DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA |1

PETITION NO. /2024

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. N. YADAV & ORS ………Petitioner

V.

UNION OF INDIANA ………Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

 DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

|2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO

• LIST OF ABBREVATIONS……………………………. 3
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………. 4
• STAEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………… 8
• STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………… 9
• ARGUMENT PRESENTED……………………………. 11
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………… 13
• AGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………… 15
• PRAYER…………………………………………………… 23

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

• Govt. Government |3

• TDP Tarunachal Democratic Party

• TRP Tarunachal Republic Party

• TPP Tarunachal People’s Party

• Const. Constitution

• Art. Article

• CM Chief Minister

• MLA Member of Legislative Assembly

• S.C. Supreme Court

•
• H.C. High Court

• SCC Supreme Court Cases

•
• SCR Supreme Court Reporter
•
• AIR All India Reporter
•
• Jan January
•
• Dec December
•
• V. Versus
•
• Ors Others
•
• Etc. Etcetera
•
• i.e. That Is
•
• & And

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

|4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

➢ Constitution Of India, 1950

➢ Sarkaria Commission
➢ MM Punchi Commission

TABLE OF CASES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

1 Udai Narain Sinha V State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.

on 23 January, 1986 [ AIR 1987 All 203]
|5

2 Sri Surendra Mohanty V Sri Nabakrishna

Choudhury
And ... on 26 February, 1958 [ AIR 1958 Ori 168, 1958
CriLJ 1055]
3 Bajirao Baliram Mali V The State Of Maharashtra on 3
September, 1976[(1977) 79 BOMLR 189]

4 [1973] Suppl. SCR 1

5
[2007] RD-SC 609 (17 May 2007)
6
Bajirao Baliram Mali V The State Of Maharashtra on 3
September, 1976 [(1977) 79 BOMLR 189]

7
S.R.Bommai VS. Union of India [1994(2) SCR 644;
AIR 1994 SC 1918]
8
AIR 1994 SC 1918, JT 1994 (2) SC 215, 1994 (2)
SCALE 37, (1994) 3 SCC 1, 1994 2 SCR 644
9
Surendra Vassant Sirsat Of ... V Legislative
Assembly Of
State Of ... on 14 June, 1995 [AIR 1996 Bom 10,
1996 (2)
BomCR 362, (1995) 97 BOMLR 621]
10 Special Reference No. 1 of 1964.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

BOOKS, ARTICLES, JOURNALS AND REPORTS

▪ The Constitution of India 1950, Volume (1&2) , D.K. Basu |6

▪ The Constitution of India 1950, O.P. Rai (2nd Edition)

▪ Raj Mannar Committee 1969

WEBSITES

▪ www.indiakanoon.org
▪ www.firstpost.com
▪ www.livemint.com
▪ www.legalserviceindia.com
▪ www.lexisnexis.com
▪ www.manupatra.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

DOGRA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2024

|7
NEWSPAPERS AND MAGZINES

▪ The Times of India

▪ The Hindu
▪ Outlook
▪ Frontline

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELENT

 |8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petetioner respectfully submits this memorandum in support of the appeal filed
before this Honorable Court. This appeal is brought under Articles 174,175,226 and
356 of the Constitution of India, 1950. It outlines the relevant legal provisions, facts,
and arguments on which the claims are based. The appellant seeks to demonstrate
that the application of these constitutional articles substantiates the relief sought and
justifies the grounds for this appeal. The memorandum elaborates on the legal
precedents, statutory interpretations, and pertinent case laws that support the
appellant's position.
 |9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Tarunachal Pradesh, one of the twenty-nine states of the Republic of
Indiana, has a political landscape dominated by three major parties: the Tarunachal
Democratic Party (TDP), the Tarunachal Republic Party (TRP), and the Tarunachal
People’s Party (TPP). Among these, the TDP and TRP are recognized as national
parties by the Election Commission of Indiana. The state's Legislative Assembly
consists of sixty members, each directly elected from single-member constituencies.

In the 2011 Legislative Assembly elections, the TDP secured a substantial majority
with 42 seats, while the TRP and TPP won 11 and 5 seats, respectively. The remaining
2 seats were captured by independent candidates. Consequently, the TDP formed the
government under the leadership of Shri Rai Prasad, who assumed office as the Chief
Minister.

Initially, Tarunachal Pradesh experienced a period of prosperity under Rai Prasad's

administration. However, frequent cabinet reshuffles by the Chief Minister led to
significant dissent within the ruling party. Tensions further escalated when Rai
Prasad's relationship with J.P. Pandey, the Governor appointed by the central
government in June 2015, deteriorated. Nearly half of the TDP's MLAs turned against
Rai Prasad.

On December 9, 2015, a faction of rebel TDP MLAs approached Governor Pandey,

seeking the impeachment of Mr. N. Yadav, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
and a relative of the Chief Minister. The rebels accused Yadav of attempting to
disqualify them from the Assembly. Recognizing the urgency, Governor Pandey issued
a notification calling for an emergency session of the Assembly on December 16,
2015, to address the impeachment motion. This session was scheduled ahead of the
Assembly's original reconvening date of January 14, 2016.

The emergency session took place in a community hall and was presided over by
Deputy Speaker Mr. V.K. Punia, who was aligned with the anti-CM faction. The
session was attended by 20 TDP MLAs, 11 TRP MLAs, and 2 independent MLAs.
During this session, the impeachment motion against Speaker Yadav was passed, and
a no-confidence motion against Chief Minister Rai Prasad was also approved.
Consequently, Prem Chand was elected as the new leader of the House.

In response, Speaker Yadav issued an order on December 17, 2015, disqualifying 14

rebel TDP MLAs. This action prompted the disqualified MLAs to file a writ petition
under Article 226, challenging both the Governor's notification and their | 10
disqualification. The High Court of Tarunachal Pradesh, while acknowledging the prima
facie violation of Articles 174 and 175 of the Constitution by the Governor's notification,
set aside the Speaker's order disqualifying the 14 MLAs.

Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, Speaker Yadav moved to the Supreme Court,
seeking the recusal of Justice A.B. Sharma from hearing the case. The matter was
then referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court. Amidst these judicial
proceedings, the Governor submitted a report to the Union Cabinet, recommending
the imposition of President’s Rule due to the prevailing political instability in the state.
The TDP challenged this move in the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the President of Indiana, acting under Article 356(1) of the Constitution,
signed a Proclamation imposing President’s Rule in Tarunachal Pradesh, citing the
political turmoil as the basis for this decision. All parties involved in the litigation
continued to contest the developments before the Supreme Court, seeking a
resolution to the constitutional crisis in the state.
 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

1) WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS THE POWER TO CONVENE THE

| 11
ASSEMBLY SESSION WITHOUT THE AID AND ADVICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT?

A. WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS POWER TO ADVANCE

THE
ASSEMBLY SESSION?
B. WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO INTERFERE WITH
THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR?

2) WHETHER PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE COULD BE

IMPOSED DESPITE ONGOING LITIGATION BEFORE THE
CONSTITUTION BENCH?

A. WHEN IS PRESIDENT’S RULE APPLICABLE

UNDER CONSTITUTION?

3) WHETHER GAP OF SIX MONTHS BETWEEN TWO SESSIONS OF

THE STATE ASSEMBLY AMOUNTS TO CONSTITUTIONAL
BREAKDOWN AND THUS CALLS FOR IMPOSITION OF
PRESIDENT’S RULE?
 A. WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN?
B. DOES CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN CALL FOR IMPOSITON
OF PRESIDENT’S RULE?
| 12

4) WHETHER THE IMPEACHMENT MOTION PASSED BY THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WAS VALID?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
| 13

12
1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Governor

The counsel respectfully submits before this Honorable Court that the Governor's
authority to convene an Assembly session is circumscribed by constitutional
provisions. Specifically, under Article 174(1) of the Constitution of Indiana, the
Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when summoning
the Legislature, unless there exists a period exceeding six months between the last
session and the forthcoming one. The Governor's unilateral action in this instance,
without the requisite advice, contravenes this constitutional mandate, rendering the
notification for an emergency session on December 16, 2015, ultra vires and invalid.

2. Sub Judice and the Role of the Constitution Bench

The counsel further submits that, pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court has constituted a Constitution Bench to adjudicate issues involving
substantial questions of law pertaining to constitutional interpretation. Given the
pendency of litigation before this five-judge bench, which is empowered to resolve
complex constitutional queries, the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356
during this ongoing judicial process was premature and unwarranted. This Honorable
Court should recognize that the active engagement of the Constitution Bench negates
any immediate necessity for executive intervention through the proclamation of
President’s Rule.

3. Conditions for Imposing President’s Rule

The counsel also humbly asserts that the criteria stipulated under Article 356 of the
Constitution for imposing President’s Rule were not satisfied in the present case.
Specifically, there was no threat to the security of the state, nor was there a six-month
gap between the two sessions of the State Legislative Assembly that could justify such
drastic measures. Absent these conditions, there was no constitutional breakdown
warranting the suspension of the state's self-governance. Hence, the President’s
Proclamation under Article 356(1) is constitutionally untenable and should be revoked.

4. Procedural Safeguards for Removal of the Speaker

Lastly, the counsel submits that the procedure for removing the Speaker or Deputy
Speaker from office is clearly outlined in Article 179(c) of the Constitution. This
provision mandates a minimum of fourteen days’ notice of intention to move a
resolution for their removal. The failure to adhere to this procedural requirement
renders any such resolution invalid. In the case at hand, the motion to remove Speaker
Mr. N. Yadav did not comply with the fourteen-day notice requirement, thereby violating
Article 179(c). Consequently, the purported impeachment and the subsequent actions
taken against Mr. Yadav lack legal validity and should be set aside.

In light of the foregoing submissions, the counsel respectfully prays that this Honorable
Court consider the constitutional irregularities and procedural lapses detailed herein,
and provide appropriate relief by invalidating the Governor’s notification, setting aside
| 14
the imposition of President’s Rule, and reinstating the procedural integrity mandated by
the Constitution.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

| 15

1.] WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS POWER TO CONVENE THE

ASSEMBLY SESSION WITHOUT THE AID AND ADVICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT?

The Counsels humbly submits before the Honorable Court that the Governor does not
have the power to convene the Assembly session until and unless a gap of six months
do not intervene between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its
first sitting in the next session.

A.WHETHER GOVERNOR HAS POWER TO ADVANCE THE

ASSEMBLY SESSION?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Court that advancing the winter
Session of the State Assembly by a month despite the protest by the government
prima facie is violation of Articles 174 and 175 of the Constitution dealing with
convening of the Session by the Governor and his message to the House. As per
article 174 (1) of The Constitution, the Governor shall from time to time summon
the House or each House of the Legislature of the state to meet at such time and
place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in
one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session1.

In the present case, where Governor advanced the Winter Session of the Assembly
by a month appeared to be violation of Articles 174 and 175 of the Constitution and
for that purpose any motion passed in the House was not to be considered.

B.WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO INTERFERE WITH

THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR?
According to article 194 of the constitution every house of legislature and its members
enjoy certain powers and privileges under which they cannot be held liable to any
proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the
Legislature or any
| 16

1 Udai Narain Sinha V State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 23 January, 1986[ AIR 1987 All 203]

committee thereof2. The interference of governor in the affairs of the legislative

assembly can prevent it from performing its function properly.

Governor, though being a part of the legislature in an overall scheme has restricted
powers and could not send messages to regulate compositions of the state assembly
or its proceedings or order items of agenda. Assailing the role of the governor for
sending messages of the state assembly and advance it’s convening to December 16
as against the scheduled assembling on January 14, the counsel submits that, there
is no power vested in the government by the constitution to pre-pone the assembly
session.

Assailing to governor’s decision to advance the assembly session which was held in
community hall, the Counsels want to say that the constitutional functionary cannot
convene, prorogue or dissolve the house in his discretion and under the constitutional
scheme, he has to act on the aid and advice of the chief minister and his council of
ministers i.e. government.

2.] WHETHER PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE STATE CAN BE

IMPOSED DESPITE ONGOING LITIGATION BEFORE THE
CONSTITUTION BENCH?
The counsel humbly submits before the honorable court that the power under Article
356(1) is an emergency provision but not an absolute power. An emergency is a
situation which needs a remedial action. In the present case of Tarunachal Pradesh, | 17
the Government was not collapsed but was facing some internal disturbances which
could have been sorted by the Constitution bench. A Constitution bench is court which
sits to decide any case involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
the Constitution. This provision has been mandated under Article 145(3) of the
Constitution. Therefore, when the case was already ongoing in Constitution bench,
there was no need to impose President’s rule in the state. The Constitution bench has
decided several landmark cases such as A.K. Gopalan v.

2 Sri Surendra Mohanty V Sri Nabakrishna Choudhury And ... on 26 February, 1958[ AIR 1958 Ori 168,
1958 CriLJ 1055]

State of Madras1, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala2 and Ashoka Kumar Thakur
v.
Union of India3.

A. WHEN IS PRESIDENT’S RULE APPLICABLE

UNDER CONSTITUTION?

1
[1950] SCR 88

2
[1973] Suppl. SCR 1

3
[2007] RD-SC 609 (17 May 2007)
As per Article 356 of Constitution

1. If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or

otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of
the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this
| 18
Constitution, the President may by
Proclamation-
a.) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the
State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the
Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature
of the State;
b.) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be
exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;
c.) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the
president to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of
the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part
the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to anybody, or
authority in the State Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorize
the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or
exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the
operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to
High Courts.
2. Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent
Proclamation 3. Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is
a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the
expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been
approved by resolutions of both
Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a
Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the
House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People
takes place

16

during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution
approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no
resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House
 of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall
cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the
House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the
expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the
Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People. | 19

In the present case, it may be noted that such a grave emergency did not exist
where, Governor had to report the matter to President for imposition of President’s
Rule that too without seeking the advice of his Council of Ministers.

3.] WHETHER GAP OF SIX MONTHS BETWEEN TWO

SESSIONS OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY AMOUNTS TO
CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN AND THUS CALLS FOR
IMPOSITION OF PRESIDNT’S RULE?

The counsel humbly submits that as per Article 352 of the Constitution, neither the
security of the State was threatened nor the House was dissolved on the gap of six
months between the State Assembly. 4 Instead the session was advanced by one
month in the present case.

A.WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Court that a Constitutional crisis occurs
when Government of a State fails to work in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. In the present case, there was administrative breakdown and not
constitutional breakdown as only some of the members of the Assembly had been
disqualified and disqualification of few MLAs does not lead to Constitutional
breakdown.5

4
Bajirao Baliram Mali V The State Of Maharashtra on 3 September, 1976 [(1977) 79 BOMLR 189]

5
S.R.Bommai VS. Union of India [1994(2) SCR 644; AIR 1994 SC 1918]
 B.WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN CALLS FOR | 20

IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Court that a Proclamation of emergency

can be made for internal disturbance only if it is created by armed rebellion, neither
such
Proclamation can be made for internal disturbance caused by any other situation nor
a Proclamation can be issued under Article 356 unless the internal disturbance gives
rise to a situation in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. A mere internal disturbance short
of armed rebellion cannot justify a Proclamation of emergency under Article 352 nor
such disturbance can justify issuance of Proclamation under Article 356(1), unless it
disables or prevents carrying on of the Government of the State in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution. It is not every situation arising in the State but a
situation which shows that the constitutional Government has become an impossibility,
which alone will entitle the President to issue the Proclamation.

Also, the Counsel may like to draw the attention of the honorable court towards the
election of Prem Chand as the new leader of the House. If the new leader was
appointed there was no provision for the failure of constitutional machinery, instead
there was breakdown of administrative machinery. In S.R. Bommai case 6 , the
honorable court held that Article 365 was justified only when there is breakdown of
constitutional machinery and not that of administrative machinery.

In the light of the favour of the above argument the counsel may like to state that no
emergency session can be called unless and until there is a gap of six months between
the two sessions of the House as declared under Article 352(5) of the Constitution.

6
AIR 1994 SC 1918, JT 1994 (2) SC 215, 1994 (2) SCALE 37, (1994) 3 SCC 1, 1994 2 SCR 644
In the present case, there was no constitutional breakdown that could call for
imposition of President’s Rule as the internal disturbances had neither created a
situation where Government was not working according to the provisions of the House
nor was created by some armed rebellion.
| 21

4.] WHETHER THE IMPEACHEMENT MOTION PASSED BY THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IS VALID?

The counsel humbly submits before the honorable Court that the impeachment
motion passed by the Legislative Assembly in the Special Session called by the
governor was violation of Article 212 of the Constitution.

As per Article 212 of the Constitution:

1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a state shall not be called
in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
2) No office or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested
by or under this constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of
business, or for maintenance order in the Legislature shall be subject to
jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers9.

The Counsels would like to draw the attention of the court towards the judgment
where it was held that validity of any proceedings of a State could not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure 10. The impeachment
motion passed by the house was based on unproven allegations against the
petitioner that he was trying to disqualify the MLAs of the assembly.

According to Article 179(c) of the Constitution, a member holding office as the

Speaker or the deputy speaker of an Assembly, may be removed from his office by a
resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the
Assembly, provided that no resolution for this purpose shall be moved unless at
least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution,
provided further that, whenever the Assembly is dissolved, the Speaker will not
vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the Assembly after the
dissolution. | 22

As per Article 192 (1) of the Constitution, if any question arises as to whether a member
of a
House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications

9 Surendra Vassant Sirsat Of ... V Legislative Assembly Of State Of ... on 14 June, 1995 [AIR 1996
Bom 10, 1996 (2) BomCR 362, (1995) 97 BOMLR 621]

10 Special Reference No. 1 of 1964

mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision
of the Governor and his decision shall be final. Therefore, instead of calling for an
emergency session, the Governor could have suspended the order of the members of
the House.

In the present case, Governor did not have power to question the decisions taken by
the Speaker or it would be violation of Article 212 of the Constitution. The Counsel
would also like to submit that, in present case no fourteen days notice was given to
the Speaker before passing an impeachment motion against him which appeared to
be violation of Article 179(c) of the Constitution.
 | 23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In consideration of the facts elucidated, arguments presented, and authorities

referenced, the petitioner respectfully implores this Honorable Court to render a verdict
in alignment with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

The petitioner prays for the Court to:

1. Remove the imposition of President's Rule in the State, thereby restoring

democratic governance and ensuring the constitutional integrity of the State; or
2. Pass any other order which the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity, and good conscience.

Further, the petitioner requests the Court to dismiss any counterclaims by the
respondent that support the continuation of President's Rule, as such claims lack merit
and are inconsistent with the constitutional framework governing democratic
governance.

For this act of adjudication, the petitioner pledges eternal gratitude and compliance
with the Court's decision.

Sd/-…………………………..

(Counsel for the Appellant)