its members or outsider, for its
‘Contempt’ or ‘Breach of Privilege’. A House can impose the punishment in the
form of imprisonment or Fine.
2) In this case it was decide comments in newspaper or statement made by
individuals casting reflections on the proceedings of the House or on the Character
or conduct either of the member collectively or of individual member,& thereby
lowering prestige in the eyes of the public.

The right of the House to punish for its contempt in name to the right of a
Superior Court to punish for its contempt. So, that it in for the House to decide
whether any particular amounts to its or not.
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 3. Whether the arrest of Vijay Mohan and his non production before
Magistrate violates provision of the Constitution?

The arrest of Vijay Mohan & his non production before Magistrate does not violates
provisions of the constitution because,

Has, earlier stated in front of this Honble court that,

The Preceding officers of the House are required to make rules & contraction of
those rules may be treated as breach of the privilege of the House & be punish
accordingly. So, there is no chance of Vijay Mohan to produce before Magistrate,

Again Art.122 lays down that the validity of any proceeding in Parliament cannot be
called in question in Any Court.

In, Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhi V/s Raj Narayan (AIR 1975 SC 2299),

In this case held that the courts cannot go into the question as to the validity of the
proceedings in the House of Parliament.

Again, in Kesavnanda Bharati V/s State of Kerala, the judges of Supreme Court have
enumerated certain essentials of structure. So, according to
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 4. Whether the Member of Parliament alleged to be involved in

corruption can avail the protection of Parliamentary Privileges?

1) No any Member of Parliament alleged to be emulated in corruption can avail the

protection of Parliamentary Privileges.
2) Each, House of Parliament has a committee of Privileges to advise it in matters its
powers, privileges & unanimities.
In Sinha Case, Lok sabha (1952),
Comments in newspapers or statement made by individuals casting reflection
on the character or conduct Lehar of the members collectively or Individual
members & thereby lowering their prestige in the eyes of public.
3) But, my client has no umlauted in corruption so, there is no chance of this
protection of Parliamentary privileges.
Committee of Privileges was not concluded or notified by the evidence produce
by Vijay Mohan & found that he had imldimtarpreted facts in dramatic way no as
to enable to attract the attention of the people
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

G] PRAYER
In the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, issues presented
for consideration, argument advanced and authorities cited, the petitioner prays
before this Hon’ble Federal Court

A] Pass a order for interpret the case correctly and make proper investigation
in matters of corruption of members of parliament.

B] Speaker can arrested and punish to Vijay Mohan directly without presented
before Magistrate is violated the fundamental right under Art22 and such a
power is a judicial not a legislature. Give proper action agents speaker of lok
sabha.

AND PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTICE AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNCIL FOR THE PETITIONER

SHALL DUTY TO BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

Sd/-
(Council for the Petitioner)