NEW LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIANA

Mr. GEET.................................................................................................................PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF INDIAN.............................................................................................RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
2
 LIST OF ABBREVEATIONS

 AIR....................................................................ALL INDIA REPORTER

 SCC….................................................................SUPREME COURTCASES

 SCR….................................................................SUPREME COURT RECORD

 SC…....................................................................SUPREME COURT

 HC…...................................................................HIGH COURT

 Ors.......................................................................OTHERS

 Anr…..................................................................ANOTHER

 TC…...................................................................TRIAL COURT

 PARA..................................................................PARAGRAPH

 Vs.…..................................................................VERSUS

 Ed…...................................................................EDITION

 Govt....................................................................GOVERNMENT

 Hon’ble..............................................................HONOURABLE

 r/w.......................................................................IN REFERENCE WITH

 U.O.I…................................................................UNION OF INDIANA

 u/s........................................................................UNDER SECTION

 Vol......................................................................VOLUME

 Yrs......................................................................YEARS

 &........................................................................AND

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A : CASES CITED

S.No. CASE TITLE

Keshvanand Bharti vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973)
1.
Bacchan Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1982)
2.
State of Punjab vs. Satpal Dang (AIR 1969)
3.
Maharashtra State of Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi
4. (1991)

5. Keshvanand Bharti vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973)

6. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (AIR 1978)

A.K. Kripiak vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC)
7.

B: ONLINE DATABASE REFERRED

S.NO. WEBSITES

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.lexisnexisacademic.com

3. www.scconline.com

4. www.indiankanoon.com

STATUTES

S.NO. TITLE OFSTATUTES

1. The Constitution of India,1950

2. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 The Counsel for Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana,1950. The Said statute states as follows –
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.

 Having stated the abovementioned averment, the counsel for petitioner avers that the present
memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

Counsels for Respondent

Date: 24.09.2022

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 BACKGROUND

 Mr. Geet, a veteran legislator, made a speech on the floor of the Lower House in Indiana pitching for
reform on women’s participation and representation in elections in tune with the constitutional
objectives and the need for its balance with traditions and customs. While making the speech, his
smartphone got activated and unintentionally the speech became ‘Live’ through the social media
platform Facebook.

 Based on a complaint from the Leader of Opposition, the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House got
this incident examined by the Ethics Committee of the House. Acting upon its recommendations, the
Hon’ble Speaker suspended him for six weeks.

 Mr. Geet claimed that firstly, he had no knowledge of the speech getting telecast and secondly, this
unintentional act of his was within the ambit of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ as laid down in
the Constitution and furthermore, enhances open and responsive democracy.

 In the light of the aforementioned causes, Mr. Geet sought a review of the decision of suspension.
The Hon’ble Speaker disposed of the review petition and upheld his previous decision.

 Mr. Geet challenged the decision as violative of Fundamental Rights and Constitutional norms
through a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of Indiana.

6
 ISSUES RAISED

I. IS THE PRESENT WRIT MAINTAINBLAE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950?

II. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE LOWER HOUSE
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER , ALONG WITH
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. IS THE PRESENT WRIT MAINTAINBLE UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950?

This present case presents a scenario of violation of the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed by the
Constitution viz-a-viz Article 19(1)(a)and Article 21 .The impugned order is arbitrary and
violates the principles of freedom of expression and speech of the petitioner and hence is liable
to be quashed.The Contitution Prescribes rule of law and exclusion of arbitrary legislation. Rule of law
is enshrined as a basic Principle of Natural Justice forming part of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.Since rule of law puts on a bar on the exercise of unfettered power by the Organs of
Democracy , the regulation of the same is important through the means of an Independent Judiciary 1.
Thus the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court for reinstatement of his Fundamental
Rights . Since this present case reports a violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution2 , by virtue
of being violative of the Fundamental Rights , the Supreme Court Automatically acquires jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate this writ petition

II. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE

LOWER HOUSE VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE
PETITIONER , ALONG WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The petitioner contends that the actions of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House stands
in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner, also with the principle of
Natural Justice.The Principle have a jurisprudential approach and don’t not find exhaustive
mention in the codified laws, however are majorly found in the onion of Jursist and Legal
Experts3. The Speaker completely overlooked the principle of Natural Justice which states
that every decision/order of the Authority should be Just, Fair and Reasonable and free from
any kind of bias or prejudice. As enumerated under Article 21 ands 19(1)(a). Fundamental
Rights forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution , which cannot be altered or
violated in any situation .

1.2 Absence of a Fair Hearing by the Hon’ble Speaker

1
Bacchan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325
2
Keshvanand Bharti vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973)

3
A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC)

Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner

Page 8
 The basic principle of ‘Audi Altrem Partem’ which means to hear both the parties in a
dispute , including giving adequate right to both the parties to present their respective cases
and lead evidence in his favour as well as engage a legal representative of his choice was
denied by the Hon’ble Speaker while passing the impugned order. The report of the enquiry
committee cannot be said to as impartial since it does not reflect
The representation made by the petitioner , nor does it contain any evidence or justification
given the petitioner in his defence. It is the basic tenet of Natural Justice and the legal maxim
that the party who is accused4 . Hence to not have afforded Mr. Geet an opportunity to
represent himself itself is a violation of the principles of Natural Justice.

1.2 Violation of the “Basic Structure Doctrine”

The Basic Structure of Constitution emphasizes on the concept of procedure established by

law .Violation of the Constitutional Sacrament Article 19 constitute a valid casue of action
for the petitioner to approach this Court. No citizen can be penalized except in accordance
with the procedure laid down in the Constitution. 5 The order of the Hon’ble Speaker was
clearly in opposition to the tenets of natural justice and procedure established by law . It is
well established that it is the role of the Judiciary alone to interpret substantive questions of
law and ascertain whether a particular act constitute a violation of Law or not. Such decision
is meant for the court and not the legislature to commute6, hence the arbitrary act of the
Hon’ble Speaker is impartial and biased towards the petitioner, insomuch to severely damage
the entire Institute of Parliament , and not just the individual Legislator.

1.3 The Judgement of the Parlimaentry Committee not being fair/reasoned

The Authority of quasi-judicial bodies in giving reasonable judgments extends to

administrative orders as well. It refers to the statutory power given to the Speaker for issuing
administrative orders. Such orders ,however , are subject to the condition of “reasonability 7”
since the same is a Constitutional Perquisite. Where a quasi-judicial body fails or refuses to
issue such an order or does so without giving sufficint cause ,the said order cannot be
4
Board of Education vs. Rice (1911)
5
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
6
State of Punjab vs. Satpal Dang (AIR 1969 SC 903)
7
Maharashtra State of Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi (1991)
Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner
Page 9
considered t o be given in consonance with the principles of Justice and procedure established
by law. Article 13(3) explicitly lays down that any law/order/statue in derogation with the
Fundamental Rights is void in itself. A law affecting the rights and freedom of people would
be violative of the principles laid down in Article. 14 and Article 19.

PRAYER

In the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:

1. Supreme Court of Indiana has jurisdiction to entertain this petition .

2. The decision of the speaker to reprimand Mr. Geet violates the principles of fair play
and natural justice
3. The suspension of Geet violates the provisions of the Constitution.

4. The Speaker’s decision should be declared arbitrary and Petitioner’s suspension

should be revoked with immediate effect.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court may also be please to pass any other order, which this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of
kindness, the counsel for the respondents shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Sd/

Counsel for Petitioner

Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner

Page 10
Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner
Page 11
Memorial on Behalf of the Petitioner
Page 12