[Type text]

[TC-66]

RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2016

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS

In the matter of:

Animal Welfare Board of Westeros…………………………………………………Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Union of Westeros………………………………………………………...Respondent No.1

2. State of Lannisport………………………………………………………..Respondent No. 2

CLUBBED WITH

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2016

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS

In the matter of:

House of Lannisters………………..…………………………………………………Petitioner

VERSUS

Animal Welfare Board of Westeros………………………………………………..Respondent

TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF WESTEROS AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON‟BLE
SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS

-MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS-

 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS- ..................................................................................................... III

-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-........................................................................................................ V

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION- ............................................................................................ IX

-STATEMENT OF FACTS- ........................................................................................................... X

-ISSUES RAISED- .................................................................................................................... XII

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS- .............................................................................................. XIII

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

A. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS. ................................................................................................. 1

A.1 INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 ... 1

A.2 BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CAMELS. ............................................................. 2

A.3 LOCUS STANDI IS NO BAR TO FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS ARTICLE. ................................. 2

A.4 EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES NOT A BAR TO FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS
ARTICLE. .................................................................................................................................. 3

B. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY HOUSE OF LANNISTERS IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
WESTEROS. ................................................................................................................................ 4

B.1 INSTANT PETITION MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION ............................................................................................................. 4

B.2 BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LANNISTERS. ....................................................... 5

B.3 LOCUS STANDI AND EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY ARE NO BAR. ....................... 6

B.4 CLUBBING OF PETITIONS IS JUSTIFIABLE AND MAINTAINABLE........................................... 6

C. THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND THE

ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID. ............ 6

C.1 ARTICLE 13 RENDERS THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND

FORESTS AND ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR VOID. .......................................... 7

I
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

C.2 THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS IS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS.............................................................................. 8

C.3 THE GOVERNOR LACKS THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO PROMULGATE THE ORDINANCE.
9

C.4 TRANSGRESSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND VALUES. .................................... 10

D. BAN ON OONT DANGAL PREVENTS LANNISTERS FROM ENJOYING THEIR CULTURAL

RIGHTS. .................................................................................................................................... 12

D.1 OONT DANGAL IS A PART OF CULTURE OF LANNISTERS. ................................................. 12

D.2 BAN ON OONT DANGAL VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LANNISTERS............... 12

D.3 OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LANNISTERS. .... 13

-PRAYER- ............................................................................................................................. XVI

II
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

AWBW Animal Welfare Board of Westeros

cl. Clause

CONST. Constitution

HoL House of Lannisters

Hon‟ble Honourable

International Covenant on Civil and Political

ICCPR
Right

International Covenant on Economic, Social and

ICESCR
Cultural Rights

K.B King‟s Bench

MoEF Ministry of Envirinmentary and Forests

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Ors. Others

PCA Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Pg. Page

III
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

sch. Schedule

Sec. Section

Supp Supplementary

UNEP United Nation Environment Programme

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

IV
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-

-CASES-

 A Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 443 .............................................. 8

 A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 ...................................................... 5, 13
 Animal Wefare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547............. 2, 7
 Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498 ..................................................... 9
 B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942 .............................................. 11
 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161...................................... 3
 Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 ..................................... 8
 Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami,
(2008) 5 SCC 339......................................................................................................... 10
 Bishop S.K Patro v State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 259 .................................................. 12
 Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subbra Chakrraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 ........................ 2, 3, 6
 Brahma Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10 ....................................... 10
 Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 ................................................. 11
 C. K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 SCC 626 ....................................................... 10
 Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das,: (2000) 2 SCC 465............................ 2, 6
 Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, (1969) 3 SCC
84.................................................................................................................................. 14
 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1 .................................................... 13
 Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 ........... 3, 6
 Daroga Singh v. B. K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, 46 .................................................. 11
 Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 .................................................... 4
 Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507 ............... 10
 Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, (1999) 8 SCC 229 ....................... 6
 Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 ........................... 11
 Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahbad, AIR 1990 SC 2031 ..... 10
 Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P., (2001) 5 SCC 762 ......................................................... 13
 Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, (1986) 1 SCC 75 ............................................................. 11
 Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 101....................................... 11
 Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 743 ......................................... 10

V
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

 I.N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 750....................................... 10

 In re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 653 ............................................................ 14
 In re Lily, Thomas, AIR 1964 SC 855 .......................................................................... 10
 In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 621 ........................................................ 11
 Indian Airports Employees Union v. Ranjan Chattergee, (1999) 2 SCC 537.............. 10
 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168 ................................................. 10
 Jagdev Singh Sindhanti v Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183 ....................... 12, 13
 Jeri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130 ............................... 13
 K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375 ............................... 9
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 ........................... 11, 13, 14
 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 ......................................... 4
 Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725............................................................ 4
 Krishna Kumar Singh & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, (2017) 3 SCC 1 ............... 9
 Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428 ....................................... 11
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395......................................................... 1
 M.L. Sachdev v. Union of India, (1991) SCC 1 605 ................................................... 10
 Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 50 ......................................... 10
 Madhav Rao v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85 ......................................................... 8
 Mahalkshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 569 .................... 9
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 .................................................. 8
 Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591 ................................................... 14
 Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 442 .................................................... 10
 N. Kannadasan v. Ajay Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1 .......................................................... 11
 Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala, (2007) 4 SCC 1, 29 ...................................... 10
 Nanjundappa R. N. v. Thimmiah T., (1972) 1 SCC 409................................................ 8
 Navnit R. Kamani v. R.R. Kamani, (1988) 4 SCC 655 ............................................... 11
 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 ...................................................... 13
 Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 12 SCC 645 ....................... 10
 People‟s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 .............. 3
 Prem Chand v. Excise Commissioner, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 885 .................................. 13
 R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, (1977) 4 SCC 98 .............................................. 10
 Rajiv Choudhary v. Jagdish Narain Khanna, (1996) 1 SCC 508 ................................. 10

VI
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

 Ram Jawaya Kapur, Rai Sahib v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 ........................... 8
 Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai (2005) 4 SCC 772 ...................................... 13
 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251 ........................ 13
 Ratan Kumar Tandon v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 2 SCC 161 .............................. 9
 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 ..................................................... 11
 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ............................................................ 1
 Sarat Chandra Mishra v. State of Orissa, (2006) 1 SCC 638, 644 ............................... 13
 Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 655 ......................................... 12
 State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah, (2000) 4 SCC 640 .............................................. 11
 State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 ................................................... 14
 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525 ........................................ 14
 State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath, AIR 1989 SC 1133 ................................................ 9
 State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 346....................................................... 8
 State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 537 ...................................................... 11
 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Possu, (1976) 3 SCC 1 ......................................................... 11
 State of West Bengal v .The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571 ........................................................................................... 11
 State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571 ............................................................................................. 8
 Sundar Dass v. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662 ........................................................ 10
 T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198 ............................... 9
 Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584, 634-35 ......................... 11
 Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy, (1986) 1 SCC 675 ................................................ 8
 Union of India v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 696 ......... 8
 Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himmatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193 ....................... 11
 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 .................................................... 9
 Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 ..................................... 14
 Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 753 ................................................ 9
 Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 714 ...................................... 10
 Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2010) 5
SCC 246 ......................................................................................................................... 9

VII
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS-

 INDIA CONST. art. 13, cl. 2 ......................................................................................... 8

 INDIA CONST. art. 142, cl. 1 ....................................................................................... 6
 INDIA CONST. art. 144 .............................................................................................. 10
 INDIA CONST. art. 21 .................................................................................................. 2
 INDIA CONST. art. 248, cl. 1 ....................................................................................... 9
 INDIA CONST. art. 29, cl. 1 ................................................................................... 5, 12
 INDIA CONST. art. 32 .................................................................................................. 1
 INDIA CONST. art. 51 ................................................................................................ 13
 INDIA CONST. art. 52, cl. f ........................................................................................ 14
 INDIA CONST. sch. VII, list I ...................................................................................... 9

-STATUTES-

 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India) ........... 3
-TREATISES-

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 27, Dec. 16, 1966, 999
UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS 407 .............................................................................. 5, 13
 International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993
UNTS 3 / [1976] ATS 5 / 6 ILM 360 ...................................................................... 5, 13

-INTERNATIONAL CASES-

 Mcquaker v. Goddard., [1940] 1 K.B 687 ............................................................................. 2, 7

VIII
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner has approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
apprehension of the violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in our Constitution.
Therefore, the petitioner maintains that the jurisdiction of Article 32 which gives protection
against violation of Fundamental Rights is applicable in the present case.

IX
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-

-BACKGROUND-

Republic of Westeros is a country in South of Essos. It is the home of around 1.2 billion
people having distinct and unique cultural background. Westeros is a Federation with a
parliamentary system government under the constitution of Westeros, which serves as the
supreme legal document by which all other organs derive their powers. Lannisport is a state
in Westeros. It is known for its unique culture and religious practices. The state is composed
mainly of Lannisters, who are in minority. The state is composed largely of Cerseian
speaking population and known for its grand cultural festival called „Harvest Feast‟.

-OONT DANGAL-

„Oont Dangal‟ is a traditional event involving camels held in the state of Lannisport as a part
of Lannisport‟s „Harvest Feast‟. In Oont Dangal, the participants try to embrace the camels.
It is attended mainly by the Rajwadi Camels. Rajwadi camels since ancient days are trained
to fight in battle and are known for their agility and fierceness. Prizes are also announced.
Oont Dangal has been known to be practiced since last 2,000 years. A Seal from Westeros
Valley Civilization depicting the practice is preserved in the National Museum of King‟s
Landing, capital of Westeros, and several 3,500 years-old cave paintings can also be found in
„Cave of Three eyed Crows‟. Oont Dangal is considered as the pride of Lannisport culture.

-THE CONTROVERSY-

Since 2004, Federation of Westeros Animal Protection Agencies (FWAPA) and PETA
Westeros have started protesting against the practice of Oont Dangal. The Animal Board of
Westeros (ABW) filed a case in the Supreme Court of Westeros for an outright ban on Oont
Dangal. It was claimed by the protestors that Oont Dangal exploits the camel‟s natural
nervousness.

In 2010, the Supreme Court permitted the Lannisport government to allow Oont Dangal and
directed the District Collectors to make sure that animals that participate in Oont Dangal are
registered to the Animal Welfare Board the Board would send its representatives to monitor
the event.

X
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a notification in 2011 that banned the use of
camels as performing animals, thereby banning the event. But the practice of Oont Dangal
continued to be held under the Lannisport Regulation of Oont Dangal Act, Act No 35 of
2009. In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down the State law passed by Lannisport
government and banned Oont Dangal altogether further stating that any violations would
bring heavy penalties. The Court also asked the Centre to amend its law on cruelty to animals
to bring camels within its ambit. This witnessed wide-spread protests by youths and
youngsters across the state of Lannisport. The famous Lannisport film super star, Mr. Tyrion
Lannister gave an interview favouring Oont Dangal to a leading national magazine which set
the state of Lannisport on fire and resulted in mass protests across the state.

On January 2016, the Ministry of Environment and Forests through its official notification
permitted the continuation of the tradition under certain conditions, effectively ending the
ban. In addition to this, the Governor of Lannisport also promulgated a special ordinance.

-DISPUTE I-

The Animal Welfare Board of Westeros filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Westeros
challenging the constitutional validity of the notification of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests.

-DISPUTE II-

The Animal Welfare Board of Westeros in its petition also challenged the validity of
ordinance promulgated by the Governor.

-DISPUTE III-

On 14th January, 2016, the Supreme Court of Westeros issued a stay order against the
Notification and also issued notices to Central Government and Government of Lannisport to
seek complete ban on Oont Dangal until final disposal of the present case. On 16th January
2016, the House of Lannisters, an NGO working for preservation of cultural rights of
Lannisters, filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court requesting the court to lift the ban
immediately as it prevents them from enjoying their cultural rights.

XI
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-ISSUES RAISED-

In the case of:

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS V. UNION OF WESTEROS

AND STATE OF LANNISPORT

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the present petition is
maintainable before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notification issued
by Ministry of Environment & Forests constitutionally invalid?

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ordinance
promulgated by the Governor of Lannisport constitutionally invalid?

In the case of:

HOUSE OF LANNISTERS V. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the present petition is
maintainable before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ban on Oont-Dangal
prevents Lannisters from enjoying their cultural rights?

XII
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-

A. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the petition filed by the
petitioner is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation.

Firstly, fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 have been infringed. Secondly, locus
standi is no bar to file a petition under Article 32. Thirdly, the existence of an efficacious and
alternative remedy does not bar the petitioner from filing the petition under this article.
Hence, this petition.

B. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY HOUSE OF LANNISTERS IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

WESTEROS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the petition filed by the
petitioner is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation.

Firstly, fundamental rights enshrined under Article 29 have been infringed. Secondly, locus
standi and the existence of an efficacious and alternative remedy do not bar the petitioner
from filing the petition under Article 32. Lastly, clubbing of petition is justifiable and
maintainable. Hence, this petition.

C. THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND THE

ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the notification issued by the
Ministry of Environment & Forest & the ordinance promulgated by the Governor of
Lannisport is constitutionally invalid.

Firstly, it is void to the extent of contravention under Article 13. Secondly, the notification
issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests is ultra vires the constitution and statutory
provisions. Thirdly, the governor lacks the legislative competence to promulgate the

XIII
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

ordinance regarding the subject matter. Lastly, there has been violation of the Supreme
Court‟s order both by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and by the Governor.

D. BAN ON OONT DANGAL PREVENTS LANNISTERS FROM ENJOYING THEIR CULTURAL

RIGHTS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that a ban on Oont-Dangal
prevents Lannisters from enjoying their cultural rights.

Firstly, Oont-Dangal is a part of culture of Lannisters. Therefore, a ban on Oont-Dangal

violates the fundamental rights of Lannisters under Article 29 of the Constitution. Secondly, it
is an obligation on the State to protect the fundamental rights of Lannisters.

XIV
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

A. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS.

1. The Animal Welfare Board of Westeros (for the brevity hereinafter referred to as
AWBW) herein files the instant petition as Public Interest Litigation (for the brevity
hereinafter referred to as PIL) to challenge the notification of Ministry of Environment and
Forests (for the brevity hereinafter referred to as MoEF) and the ordinance promulgated by
the Governor of the state of Lannisport.

2. The counsel on the behalf of petitioners humbly submits that the instant petition is
maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution [A.1], as there has been breach of fundamental
rights of camels under Art. 21 of the Constitution [A.2]. Additionally, locus standi [A.3] and
existence of alternative remedy [A.4] are no bar to file a petition under this article.

A.1 INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE

32

3. It is humbly submitted that the petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition in
the nature of PIL on behalf of animals under Art. 32 of the Constitution 1. In S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India,2 BHAGWATI, J., observed:
“If public duties are to be enforced and social collective “diffused” rights and interests are to
be protected, we have to utilize the initiative and zeal of public minded persons and
organizations by allowing them to move the Court and act for a general or group interest,
even though, they may not be directly injured in their own rights.”

4. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,3 the Supreme Court explained:

“….This Court under Art. 32(1) is free to device any procedure appropriate for the particular
purpose of the proceeding namely, enforcement of a Fundamental Right and under Art. 32(1)
the court has the implicit power to issue whatever direction, order or writ is necessary in a
given case, including all incidental or ancillary power necessary to secure enforcement of the

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
2
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
3
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.

1
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Fundamental Right.”

5. In the instant case, the instant petition is filed by AWBW, although not for the injury
of its own rights, but for the violation of fundamental rights of camels, which is an act of
general or group interest. Hence, the instant petition is maintainable as PIL under Art. 32 of
the Constitution.

A.2 BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CAMELS.

6. It is averred by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners that every species has a right
to life and security under Art. 21 of the Constitution,4 subject to the law of the land, which
includes depriving its life, out of human necessity.5

7. Also, World Health Organisation of Animal Health, of which India is a member,

internationally recognises five freedoms for animals under its Guidelines. These five
freedoms are for animals like the rights guaranteed to the citizens of India under Part III of
the Constitution of India. One of the five freedoms is the freedom to express normal patterns
of behaviour,6 which is being curbed in the instant case.

8. It is argued that Oont Dangal destroys the natural nervousness of camels. Camel is not
a wild animal in any part of the world, and that a camel is a domestic animal. 7 In Oont
Dangal, camels are trained to not allow strangers to come near them, 8 which destroy their
nature and makes them wild.9 Hence, Oont Dangal is an act of cruelty to camels as it violates
their fundamental rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Westeros.

A.3 LOCUS STANDI IS NO BAR TO FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

9. It is submitted that it is not necessary that the victim of the violation of the
fundamental rights should personally approach the court for redress as the court can itself
take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo moto, or on a petition filed by any public
spirited individual or body.10

4
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
5
Animal Wefare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547.
6
Ibid.
7
Mcquaker v. Goddard., [1940] 1 K.B 687.
8
¶- 3, Pg. 2, Moot Proposition.
9
¶- 2, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition.
10
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subbra Chakrraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490; Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima
Das,: (2000) 2 SCC 465.

2
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

10. In the Asiad case,11 the case was brought before the Supreme Court for violation of
Art. 21 by an organisation devoted to the protection of democratic rights of the people
complaining of the breaches of many labour laws as regards the workers engaged in the
construction of the Asiad projects.

11. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,12 the Supreme Court entertained a
matter concerning release of bonded labour raised by an organisation dedicated to the cause
of release of bonded labour.

12. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,13 BHAGWATI, J., stated:

“Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public injury arising from 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 constitutional or legal provision.”

13. In the instant case, the petition concerning fundamental rights of camels is filed by
AWBW, which is a body corporate under sec. 4(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 (for the brevity hereinafter referred to as PCA act).14

A.4 EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES NOT A BAR TO FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS

ARTICLE.

14. It is argued that right of access to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 is a fundamental
right itself,15 therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to the Supreme Court
entertaining a petition under Art. 32 for the enforcement of a fundamental right.

15. When once the Court is satisfied that the petitioner‟s fundamental right has been
infringed, it is not only its right but also its duty to afford relief to the petitioner, and he need
not establish either that he has no other adequate remedy, or that he has exhausted all
remedies provided by law, but has not obtained proper redress. When the petitioner
establishes infringement of his fundamental right, the court has no discretion but to issue an

11
People‟s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235.
12
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
13
Supra note 2.
14
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
15
Bodhisattwa Gautam, supra note 10; Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC
667.

3
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

appropriate writ in his favour.16 Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that the petition is
maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted

that on the basis of all these essentials, AWBW’s petition is maintainable under
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Westeros.

B. INSTANT PETITION FILED BY HOUSE OF LANNISTERS IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF WESTEROS IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

WESTEROS.

16. The House of Lannisters (for the brevity hereinafter referred to as HoL) herein files
the instant petition as Public Interest Litigation requesting the court to lift the ban on Oont
Dangal.

17. The counsel on the behalf of petitioners humbly submits that the instant petition is
maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution [B.1], as there has been breach of fundamental
rights of Lannisters under Art. 29 of the Constitution [B.2]. Additionaly, locus standi and the
existence of an efficacious and alternative remedy do not bar the petitioner from filing the
petition under Article 32 [B.3]. Lastly, the clubbing of petitions is justifiable and
maintainable [B.4].

B.1 INSTANT PETITION MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE

32 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

18. It is humbly submitted that the petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition in
the nature of PIL on behalf of Lannisters under Art. 32 of the Constitution, as an organization
acting for a general or group interest can move to the court, even though it may not be
directly injured in its own rights.17

19. It is averred that the Supreme Court under Art. 32(1) is free to device any procedure
appropriate for the enforcement of a Fundamental Right and under Art. 32(1) the court has
the implicit power to issue whatever direction, to secure enforcement of the Fundamental

16
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725; Kharak
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
17
Supra note 2.

4
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Right.18

20. Additionally, the court can exercise powers of review in a petition filed under Art. 32
of the Constitution if its directions have resulted in the deprivation of the fundamental rights
of a citizen.19

21. Hence, the instant petition is filed by HoL, although not for the injury of its own
rights, but for the violation of fundamental rights of Lannisters, which is an act of general or
group interest. Hence, the instant petition is maintainable as PIL under Art. 32 of the
Constitution.

B.2 BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LANNISTERS.

22. It is humbly submitted that Art. 29(1) of the Constitution20 provides that any section
of the citizens residing in the territory of the country having a distinct culture of its own shall
have the right to conserve the same.

23. Also, Art. 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (for the
brevity hereinafter referred to as ICCPR)21 provides that persons belonging to ethnic
minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture by any member state.
Further, Art. 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(for the brevity hereinafter referred to as ICESCR)22 provides that the states recognize the
right of everyone to take part in cultural life.

24. It is argued that ban on Oont Dangal prevents the ethnic minority of Lannisters from
enjoying their cultural rights. Oont dangal is a part of distinct culture of the Lannisters,23
therefore, they have right to conserve the same. Accordingly, the state shall recognize the
cultural rights of the Lannisters. Hence, the ban on Oont Dangal should be lifted as it violates
the fundamental rights of Lannisters under Art. 29(1) of the Constitution, and prevents them
from exercising their culture.

18
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
19
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602.
20
INDIA CONST. art. 29, cl. 1.
21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 27, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS
407.
22
International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 UNTS 3 / [1976] ATS 5 /
6 ILM 360.
23
¶- 2, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition.

5
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

B.3 LOCUS STANDI AND EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY ARE NO BAR.

25. It is humbly submitted that locus standi is no bar to file a petition under Art. 32 of the
constitution as it is not necessary that the victim of the violation of the fundamental rights
should personally approach the court for redress as the court can itself take cognizance of the
matter and proceed suo moto, or on a petition filed by any public spirited individual or
body.24

26. Also, the existence of an efficacious and alternative remedy do not bar the petitioner
from filing the petition under Article 32., as right of access to the Supreme Court under Art.
32 is a fundamental right itself.25 Therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar
to the Supreme Court entertaining a petition under Art. 32 for the enforcement of a
fundamental right.

B.4 CLUBBING OF PETITIONS IS JUSTIFIABLE AND MAINTAINABLE.

27. Under Art. 142(1),26 in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is entitled to
pass any decree, or make any order, as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or
matter pending before it.27

28. The instant petitions have been clubbed together by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
itself.28 Hence, clubbing of petitions is justifiable and maintainable.

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted

that on the basis of all these essentials, HoL’s petition is maintainable under
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Westeros.

C. THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND THE

ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID.

29. It is humbly submitted that Art. 13 of the constitution renders the notification of
MoEF and ordinance promulgated by the Governor of the state of Lannisport void [C.1], as
they have infringed fundamental rights of camels. Hence, notification of MoEF [C.2] and the

24
Bodhisattwa Gautam, supra note 10; Chairman, Railway Board, supra note 10.
25
Bodhisattwa Gautam, Ibid; Common Cause, supra note 15.
26
INDIA CONST. art. 142, cl. 1.
27
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, (1999) 8 SCC 229.
28
¶- 11, Pg. 3, Moot Proposition.

6
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

ordinance promulgated by the Governor of the state of Lannisport [C.3] are constitutionally
invalid. Additionally, they have transgressed certain constitutional provisions and values
[C.4].

C.1 ARTICLE 13 RENDERS THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND

FORESTS AND ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR VOID.

30. It is humbly submitted that the fundamental rights of camels are recognised under Art.
21 of the Constitution [D.1.1], and the notification issued by the MoEF and ordinance
promulgated by the Governor of the state of Lannisport infringe the same. Hence, they are
void by virtue of Art. 13 of the Constitution [D.2.2].

C.1.1 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CAMELS ARE RECOGNISED.

31. It is humbly submitted that all animals have the right to live with dignity, free from
unnecessary pain and suffering, under Article 21 read with Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution
read with Sec. 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.29 Every species has a right to life and security under
Art. 21 of the Constitution, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life,
out of human necessity.30

32. Also, World Health Organisation of Animal Health, of which India is a member,
internationally recognises five freedoms for animals under its Guidelines. These five
freedoms find a place in Sec. 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and they are for animals like the rights
guaranteed to the citizens of India under Part III of the Constitution of India. One of the five
freedoms is the freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour,31 which is being curbed in
the instant case.

33. It is argued that Oont Dangal destroys the natural nervousness of camels. Camel is not
a wild animal in any part of the world, and that a camel is a domestic animal. 32 In Oont
Dangal, camels are trained to not allow strangers to come near them,33 which destroy their
nature and makes them wild.34 Hence, Oont Dangal is an act of cruelty to camels as it violates
their fundamental rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution read with Art. 51A(g) of the

29
Supra note 5.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Supra note 7.
33
¶- 3, Pg. 2, Moot Proposition.
34
¶- 2, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition.

7
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Constitution read with Sec. 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.

C.1.2 ART. 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

34. It is humbly submitted that Art. 13 of the Constitution35 prohibits the State from
making a law which either takes away totally or abrogates in part a fundamental right. 36 By
application of test of „direct‟ or „inevitable‟ effect, it is tested whether the effect of the
impugned action is to take away or abridge fundamental rights. 37 Every order made under the
statutory provisions must stand the test of fundamental rights.38 The object of the law or
executive action is irrelevant when it establishes the petitioners contention about
infringement of fundamental right.39 Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be
violative of the doctrine of basic structure.40

35. Hence, notification issued by the MoEF and ordinance promulgated by the Governor
of the state of Lannisport are void by virtue of Art. 13 of the Constitution, as they infringe the
fundamental right of camels recognised under Art. 21 of the Constitution read with Art.
51A(g) of the Constitution read with Sec. 3 and 11 of the PCA Act.

C.2 THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS IS ULTRA

VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

36. It is being contented that the Executive is enjoined with a duty to act or apply the law
in a just manner.41 The Executive cannot go against the provisions of the Constitution or of
any law.42 Therefore, the Executive cannot act against a statute or exceed its statutory
powers.43 A notification issued in exercise of executive power cannot override a rule
statutorily made.44 The executive power cannot be so exercised as to contravene any law
relating to the matter or rules having the force of law.45

37. Further, the instructions issued by the government under its executive power can

35
INDIA CONST. art. 13, cl. 2.
36
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571;
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 346.
37
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788.
38
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
39
Supra note 37.
40
State of West Bengal, supra note 36.
41
Union of India v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 696.
42
Ram Jawaya Kapur, Rai Sahib v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
43
Madhav Rao v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85; A Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 443.
44
Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy, (1986) 1 SCC 675.
45
Nanjundappa R. N. v. Thimmiah T., (1972) 1 SCC 409.

8
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

supplement, but cannot supplant, the statutory rules made by the government. The executive
instructions stand on a lower footing than statutory rules as they do not have the force of
law.46

38. Moreover, validity of a delegated legislation may be questioned if it is ultra vires the
constitution and the parent act.47 It is so because the discretion conferred on the Executive by
way of delegated legislation is wide. Such power to make rules and regulations must be
exercised within the four corners of the parent act.48 Hence, the law, which, therefore, has
been laid down is that if by a notification, the parent act itself stands effaced; the notification
may be struck down,49 as in the instant case.

C.3 THE GOVERNOR LACKS THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO PROMULGATE THE

ORDINANCE.

39. It is a well-established principle that ordinance should be clothed with all the
attributes of an act of Legislature carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations
under the Constitution.50 An ordinance has the same force and effect as a law enacted by the
state legislature.51 Hence, an ordinance would be void to the extent of an infraction of a
fundamental right guaranteed by Part III,52 as in the present case.

40. Moreover, by applicability of doctrine of pith and substance53 and doctrine of

colourable legislation,54 the Governor of the state of Lannisport or of any other state is
legislatively incompetent to make any law regarding the impugned cultural activity by virtue
of Art. 248 of the Constitution55 read with Entry 97 of List I of Schedule VII of the
Constitution.56 It is so because the Legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions
by employing an indirect method.57 If the subject matter of the legislation is beyond the
powers of the legislature, the form in which the legislation is clothed would not save it from

46
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398; State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath, AIR 1989 SC 1133,
Ratan Kumar Tandon v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 2 SCC 161..
47
Mahalkshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 569.
48
Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 753.
49
Ibid.
50
T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198.
51
Krishna Kumar Singh & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, (2017) 3 SCC 1.
52
Ibid.
53
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2010) 5 SCC 246.
54
K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375
55
INDIA CONST. art. 248, cl. 1.
56
INDIA CONST. sch. VII, list I.
57
Supra note 54.

9
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

condemnation.58 Therefore, if a legislation enacted under one entry in the list falls within the
content of an entry assigned to another legislature, it can be struck down as colourable,59 as in
the present case.

C.4 TRANSGRESSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND VALUES.

41. It is averred that certain constitutional provisions and values have been transgressed
by the MoEF and Governor of the state of Lannisport. It is humbly submitted that the
notification of MoEF and the ordinance of the Governor of the state of Lannisport violate the
Supreme Court‟s order [C.4.1], due to which judiciary‟s independence has been undermined
[C.4.2].

C.4.1 VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURT‟S ORDER.

42. It is humbly submitted that the MoEF and the Governor of the state of Lannisport
have violated the orders of the court. All authorities, civil and judicial, in Westeros are under
an obligation to act in aid of the Court.60 There should be meticulous compliance of the
directions issued by the Court.61 Wilful disobedience or non-compliance of the Court‟s
order62 has been held to constitute contempt of court,63 and the Court can take cognisance of
its contempt suo motu.64 The court can hold any authority in contempt of Court if it
disregards or disobeys any Court order.65

43. Hence, the legislature cannot seek to override a Court decision by a mere declaration
or even by making a statutory provision,66 and the Executive branch of government bears a
grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial orders.67 In other words, the might of
the state must stand behind court orders for the survival of the rule of the court in the

58
Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498.
59
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, (1977) 4 SCC 98.
60
INDIA CONST. art. 144.
61
In re Lily, Thomas, AIR 1964 SC 855
62
Rajiv Choudhary v. Jagdish Narain Khanna, (1996) 1 SCC 508; Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India,
(1996) 7 SCC 714; Indian Airports Employees Union v. Ranjan Chattergee, (1999) 2 SCC 537.
63
Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 743; Brahma Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1954 SC 10; C. K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 SCC 626.
64
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507.
65
M.L. Sachdev v. Union of India, (1991) SCC 1 605; Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College,
Allahbad, AIR 1990 SC 2031; Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 12 SCC 645, Nair
Service Society v. State of Kerala, (2007) 4 SCC 1, 29.
66
I.N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 750; Sundar Dass v. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662;
Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 50; Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC
168.
67
Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 442; Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society
Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339.

10
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

country.68

C.4.2 JUDICIARY‟S INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN UNDERMINED.

44. It is humbly submitted that any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws
cannot act as a limitation on its constitutional power under Art. 142(1).69 No enactment made
by a legislature can limit or restrict the power of the Supreme Court under Art. 142. 70 Art.
142(1) being a constitutional power cannot be limited or conditioned by any statutory
provision.71

45. Moreover, the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary constitutes one of the basic features of the Constitution.72 In a plethora of cases, the
Supreme Court has declared that the independence of the Judiciary is a part of the basic
structure of the constitution.73 Any policy or decision of the Government which would
undermine or destroy the independence of the judiciary would not only be opposed to public
policy but would also impinge upon the basic structure of the Constitution.74

46. Therefore, it is averred that the MoEF and the Governor of the state of Lannisport, by
violating the Supreme Court‟s order, have not only undermined the independence of the
judiciary, but also have posed a threat to the basic structure of the Constitution.

The notification of MoEF and the ordinance promulgated by the Governer of

the state of Lannisport defy the spirit of the constitution. They not only violate
the fundamental rights of the camels, but also transgress the constitutional
values by overriding the decision of the judiciary. Hence, they must be
declared unconstitutional and void.

68
Daroga Singh v. B. K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, 46.
69
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406; Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India,
(1991) 4 SCC 584, 634-35.
70
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Possu, (1976) 3 SCC 1; Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, (1986) 1 SCC 75; Navnit R.
Kamani v. R.R. Kamani, (1988) 4 SCC 655; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942; Harbans
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 101.
71
In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 621.
72
State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 537; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225;
State of West Bengal v .The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
73
Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428; N. Kannadasan v. Ajay Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1;
Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himmatlal Sheth, (1977) 4 SCC 193; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp)
SCC 87; State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah, (2000) 4 SCC 640.
74
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502.

11
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

D. BAN ON OONT DANGAL PREVENTS LANNISTERS FROM ENJOYING THEIR CULTURAL

RIGHTS.

47. It is humbly submitted that Oont Dangal is a part of culture of Lannisters

[D.1].Therefore, ban on Oont Dangal violates the fundamental rights of Lannisters under Art.
29 of the Constitution [D.2]. Lastly, it is an obligation on the state to protect the fundamental
rights of Lannisters [D.3].

D.1 OONT DANGAL IS A PART OF CULTURE OF LANNISTERS.

48. It is averred that Lannisport in Westeros is known for its unique culture. The state is
composed mainly of Lannisters. The state is known for its grand cultural festival called
„Harvest Feast‟. Oont Dangal is a traditional held in the state of Lannisport as a part of
Lannisport‟s „Harvest Feast‟.75

49. Oont Dangal is considered as the pride of Lannisport culture. Oont Dangal has been
known to be practiced during Lannisport classical period since last 2000 years. A Seal from
Westeros Valley Civilization depicting the practice is preserved in the National Museum of
King‟s Landing, capital of Westeros. Similarly in „Cave of Three eyed Crows‟, several cave
paintings can also be found which depicts the practice of Oont Dangal.76 Hence, it is humbly
submitted that Oont Dangal is a part of culture of Lannisters.

D.2 BAN ON OONT DANGAL VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LANNISTERS.

50. It is averred that Oont Dangal is a part of culture of Lannisters and it is the
fundamental right of the Lannisters to conserve their culture under Art. 29 of the
Constitution.77 Every section of the citizen which has a distinct culture has a right to conserve
the same.78 Also, the right to conserve one‟s own culture thus means and includes the right to
preserve and to maintain or to work for one‟s own culture and to protect one‟s culture. 79 It is
also submitted that Art. 29 is not subject to any reasonable restriction. 80 Right given under
Art. 29 is not subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of general public and it is

75
¶- 2, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition.
76
¶- 3, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition.
77
INDIA CONST. art. 29, cl. 1.
78
Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 655.
79
Bishop S.K Patro v State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 863
80
Jagdev Singh Sindhanti v Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183.

12
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

absolute.81

51. It is also submitted that expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture
and heritage of the person.82 Hence, right to life of a person under Art. 21 includes protection
of his tradition, culture and heritage associated with that culture.83 Hence, it is humbly
submitted that the Lannisters have the absolute fundamental right to conserve their culture by
practicing Oont Dangal, which is being violated in the instant case.

D.3 OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF

LANNISTERS.

52. It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court cannot pass an order in contravention
of a statutory provision.84 The Supreme Court is the protector and guarantor of fundamental
rights.85 Hence, Supreme Court‟s power is subject to fundamental rights, 86 and its power
cannot be exercised against a fundamental right.87 If any judicial order violates fundamental
right, it is deemed to be void by virtue of Art. 13(2) of the Constitution.88

53. Further, Art. 27 of ICCPR89 and Art. 15(1)(a) of ICESCR90 read with Art. 51(c) of
part IV of the Constitution91 makes it an obligation for the state to protect the cultural rights
of the Lannisters. Also, part IV of the Constitution is as much a guiding light for the Judicial
organ of the state as the Executive and Legislative arms, all three being integral parts of the
“State” within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.92

54. In addition, it is also submitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy (for the
brevity hereinafter referred to as DPSP) have to conform and run as subsidiary to the Chapter

81
Supra note 80.
82
P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394.
83
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251.
84
Jeri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130; Sarat Chandra Mishra v. State of Orissa,
(2006) 1 SCC 638, 644; Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai (2005) 4 SCC 772: Gajraj Singh v. State of
U.P., (2001) 5 SCC 762.
85
Prem Chand v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Supra note 19.
89
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 27, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS
407.
90
International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 UNTS 3 / [1976] ATS 5 /
6 ILM 360.
91
INDIA CONST. art. 51.
92
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1; Kesavananda Bharati, supra note 72.

13
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

on fundamental rights.93 Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and DPSP is an
essential feature of the constitution94 and anything that destroys the balance between the two
parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of the Constitution.95
In other words, the directive principles and fundamental rights should be construed in
harmony with each other96 and court should adopt the principle of harmonious construction to
give effect to both as much as possible.97 Further, the fundamental rights and DPSP constitute
the “conscience of the constitution”,98 and they are complimentary and supplementary to each
other.99

55. Lastly, according to Art. 51A(f), it is the duty to value and preserve our culture,100 and
fundamental duties provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and
legal provisions.101

Hence, it is humbly submitted that the ban on practice of Oont Dangal prevents
Lannisters from enjoying their fundamental rights and fundamental duty, and
the same should be lifted, as it is an obligation on the state to protect the
fundamental rights of Lannisters.

93
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525
94
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
95
Ibid.
96
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
97
In re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 653.
98
Kesavananda Bharati, supra note 72; Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
99
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, (1969) 3 SCC 84; Unnikrishnan v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645.
100
INDIA CONST. art. 52, cl. f.
101
AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428

14
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

-PRAYER-

WHEREFORE, in the light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, Petitioners request this Hon‟ble Court to find, adjudge and declare that:

I. The notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest is constitutionally

invalid.
II. The ordinance promulgated by the Governor of the State of Lannisport is
constitutionally invalid.
III. Ban on Oont-Dangal violates the cultural rights of Lannisters, hence, the same should
be lifted.

In the alternative, pass any other relief which the court may deem fit and proper.

For this Act of kindness, the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)

-COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS-

XVI
-MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS-