Scribd
Upload
20 views

GROUP 1_FIRST ROUND

Moot

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views

GROUP 1_FIRST ROUND

Moot

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

MOOT 1 – GROUP 1

PETITIONERS – ABHIJITH K, ANAIDA S


RESPONDENTS- ABHIJITH BABU, ALLEN S
JUDGES - ABHIJITH KRISHNA, ADARSHDEV M S
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 On 2019 January, the Parliament of India passed a Bill to provide extra
10% reservation to economically backward classes by inserting clause 6 to
the Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution, to provide government jobs and
seats in educational institutions for economically weaker sections.

 The Parliament enacted Constitution (One Hundred and Third


Amendment) Act, 2019 to make reservations based on the economic
criterion alone. Through this Constitution Act, 2019, a new clause (6) was
inserted to Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

 Mr. Ayush Pandey filed a case under Article 32 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India stating that the Amendment Act of 2019 provides
inequality and violates the fundamental rights.
ISSUES RAISED

1) Wheather the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution is


maintainable or not?

2) Whether the 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act,2019 violates any of


the basic structure of the Constitution or not?

3) Whether the extra 10% reservations for economically weaker sections in


educational institutions and public employment is unconstitutional or not?
JUDGEMENT
After hearing the arguments of the learned council for the parties my findings are
as follows;
1) In the first scenario the first issue was regarding the maintainability of the
writ petition and the court feels that the writ petition filed under Article 32
of the constitution is maintainable.

2) Secondly Whether the 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act,2019


violates any of the basic structure of the Constitution or not?
in kesavananda bharathi case the court observed that basic structure should
not be violated & this amendment clearly violates basic structure doctrine,
equality principle and fundamental rights.

3) Finally while checking the constitutionality issue it is found that the


present amendment act in question violates the principle of 50% ceiling
enshrined in Indira sawhney vs Union of India thus the provision for extra
10% reservation for EWS is purely unconstitutional.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy