TEAM CODE: P-05

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Before,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION NUMBER 2006/2025
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

YOUNG LEADERS….…………………………………………………...…..PETITIONER
V.

PRESIDENT AND UNION OF INDIA……..……………………….……..RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH
WRIT PETITION NUMBER 2007/2025
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MR. CHULBUL CHOUDHARY………………………………………..…..PETITIONER

V.

PRESIDENT AND UNION OF INDIA…………………………………….RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................1

LIST OF ABBREVIATION....................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .....................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...........................................................................................10

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

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................14

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1. & And

2. § Section

3. ¶ Paragraph

4. Art Article

5. Ors Others

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C 399. .............................. 3

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 ................................................................. 3

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802 ............................................. 3

BALCO Employees‟ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333 ............................ 3

Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 3796.7

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, A.I.R 2011 S.C. 1267. ....................... 8

Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, A,I.R. 1951 S.C. 41 ............................................ 4

Director of Endowments v. Akram Ali, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 60. .................................................... 2

Gulabrao Keshavrao Dhole v. Pandurang, A.I.R. 1957 Bombay 266 ...................................... 6

P.V.Narsimha Rao v. State (C.B.I./S.P.E), A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2120 ............................................ 3

People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 399. ............................ 7

R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 119 ...................................................................... 3

Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549............................................ 6

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of

Bengal, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1236. ............................................................................................. 7

See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 ........................................................... 3

See State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 865 .............................................................. 3

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2677..................................................... 1

Statutes

Constitution of India, Art. 352(3). ............................................................................................. 3

Constitution of India, Art.361 .................................................................................................... 2

Constitution of India, Art.53. ..................................................................................................... 1

Constitution of India, Art.60. ..................................................................................................... 5

Constitution of India, Art.79 ...................................................................................................... 1

Constitution of India, Art.85 ...................................................................................................... 1

Constitution of India, Arts. 105-106 .......................................................................................... 2

Part V, Constitution of India. ..................................................................................................... 3

Art.19(1) (a), Constitution of India ............................................................................................ 3

Other Authorities

Manual of Parliamentary Procedures in the Government of India ............................................ 6

Constitutional Provisions

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 2145 (4th ed. 1993) - “We have adopted a model ,
for the President and the two houses to constitute the parliament. Other provisions to be
noticed presently emphasize the fact that the functions discharged by the queen as a part of
the legislature, are discharged by the president as the part of the legislature.” ................... 2

Part V, Chapter I of the Constitution deals with the Executive, while Part V, Chapter II deals
with the Parliament thereby, clearly demarcating their respective roles ............................... 2

Books

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 4496 (8th ed. 2008). ................... 7

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India ................................................................................ 2

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The Petitioners have come under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court of India has jurisdiction in this matter under this Article which reads as;

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The 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 the rights
conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 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 except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution”

This memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the Petitioners in the given
cases.

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.In the year 2022, the All India Democratic Alliance (AIDA) Government consisting of 13
political parties came to power at the Centre with slender margin by winning 276 seats in the
Lok Sabha elections. One of it’s key constituents, the Janta Democratic Party (JDP) won 35
out of the 40 Lok Sabha seats from Tamil Nadu. After hectic lobbying, the Prime Minister Mr.
Khamosh Singh agreed to give the JDP three crucial cabinet berths – Surface Transport and
Shipping, Civil Aviation and Information Technology. It was also decided by the Prime
Minister, that since the JDP remained unhappy with the number of ministers inducted, they
would field a JDP candidate for the Presidential elections due in 2023.

2. After arriving at a political consensus, the AIDA announced in March 2023 that for the May
2023 Presidential elections, its candidate would be the senior JDP leader Mr. Aiyyoabba. In
the Presidential elections that followed, Mr. Aiyyoabba was elected the President of the
Republic of India.

3. In the year 2025, India witnessed its biggest scams unfold. The Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG), Mr. Elendil Machado in a press communiqué dated 25.08.2025 stated
that M/s. Shady Interests Ltd., a company predominantly owned by JDP leaders had illegally
benefited from the Union of India’s policies. The CAG estimated that the loss on account of
such illegal and corrupt practices was estimated at a mind boggling Rs. 2, 00, 00, 00, 2 00, 00,
00, 000/-. Most of this loss, according to the press release, was on account of the allegation that
the President of India had used his discretionary powers to grant tax exemptions and other
benefits to three major ports developed by M/s. Shady Interests Ltd. The press release also
stated that the Minister of Surface Transport and Shipping, Mr. Katpadi was also involved in
the multibillion scam. The release made it clear that the detailed report would be ready with all
evidence within a few weeks.

4. The Young Leaders Collective, a political party with 38 members in the Lok Sabha launched
a campaign to expose corruption and promote transparency. It started holding consultations
with a range of other Opposition parties to enact a law to curb corruption. It also demanded
that the President should resign immediately in the wake of the allegations or else it would,
along with other political parties, bring an appropriate motion in the Parliament to impeach the
President.

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

5. Meanwhile, a social activist Mr. Chulbul Choudhary, who had been on a crusade against
corruption, declared that unless his version of the Janpal Bill, 2025 were tabled in the Monsoon
session of the Parliament to begin on 10.09.2025, he would begin a fast-unto-death. It may be
noted that the Young Leaders Collective had certain reservations about the Janpal Bill proposed
by Mr. Chulbul Choudhary.

6. In the Cabinet Meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on 27.08.2025 it was decided no draft
from any civil society member would be entertained, and that the Government would formulate
a law on the subject after holding consultations with all political parties. The press release
issued after the Cabinet Meeting stated that the Government had decided to indefinitely defer
the next session of the Parliament.

7. The CAG submitted it’s report on the Port’s scam to the President on 30.08.2025. However,
after being under severe criticism for revealing some of the details of the report earlier through
a press communiqué, CAG decided not to make contents of the report public.

8. By a joint letter addressed to the President of India., Mr. Chulbul Choudhary, the Young
Leaders Collective and six other opposition political parties demanded that the report of the
CAG dated 30.08.2025 be made public and be laid before the Parliament. They also demanded
that the President immediately call the Parliament into session. By a separate letter Mr. Chulbul
Choudhary and his supporters demanded that their draft of the Janpal Bill be considered by the
Cabinet, and in the event it is rejected, the same be introduced in the LokSabha for
consideration. By a press release dated 02.09.2025, the President of India rejected all demands
made by them and also stated that his decision was supported by a number of constitutional
experts and senior lawyers of the Supreme Court of India.

9. The Young Leaders Collective filed a petition being WP No. 2006/2025 before the Supreme
Court of India praying that a suitable direction be issued to the President to call the Parliament
into session urgently and also, table the CAG report before the Parliament and sought an
appropriate relief against the President. Mr. Chulbul Choudhary also filed a similar petition
being WP No.2007/2025 with an additional prayer that a direction is issued to the Union
Cabinet to consider his version of the Janpal Bill and in the event it does not accept it, place
his draft Bill before the Lok Sabha for consideration and seek appropriate relief against the
President.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WRIT PETITIONS WP 2006/2025 & WP 2007/2025 ARE

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS COURT.

2. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO DIRECT

THE SUMMONING OF THE PARLIAMENT.

3. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT CAN DIRECT THE UNION

CABINET TO CONSIDER THE JAN PAL BILL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
PLACE IT BEFORE THE LOK SABHA.

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WRIT PETITIONS WP 2006/2025 & WP 2007/2025 ARE MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THIS COURT.

The Petitioner humbly submits that W.P. 2006/2025 is maintainable before this court. The
enforcement of rights vide Article 32 of the Constitution of India is contingent upon the
fact that violations should be by the State. The Petitioner submits that in the instant petition
the President may be considered as „State‟ under Article 12 of the Constitution. Any
immunity vested in the President by virtue of Article 361 does not apply to the instant case.
Alternatively, even if the President is immune by virtue of Article 361, the Government of
India would still be accountable for the actions of the President.

2. THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO SUMMON THE

PARLIAMENT AT THE EARLIEST AND THE REPORT OF THE C.A.G.
SHOULD BE TABLED.

The Petitioner in W.P. 2006/2025 requests the Hon’ble Court to direct the President of
India to summon the Parliament at the earliest and table the C.A.G. Report in relation to
the Port’s Scam. The basis of this request is firstly, that the deferral of the Parliament
substantially violates the right to know of the Petitioner established above. Secondly, under
Article 151 the President is bound to produce the report in the Parliament and; lastly, it is
within the power of this Hon’ble Court to issue directions to the President.

3. THE UNION CABINET MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE JANPAL BILL

AND IF IT IS NOT ACCEPTED THEN IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE THE
PARLIAMENT.

The Union Cabinet should be directed to consider the Jan Pal Bill and in the event it is not
accepted, the Bill should be placed before the Lok Sabha. Firstly, the drafting of a bill by
the Government and its subsequent deliberation by the Cabinet is not a legislative function.
Secondly, the Union Cabinet’s decision to not consider the Jan Pal Bill proposed by the
Petitioner violates the principles of participatory democracy that have been read into the
Constitution.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WRIT PETITIONS WP 2006/2025 & WP 2007/2025 ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THIS COURT.

[1.1] WRIT PETITION, W.P. 2006/2025 DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO

SUMMON THE PARLIAMENT IS MAINTAINABLE.
The Petitioner humbly submits that W.P. 2006/2025 is maintainable before this court. The
enforcement of rights vide Article 32 of the Constitution of India is contingent upon the fact
that violations should be by the State.1 The Petitioner submits that in the instant petition the
President may be considered as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Any immunity
vested in the President by virtue of Article 361 does not apply to the instant case. Alternatively,
even if the President is immune by virtue of Article 361, the Government of India would still
be accountable for the actions of the President.
[1.1.1] The President for the purposes of the present writ petition comes within the
purview of ‘State’
However, the Parliament of India is not answerable for violations of Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution on account of parliamentary privileges that constitutionally vest with the
Parliament. The rationale of the court in such cases has been based on preserving the autonomy
of the Parliament as an institution in relation to its powers, privileges and immunities. With the
exception of provisions relating to parliamentary privilege, any other function carried out by
the Parliament would be deemed to come under the purview of “State” action.
It is a principle of statutory interpretation that headings within a statute serve the purpose of
placing similar groups of provisions in exclusive categories. The President of India is vested
with the executive power of the Union.2 However, vide separate headings, the Constitution
clearly separates the role of the Executive from that of the Parliament. With respect to the
Parliament, the President acts as the third wing besides the two houses.3 Under the heading
“Parliament” in Part V, Chapter II of the Constitution, a further distinction exists in the form
of general and specific provisions. Summoning of the Parliament,4 is a part of the general

1
The term “State” has been understood in the terms of art.12. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2005
S.C. 2677.
2
Constitution of India, Art.53.
3
Constitution of India, Art.79.
4
Constitution of India, Art.85.

1
provisions in the context of the Parliament. Further, “Privileges and Immunities” of the
Parliament are dealt with under a separate head, as a specific provision.5
In light of principles mentioned above, a twofold assertion is made. Firstly, it is asserted that
the role of the President in relation to the Executive is separate from him being a wing of the
Parliament. Secondly, the summoning of Parliament by the President would not be construed
as having been exercised as a privileged power of the Parliament but as a general administrative
action. Thus, it is submitted that the President’s functions should be considered within the
purview of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
[1.1.2] The immunity under Article 361 does not apply to this petition.
The President of India is immune from being answerable to any court in exercise of his official
duties and functions as prescribed in law.6 The rationale being that such immunity does not
extend beyond executive powers of the President under the Constitution, to actions made by
him under a different capacity held by him ex officio. A distinction has to be drawn between
the exercise of powers of the President under Part V, Chapter II and Part V, Chapter I of the
Constitution.7 The former deals with the powers of the President to summon the Parliament in
his capacity as the third wing of the Parliament.8 On the other hand, the latter deals with powers
of the President in exercise of his functions as the Head of State of the Union of India.
In light of the arguments advanced, it is urged that this immunity conferred vests only in
relation to the executive acts of the President as the head of state and not as a wing of
Parliament. Thus, in the instant matter the indefinite suspension of the Parliament would not
be immune under Article 361(1) and liable to judicial scrutiny.
[1.1.3] The Petitioners, Young Leaders Collective have locus standi to file this writ
petition.
Locus standi demands that the fundamental right that has been allegedly violated must be
vested with the Petitioner.9 The right of the citizen to know and receive information in matters

5
Constitution of India, Arts. 105-106.
6
Constitution of India, Art.361.
7
Part V, Chapter I of the Constitution deals with the Executive, while Part V, Chapter II deals with the
Parliament thereby, clearly demarcating their respective roles.
8
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 2145 (4th ed. 1993) - “We have adopted a model , for the President
and the two houses to constitute the parliament. Other provisions to be noticed presently emphasize the fact that
the functions discharged by the queen as a part of the legislature, are discharged by the president as the part of
the legislature.”
9
Director of Endowments v. Akram Ali, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 60.

2
of public concern has been read as a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.10
There is a right to know vested in citizens qua affairs of determination of policy by the
Government elected by them. The right has been given wider amplitude in relation to a Member
of Parliament as Article 105(1) is not subject to limitations under Article 19(2).11
The Petitioners in W.P. 2006/2025 are members of Parliament in whom the right to know vests.
Since they are members of parliament, such a right extends to the actions taken by the
government in relation to the Port’s scam. This right has been violated by the indefinite deferral
of the Parliament session. This right has to be considered of utmost importance as these
members of Parliament are elected representatives who in turn have a responsibility towards
the citizens that have elected them.
Hence, it is asserted that the Petitioners have locus standi to file the present petition.

[1.2] A WRIT DIRECTING THE CABINET TO CONSIDER THE JAN PAL BILL IS
MAINTAINABLE

[1.2.1] The Union Cabinet is ‘State’ under Article 12.

The Council of Ministers is established under the Constitution as a part of the Union of India.12
The Union Cabinet consists of ministers of Cabinet Rank appointed under Article 75 of the
Constitution. 13 It assumes central position of governance in a constitutional democracy
because, it is the place where: (a) the final determination of the policy to be submitted to the
Parliament is undertaken; (b) the supreme control of the national executive lies; (c) the balance
of forces emerge if there is agreement.14 Therefore, the Cabinet exercises authority in the name
of Government of India which is State for the purposes of Article 12.
[1.2.2] The Petitioner in the instant case has locus standi to file this writ petition
Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress
for public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of
the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such

10
See Art.19(1) (a), Constitution of India; See State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 865; See also S. P.
Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4
S.C.C 399.
11
See P.V.Narsimha Rao v. State (C.B.I./S.P.E), A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2120 at ¶26.
12
See Part V, Constitution of India.
13
See Constitution of India, Art. 352(3).
14
R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 119 at ¶27.

3
constitutional or legal provision.15 In the instances related to corruption, the SC has stated that
there exists locus standi keeping in mind that corruption does touch upon public interest.
Corruption per se violates the principles enshrined as fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. The Petitioner here seeks bona fide redressal from the Court as a public
spirited citizen against the actions of the President and the Union Cabinet which prima facie
indicate poor governance against corruption. This is tantamount to violation of Fundamental
Rights. Thus, the Petitioner has locus standi in the present case.

2. THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO SUMMON THE

PARLIAMENT AT THE EARLIEST AND THE REPORT OF THE C.A.G. SHOULD
BE TABLED.
The Petitioner in W.P. 2006/2025 requests the Hon’ble Court to direct the President of India
to summon the Parliament at the earliest and table the C.A.G. Report in relation to the Port’s
Scam. The basis of this request is firstly, that the deferral of the Parliament substantially
violates the right to know of the Petitioner established above. Secondly, under Article 151 the
President is bound to produce the report in the Parliament and lastly, it is within the power of
this Hon’ble Court to issue directions to the President.

[2.1] FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE YOUNG LEADERS COLLECTIVE HAS

BEEN VIOLATED
For seeking directions under Article 32, the Petitioner must possess the right allegedly
infringed and have a direct and tangible interest.16 It has been established above that a greater
“right to know” vests in the Petitioners in the present case.17 Non-summoning of the parliament
in light of the present exigencies persisting in the country as well as the non-tabling of the CAG
report are prima facie indicative of shirking off accountability before the Parliament. The
allegations herein are against the President of India and a Union Cabinet Minister, who by
virtue of the Constitution are accountable to the Parliament. Good governance principles
empower Members of Parliament to seek reasons behind governmental actions. The deferral
of the Parliamentary session is violative of the right to know of these Members which itself is
the violation of the Constitution.

15
See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149; See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802; BALCO Employees‟ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333.
16
Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, A,I.R. 1951 S.C. 41 at ¶81.
17
See supra note 11 at p. 13

4
[2.2] THE PRESIDENT HAS ESCAPED FROM HIS DUTY TO TABLED CAG
REPORT

The Article 151 (1) states that

“The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India relating to the accounts of the
Union shall be submitted to the President, who shall cause them to be laid before each House
of Parliament.
As the Article clearly states that the reports relating to the accounts of Union is to be submitted
to the President, who must place the same before each House of Parliament. In the present case
the President has escaped from his duty as he did not presented the report before either House
of Parliament which leads to the violation of the Constitution.
[2.3] THE SUPREME COURT CAN ISSUE A MANDAMUS TO THE PRESIDENT
TO SUMMON THE PARLIAMENT
The President is constitutionally mandated to take an oath in the prescribed format. Under the
said oath, a person, while assuming Presidency, swears to “preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution and the law”.18 Therefore, non-summoning and non-tabling of the CAG report by
the President is a direct contravention of this oath by which the Constitution binds the
President. In the present fact situation the C.A.G. has alleged that losses have occurred due to
misuse of discretionary powers bestowed upon the President to grant tax exemptions. The
allegations also implicated a Union Minister. Moreover, the political parties sought
impeachment proceedings against the President. Consequently, within two days of the
revelations made by the C.A.G. the government indefinitely deferred the Parliament session
due. The circumstances were sufficient for deliberations on accountability by the legislature.
Thus, a reasonable probability exists that the act of deferring the parliamentary session was
done mala fide.
Thus, in the present case, since there is dereliction of duty by the president as well as violation
of fundamental rights, there exists necessary grounds for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and appropriate directions may be given to the office of the
President.

18
Constitution of India, Art.60.

5
3. THAT THE UNION CABINET MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE JANPAL
BILL AND IF IT IS NOT ACCEPTED THEN IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE THE
PARLIAMENT.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Union Cabinet should be
directed to consider the Janpal Bill and in the event it is not accepted, the Bill should be placed
before the Lok Sabha. Firstly, the drafting of a bill by the Government and its subsequent
deliberation by the Cabinet is not a legislative function. Secondly, the Union Cabinet’s decision
to not consider the Jan Pal Bill proposed by the Petitioner violates the principles of
participatory democracy that have been read into the Constitution.

[3.1] THE ‘CONSIDERATION’ OF A BILL BY THE UNION CABINET

CONSTITUTES AN ‘EXECUTIVE FUNCTION’ AND THEREFORE, DIRECTIONS
MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the term “legislative function”
indicates the function of the legislature in laying down the law which will govern parties and
transactions.19 It is a clear position of law that under its writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
cannot issue directions to either the executive or the legislature while they perform legislative
functions. However, regarding the introduction of bills, the legislative procedure is said to
commence from the moment when the bill originates in either house of the parliament. 20
Executive function on the other hand comprises the determination of governmental policy and
then, the execution of the same. Inter alia, executive functions are inclusive of the process of
initiation of legislation.21 The process of initiation of legislation comprises all stages involved
before a bill is placed on the floor of any house of the Parliament. Approval and consideration
by the Union Cabinet is involved in the process of the initiation of legislation.22 Therefore, any
directions issued to the Union Cabinet would be within the power of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

19
Gulabrao Keshavrao Dhole v. Pandurang, A.I.R. 1957 Bombay 266.
20
See Constitution of India, Part V.
21
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549 at ¶13.
22
Manual of Parliamentary Procedures in the Government of India, ¶9.5 (2004).

6
[3.2] THE REJECTION OF THE VERSION PLACED BY THE PETITIONER
VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Constitution has embodied
the principle of democracy as of the people, by the people, for the people. True democracy
cannot be said to exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity
23
of the country. Furthermore, participatory democracy has been read to be a part of our
constitution.24

It is also submitted that the scope of interpretation of the principles enshrined in the constitution
may be expanded as to the requirement. This becomes more important where the Constitution
is silent with respect to a lacuna in the law.25 Initiatives from publicly spirited citizens/bodies
in the legislative processes have been accepted with regard to change in statutes. Precedents in
foreign positions of law may be adopted for guidance in principle to supplement the lacunae in
law. For instance the European Commission allows its citizens to take the initiative of inviting
the former to submit proposals on matters where citizens consider there is need for an EU act
in order to implement the Treaties. This allows the political system to be more responsive
towards individual. In the same context it may be said that the involvement of interest based
organizations in policymaking is not a novelty in India.26

It is submitted further that the non-consideration of the Petitioner’s draft by the Government
violates his participation in effective policy-making. The draft merely forms a suggestive
policy and is in no way binding upon the government. The government should therefore, at
least consider the draft and put forth its suggestions before the Parliament. In the instant case,
neither is the suggestions being considered by the Union Cabinet nor has the draft been placed
before the Parliament for its independent deliberation. It is submitted therefore that the stand
of the Union Cabinet that no suggestions would be considered from the civil society violates
the principles of participatory democracy.

23
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, A.I.R.
1995 S.C. 1236.
24
Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 3796.
25
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 4496 (8th ed. 2008).
26
People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 399.

7
[3.3] IF THE CABINET DOES NOT ACCEPT THE JANPAL BILL, THEN THE
SAID DRAFT MAY BE LAID BEFORE THE LOK SABHA.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the scenario that the
Government does not accept the bill in the pre-legislative stages, the aforementioned violations
of Constitutional principles would persist. The purpose behind placing the bill for consideration
before the Union Cabinet is to allow for suggestions as the latter may deem fit. However, the
end of effective parliamentary democracy in the instant case can only be achieved through
deliberation before the Parliament. Any draft tabled by the Union Cabinet is merely reflective
of the legislative policy of the incumbent government. In the instant case, aspersions have been
cast on the integrity of members of the Union Cabinet and thus, any legislative policy without
involving all participants would be violative of the principles of participatory democracy as
submitted above. It is imperative that the suggestions brought forth by the civil society need to
be placed before the Parliament. It is submitted that although such directions may be without
precedent, the Hon’ble Court has observed that the menace of corruption cannot be permitted
to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities.27 Therefore, the petitioner humbly requests
this court to issue directions to table the draft Jan Pal Bill before the Lok Sabha if the Union
Cabinet refuses to make the Bill a part of its legislative policy.

27
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, A.I.R 2011 S.C. 1267.

8
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, may this Hon’ble court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Both the writ petitions being heard before this Hon’ble Court are maintainable.

2. The President of India should be directed to summon the Parliament at the earliest and the
report of the C.A.G. should be tabled.

3. The Union Cabinet may be directed to consider the Jan Pal Bill and in the event the former
is not accepted then it may be placed before the Parliament.

And pass any other order in favour of the Appellants that it may deem fit, pursuant to the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

Sd/-

(Counsels for the Petitioners)

14