Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H.

Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

TEAM CODE: T-3

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA

ORDINARY JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) IS FILED

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTTA

IN THE MATTER OF

JAN JAGRUKT & ORS. … PETITONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF ARYAVARTTA …RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPICS PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE 13

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
ARYAVARTTA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 17
IS VALID WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 14,
19, 21 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO 21
ABROGATE ARTICLE 370 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES
356, 367 AND 368 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE IV: DOES THE JAISH AND KAISH 25
(REORGANISATION) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE ARTICLE 3 AND
PART III OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 28

2
Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARYAVARTTA India

JAISH AND KAISH Jammu & Kashmir

RAKISTAN Pakistan

RADAKH Ladakh

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Sec. Section

ED. Edition

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/a Under Article

V. Versus

Hon’ble Honorable

Cl. Clause

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

HC High Court

IoA Instrument of Accession

3
Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUES/ RULES/ LEGISLATION

 Bare Acts by Law & Justice Publishing Co.
 The Constitution of India
 Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act, 2019
 The Government of India Act, 1935
 Indian Independence Act, 1947

B. BOOKS REFFERED
 Jain, M.P. Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis 6 th ED, Reprint 2012)
 J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, 2020)
 Shorter Constitution of India - D.D. Basu (LexisNexis 16th ED, 2021)

C. DYNAMIC LINKS REFFERED

 https://www.westlawasia.com/
 https://www.scconline.com/
 https://www.manupatrafast.com/
 https://www.barandbench.com/
 https://www.livelaw.in/
 https://main.sci.gov.in/

D. LEGAL DICTIONARY FOR INTERPRETATION

 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary (1968, West Publishing Co.)

4
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

E. CASES CITED

Sr. No. Case Name Citation

1. SP Gupta MANU/SC/0080/1981
Vs.
Union of India

2. Election Commission,India MANU/SC/0060/1953

Vs.
Saka Venkata Subba Rao and Ors.

3. S.R. Bommai and Ors. MANU/SC/0444/1994

Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

4. Maneka Gandhi MANU/SC/0133/1978

Vs.
Union of India

5. Minerva Mills Ltd. MANU/SC/0523/1986

Vs.
Union of India

6. Vishakha and Ors. MANU/SC/0786/1997

Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors.

7. Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru MANU/SC/0445/1973

Vs.
State of Kerala

8. Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan MANU/SC/0056/1981

Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh

9. Prem Nath Kaul MANU/SC/0017/1959

Vs.
State of Jammu Kashmir

10 Sampat Prakash AIR 1970 SC 1118

Vs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir

5
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioners, most humbly and respectfully, submit that this Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Judicature of Aryavartta has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this instant Public Interest
Litigation filed under Article 142 with conjunction to Article 32 by way of public interest litigation of
the Constitution of Aryavartta for the violation of fundamental rights enumerated under article 14, 19
& 21 of the Constitution of Aryavarrta.

It is further submitted that all procedural requirements have been adhered to in the prescribed manner.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present Case.

6
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. The Union of Aryavartta, is quasi- federal Country recognised as the largest democracy
globally, which is a densely inhabited country with a population of 1.5 billion.
2. It is governed by the Written Constitution of Aryavartta, its significance as a foundational
document is emphasised.
3. Aryavartta comprises of 28 states and 8 Union Territories.
4. Jaish and Kaish, the northernmost parts of Aryavartta, have a rich heritage and a vibrant culture
that date back to the past.
5. Known for their stunning natural beauty, including the Himalayan mountains and pristine
lakes, Jaish and Kaish hold cultural and geographical significance.

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

6. The area was a Princely State ruled by Maharaja Ravi Singh and later on after gaining
Independence from British rule in 1947 assent to be the part of Aryavartta in consequence to
“Instrument of Accession (IoA)” was given.
7. The IoA was a legal document executed by Maharaja Hari Singh the then ruler of Jaish and
Kaish declaring state access to Aryavartta.
8. The IoA gave Aryavartta parliament the power to legislate in respect of Jaish and Kaish only
on matters of defence, external affairs and communications.
9. The IoA protected the Sovereignty of the State of Aryavartta.
10. Under IoA Maharaja Hari Singh stated that any terms of the IoA “cannot be varied by any
amendment of the Government of Aryavartta Act 1935 or Aryavartta Independence Act 1947
unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this instrument”.
"Nothing in this instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any
future constitution of Aryavartta or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the
Government of Aryavartta under any such future constitution.”

7
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

DISTINCTIVE STATUS

11. The Aryavarttan Constitution, established in 1950, included Article 370, conferring
autonomous status upon Jaish and Kaish.
12. Subsequently, Article 35A was introduced in 1954, granting special rights to permanent
residents.

ABROGATION OF DISTINTINCTIVE STATUS

13. Under Presidential order in 2019 all Aryavarttan laws were extended and implemented to the
territory of Jaish and Kaish, leading to the revocation of the special rights of the State.
14. Furthermore, the region of Jaish and Kaish was bifurcated into two separate Union Territories.

INTEGRATION AND DIVERGENT RESPONSES

15. Jaish and Kaish were incorporated into Aryavartta, resulting in uniform enforcement of laws.
16. Following the change, diverse responses emerged, with some perceiving it as fostering national
unity, while others anticipated potential social and political tensions.

PROTESTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION

17. The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A led to protests, clashes and imposition of
curfews by the Central government in multiple regions of Jaish and Kaish.
18. The citizens of Jaish and Kaish met with varying security responses from the Government,
including presence of troops and movement restrictions.
19. Internet and mobile services were restrained and the region experienced a complete shutdown.
20. Some criticised these actions of the Government for being undemocratic and some others
viewed it as a potential source of social and political tension.

LEGAL HURDLES
21. Numerous petitions were filed by a variety of persons, lawyers, artists, bureaucrats and
politicians contesting the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A and challenging its
constitutionality.

8
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

SUPREME COURT’S ENGAGEMENT

22. The Apex Court consolidated all petitions, with that of Jan Jagrukts’, to examine the
constitutional legitimacy of the abrogation.

9
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. Whether the Petition is Maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta under Article
32 of the Aryavarttan Constitution?
B. Whether the abrogation of Article 370 is valid with special reference to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution?
C. Whether the method followed to abrogate Article 370 is violative of Articles 356, 367 and 368 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution?
D. Does The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 violate Article 3 and Part III of the Aryavarttan
Constitution?

10
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether the Petition is Maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta under Article
32 of the Aryavarttan Constitution?

It is most humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta has the Jurisdiction to
entertain any petition which in fact is in respect to the Breach or violation of Fundamental Rights as
in the said petition the same has been done to the citizens of ‘Jaish and Kaish’ therefore is maintainable
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta under Article 142 with Conjuction to Article 32 of
the Constitution of Aryavartta. -The “cause of action” has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble Court. The litigants had no other effective option but to seek justice from the Hon’ble
Court to meet the end of justice. There is no inordinate delay in Approaching the Hon’ble court, that
the concerned petition is not time barred and therefore it falls under the ambit of the Hon’ble court.

Whether the abrogation of Article 370 is valid with special reference to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution?

The Counsel respectfully submits that Petitioners are citizens of Aryavartta. Under part 3 of
Constitution of Aryavartta their Fundamental Rights are guaranteed. But these guaranteed Rights have
been infringed. Media is considered as the fourth pillar of Democracy. Curtailment of all networks and
internet services and a complete shut down in Jaish and Kaish deprived its citizens of Right to Freedom
of Speech and Expression which in turn led to the aforementioned violation of Fundamental Rights
provided under Articles 19 and 21. Throughout the State Aryavartta the citizens enjoyed the
Fundamental Right to Equality before Law stated under Article 14 which was taken away from the
citizens of Jaish and Kaish after the scrapping of Article 370.

11
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

Whether the method followed to abrogate Article 370 is violative of Articles 356, 367 and 368 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution?

The Advocate for Petitioners most humbly submits that with regards to the IoA the President or the
Parliament does not have the power to amend the provisions of the Constitution of Aryavartta which
are related to the state of Jaish and Kaish and duly abrogate Article 370 and 35A, as the very nature of
articles 356, 367 and 368 in the issue is restorative and it seemingly intends to resolve a breakdown in
a State’s constitutional machinery. Hence, any exercise of power by the President or his delegate, the
Governor, or even the Union Government is transient in nature. Therefore, the abrogation of Article
370 is unconstitutional and is violative of Article 356,367 and 368 of the Aryavarttan Constitution.

Does The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 violate Article 3 and Part III of the
Aryavarttan Constitution?

The counsel representing the petitioners respectfully contends that the Jaish and Kaish
(Reorganisation) Act, 2019 is violative, as the Parliament lacks the authority to partition a State and
transform it into a Union Territory, an action not specified within the purview of Article 3. In
conclusion, this action infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of the State outlined in Part 3 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution, stripping the State of its core identity.

12
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?

It was held in SP Gupta vs UOI (MANU/SC/0080/1981) that; “Rancour of injustice hurts an individual
leading to bitterness, resentment and frustration and rapid evaporation of the faith in the institution of
judiciary”

This issue will recently focus on “That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta has the jurisdiction
to entertain this Petition under Article 142 with conjunction to Article 32 of the Constitution of
Aryavartta”

1.1 This argument will focus on “the maintainability of PIL in the Hon’ble supreme court of
Aryavartta” under article 32 or whether the Apex court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

May it please the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

With utmost respect, it is respectfully brought before this Hon’ble Court that the expanse of its
jurisdiction encompasses the consideration of petitions pertinent to Public Interest Litigation,
violations of Fundamental Rights, and disputes over jurisdiction, as exemplified in the present case
concerning the citizens of 'Jaish and Kaish'. Consequently, the present petition finds justification under
Article 32 of the Aryavartta Constitution.

The incident giving rise to this petition transpired within the territorial jurisdiction of this esteemed
Court. The petitioners were left with no recourse but to implore justice from this Hon’ble Court to
ensure an equitable and lawful resolution. Furthermore, the petition was promptly filed, ensuring its
alignment with the permissible timeline set forth by this Court. Additionally, the maintainability of the
petition with regard to Article 142 shall be duly deliberated upon.

13
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

Respectfully, it is hereby brought to the esteemed attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this
case falls under the purview of Article 32, granting this august body the authority to exercise its
jurisdiction. The humble submission is made that the Hon'ble Court is vested with the jurisdiction
to entertain petitions pertaining to Public Interest Litigation (PIL), infringement of Fundamental
Rights, and matters concerning jurisdiction, as distinctly elucidated in the present case concerning
the esteemed citizens of 'Jaish and Kaish'. Consequently, the instant petition is entirely justifiable
under the provisions stipulated in Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavartta. The unfortunate
incident giving rise to this petition transpired within the territorial confines of this Hon’ble court.
Regrettably, the petitioners had no recourse but to beseech the revered Hon'ble Court for redressal,
thus seeking a fair and just legal resolution. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the petition was
expeditiously filed, adhering meticulously to the permissible timeline as ordained by this esteemed
court.
For the recourse brought in the present matter before the Hon’ble Court to adhere with the
jurisdiction the petitioners assert the following contentions.

1. That the “cause of action” has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court (Election
Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210)
2. That no inordinate delay has been caused in approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Durga
Prasad v. Chief Controller (1969) 1 SCC 185)
3. That there exists no other efficacious alternative remedy except for approaching the Hon’ble
Court to meet the ‘ends of justice’ (Rashid Ahmed v. Income Tax Investigation Commission
1962 Supp (1) SCR 242 )
4. That the action is not derived out of malefice and all the material facts are completely disclosed
herewith.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been submitted to the Hon’ble Court by Jan Jagrut and others.
PIL is a legal action initiated by individuals or groups on behalf of the public or a community,
addressing matters of public concern that affect the fundamental rights or interests of a significant
portion of the population.

As a PIL has been filed in the Hon’ble Court by Jan Jagrut and others it will come under the
preview of Article 32 of Constitution means that the case falls within the scope and applicability
of Article 32. Article 32 of the Aryavattan Constitution grants the right to move the Supreme Court
for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Therefore, the PIL filed by Jan Jagrut and others, being

14
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

related to the enforcement of fundamental rights or addressing public interest issues, is eligible for
consideration and action under Article 32.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (MANU/SC/0133/1978), the Supreme Court
reaffirmed the significance of Article 32 in upholding the fundamental rights of citizens. The court
held that Article 32 is not merely a procedural provision but a fundamental right in itself. It
empowers the citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their
fundamental rights.

In consideration of the aforementioned legal precedents and the essence of the Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) initiated by Jan Jagrut and ors, aiming to redress issues of public importance that
impact fundamental rights, it is firmly within the ambit of Article 32 for the Supreme Court to
deliberate upon and act upon this PIL. This constitutional provision stands as a vital conduit for
safeguarding and upholding fundamental rights, as well as advancing the welfare of the public.

1.2 Jurisdiction and Scope of Article 142 of the Constitution of Aryavartta with respect to the
Current matter at dispute.

In the realm of seeking redress before the esteemed Supreme Court of Aryavartta, a judicious approach
entails invoking the jurisdiction vested in both Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution. This
recourse is appropriate when the case at hand implicates the enforcement of fundamental rights, as
enshrined in Article 32, and warrants the application of extraordinary or specialized measures to ensure
the dispensation of complete justice, as envisaged by Article 142.

While it is true that a precise precedent wherein these two constitutional provisions were expressly
amalgamated may not be readily apparent, the annals of legal history reveal instances where the
Supreme Court has judiciously employed Article 142 in concert with Article 32. These instances have
arisen in response to distinctive circumstances or to prescribe precise remedies. In such scenarios,
Article 32 has functioned as the conduit for addressing encroachments upon fundamental rights, while
Article 142 has been invoked to issue orders or directives indispensable for the fruition of complete
justice.

The paradigmatic exemplar of this approach can be discerned in the Vishaka case (Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0786/1997), a landmark judicial deliberation concerning the scourge of sexual
harassment within workplaces. Within this significant litigation, the Supreme Court artfully invoked
the combined potency of both Article 32 and Article 142 to delineate comprehensive guidelines aimed

15
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

at the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment within the professional sphere. It is noteworthy
that although the primary locus of this case rested in the enforcement of fundamental rights pursuant
to Article 32, the Court astutely invoked Article 142 to effectuate substantive directives.

This judicial precedent incontrovertibly illustrates the Supreme Court's sagacity and adaptability,
demonstrating its propensity to utilize Article 142 judiciously, in a complementary fashion to its
powers stipulated under Article 32, whenever the imperative of complete justice necessitates such
intervention in cases germane to the enforcement of fundamental rights.

16
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 IS VALID WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?

Council appearing for the petitioners most humbly submits that the abrogation of article 370 is in direct
violation to the Fundamental Rights of citizens of Jaish and Kaish.

The law-making power of the State is restricted by a written fundamental law and any law enacted and
opposed to the fundamental law is in excess of the legislative authority and is thus, a nullity. A
declaration of unconstitutionality brought about by lack of legislative power as well as a declaration
of unconstitutionality brought about by reason of abridgement of fundamental rights goes to the root
of the power itself, making the law void in its inception.

1.Violation of Article 14

The abrogation of Article 370 has led to the unequal treatment of the residents of Jaish and Kaish when
compared to residents of other Aryavarttan states. This, we contend, is a violation of Article 14, which
ensures equality before the law. The government has, in effect, created a discriminatory regime that
denies the people of Jaish and Kaish the same rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of other states.

We draw attention to the landmark judgement in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976),
in which the Supreme Court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation and mandates that the state
must treat all persons equally under equal circumstances. The abrogation of Article 370 creates a
discriminatory classification that is prima facie inconsistent with this fundamental constitutional
principle.

A.Lack of Popular Consent

The decision to abrogate Article 370 was made without the consent of the people of Jaish and Kaish,
thereby infringing upon the principles of democracy and federalism. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
(MANU/SC/0444/1994), this Hon’ble Court emphasised the importance of consulting the state
legislature when altering the constitutional relationship between the Union and a state. By bypassing
such consultation, the Respondent's actions undermine the principles of federalism and democratic
governance.

17
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

B. Impact on Fundamental Rights

The abrogation of Article 370 has had a profound impact on the fundamental rights of the people of
Jaish and Kaish, including their right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to life and
personal liberty. These rights are protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In Mohd.
Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Khurja (1962), the Supreme Court held that any law that infringes
upon fundamental rights must be reasonable and non-discriminatory. We argue that the abrogation of
Article 370 fails this test.

2. Violation of Article 19

The abrogation of Article 370 has led to severe restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in
the erstwhile state of Jaish and Kaish. The imposition of internet shutdowns and communication
blackouts has impeded the ability of the residents to express their opinions and access information
freely. This goes against the essence of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees every
citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of this fundamental right in the
landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). The Court held that any restriction on
freedom of speech and expression must pass the test of reasonableness and necessity. In the context of
Jaish and Kaish, where access to the internet and communication channels is vital, the restrictions fail
this test and are therefore unconstitutional.

Article 370 abrogation has also witnessed the imposition of curfews and restrictions on public
gatherings, thus infringing upon the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, as guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(b). The freedom to assemble is an essential component of a democratic society,
allowing citizens to express their grievances and opinions collectively.

In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India (2012), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed that the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental right. The abrogation's impact
on peaceful protests and public gatherings curtails this right, which is a clear violation of Article
19(1)(b).

Furthermore, the restrictions imposed after the abrogation of Article 370 have severely affected the
economic and professional opportunities in the region. Article 19(1)(g) i.e Violation of Freedom to
Practice Professions and Carry on Trade, guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession,

18
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The restrictions on movement and commerce have
disrupted the livelihoods of many residents.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (MANU/SC/2681/2005), the
Supreme Court emphasised the importance of this right and ruled that unreasonable restrictions on
trade or commerce would be unconstitutional. The abrogation's impact on trade and business in Jaish
and kaish raises concerns about the violation of Article 19(1)(g).

In light of the aforementioned arguments and precedents, the petitioner respectfully submits that the
abrogation of Article 370, as currently implemented, is in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined
in Article 19 of the Aryavarttan Constitution. While the government may have legitimate concerns
regarding national security and integration, the restrictions imposed have gone beyond the threshold
of reasonableness and necessity, and therefore, the abrogation should be declared invalid in its current
form.

The petitioner urges this Hon’ble Court to protect the cherished principles of liberty, equality, and
fraternity that form the bedrock of our Constitution and ensure that the rights of the people of Jaish
and Kaish are upheld.

The petitioner humbly requests the Court to consider these arguments and grant the necessary relief in
the interest of justice.

3. Violation of Article 21

The abrogation of Article 370 has led to significant disruptions in Jaish and Kaish, including
restrictions on communication, curfews, and detentions, which have directly impacted the personal
liberties and lives of the people. The government's actions have severely restricted the right to move
freely and engage in any lawful profession or occupation, thereby infringing upon the fundamental
right under Article 21.

The case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (JT 1974 (1) SC 1) is particularly
instructive. The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that Article 21 is of paramount importance,
and any action taken by the state that infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty must be
strictly scrutinized.

19
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

The abrogation of Article 370 has led to a significant increase in detentions without trial in Jaish and
Kaish. Many individuals have been held in custody for extended periods without charges being filed
against them. This is in direct contravention of the principles established by the Supreme Court in the
case of Khatri v. State of Bihar (AIR 1981 SC 928), which emphasized that the right to life and
personal liberty includes the right to a fair trial.

The restrictions imposed in the region have hindered the residents' access to justice, which is a
fundamental facet of Article 21. The Supreme Court, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360), held that access to justice is a fundamental right that cannot be denied.
The abrogation of Article 370 has hindered this access, thereby violating Article 21.

In light of the aforementioned arguments and case law precedents, the petitioner, respectfully submits
that the abrogation of Article 370 raises serious concerns regarding the violation of Article 21 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution. The actions taken by the Government of Aryavartta in this regard have had
a detrimental impact on the fundamental rights of the people of Jaish and Kaish. It is the duty of this
Hon’ble Court to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution are not arbitrarily abrogated.

The petitioner prays for a thorough examination of the constitutional validity of the abrogation of
Article 370, with special emphasis on its impact on Article 21. This examination is essential to protect
the cherished rights of life and personal liberty that are enshrined in our Constitution.

20
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO ABROGATE ARTICLE 370 IS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 356, 367 AND 368 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?

It is most humbly submitted that the petition raises a fundamental constitutional question concerning
the abrogation of Article 370 of the Aryavarttan Constitution and its alleged violation of Articles 356,
367, and 368. The petitioner, committed to upholding the constitutional principles, seeks to establish
that the manner in which Article 370 was abrogated transgresses key provisions enshrined in the
Constitution.

Violation of Article 356

Article 356 of the Aryavarttan Constitution empowers the President to proclaim President's Rule in a
state in the event of a breakdown of Constitutional machinery. However, this provision does not grant
the power to alter the constitutional status of a State. The abrogation of Article 370 without the
concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of the State constitutes a clear violation of Article 356.

In the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (MANU/SC/2681/2005), the Supreme Court established
that the exercise of power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review to ensure that it is not misused
for purposes other than those envisaged by the Constitution. The court held that Article 356 cannot be
used to alter the fundamental features of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Landscape

Article 370 enshrined the special status of the state of Jaish and Kaish. Article 356, on the other hand,
pertains to the imposition of President's Rule in states in case of failure of constitutional machinery.
The Petitioner contends that the manner in which Article 370 was abrogated raises concerns regarding
the preservation of federal principles and constitutional procedures.

Violation of Constitutional Principles

a) Breach of Federal Structure: The abrogation of Article 370 without the concurrence of the state
assembly undermines the federal structure of our Constitution, violating the essence of Article 1 of the
Constitution which defines Aryavartta as a Union of States.

b) Lack of Consultation: The absence of consultation with the state assembly and the people of Jaish
and Kaish contradicts the democratic and participatory ethos, which is the bedrock of our Constitution.

21
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

The petitioner asserts that the abrogation of Article 370 without adequate consultation and bypassing
the democratic processes of the state assembly violates the principles of federalism and democratic
governance. The case law cited supports the contention that the method employed contravenes the
established constitutional framework. We respectfully urge this Hon'ble Court to consider these
arguments and uphold the sanctity of constitutional procedures and principles.

Violation of Article 367

Article 367 defines various terms used in the Constitution, including the term "Constituent Assembly"
which refers to the constituent assembly of the state. The abrogation of Article 370 without the
concurrence of the state's constituent assembly is a breach of Article 367, which mandates that the
term "Constituent Assembly" in relation to any state means the constituent assembly of that state.

In the case of Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (MANU/SC/0017/1959), the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of the term "Constituent Assembly" as defined in Article 367,
highlighting that it holds a specific and vital meaning within the constitutional framework.

1. Constitutional Framework and Interpretation of Article 36 [(Bishambhar Dayal Chandra

Mohan v. State of U.P. (MANU/SC/0056/1981)]
2. Necessitates careful examination within the framework of Article 367 to ascertain its true
intent.
3. Due Process and the Doctrine of Basic Structure can be amended (Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala (MANU/SC/0445/1973))

In light of the aforementioned arguments and case law, the Petitioner asserts that the abrogation of
Article 370, without proper constitutional interpretation and due regard to the basic structure, is
violative of Articles 367 of the Aryavarttan Constitution. The Petitioners respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court will uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and provide the necessary relief in the
interest of justice and constitutional integrity.

22
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

Violation of Article 368

Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It is established that any amendment
that significantly alters the constitutional structure or provisions necessitates strict adherence to the
procedure prescribed under this Article.

The abrogation of Article 370, which held a unique constitutional status, without following the
procedure outlined in Article 368, is a direct violation of the Constitution.

In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (MANU/SC/0445/1973), the Supreme Court
held that the power to amend the Constitution is not unbridled and is subject to certain basic features
and principles of the Constitution. The abrogation of Article 370 alters the basic structure and
principles of federalism, thus necessitating adherence to the prescribed procedure under Article 368.

Constitutional Amendment Procedure:

Article 368 of the Aryavarttan Constitution stipulates the procedure for amending the Constitution. It
is crucial to note that the abrogation of Article 370, which grants special autonomous status to the state
of Jaish and Kaish, involves substantial changes tantamount to an amendment. However, the manner
in which this was done raises concerns about compliance with the prescribed procedure.

In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights,
by exercising its constituent power under Article 368.

Amendment Through Consultation and Consent:

Article 370(3) of the Constitution necessitates the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jaish
and Kaish for any modifications to Article 370. The abrogation of Article 370, without obtaining such
concurrence, potentially violates this constitutional requirement.

The case of Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1970 SC 1118) reaffirmed the
necessity of obtaining the Constituent Assembly's concurrence for amending Article 370.

23
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

Preservation of Federal Structure:

Article 1 of the Constitution defines Aryavartta as a Union of States, emphasizing the federal structure.
Any alteration to the autonomous status of a state should adhere to the principles of federalism,
preserving the delicate balance of power between the Union and states.

In Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 1789), the Supreme Court
emphasized the doctrine of basic structure, which signifies that amendments should not violate the
fundamental features of the Constitution, including the federal structure.

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the manner in which Article 370 was abrogated raises serious
concerns about compliance with the prescribed constitutional procedures outlined in Article 368. The
abrogation, being a significant alteration akin to an amendment, should have followed the principles
enshrined in the Aryavarttan Constitution to preserve the democratic and federal character of the
nation.

The abrogation of Article 370 without the concurrence of the State's constituent assembly, violating
Articles 356, 367, and 368, is an infringement upon the basic principles of the Constitution. The cited
case laws, notably S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,
and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, affirm the importance of adhering to the constitutional
framework and procedures while effecting significant constitutional changes.

The Petitioner respectfully urges this Hon'ble Court to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and
declare the abrogation of Article 370 as violative of Articles 356, 367, and 368.

24
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

ISSUE IV: DOES THE JAISH AND KAISH (REORGANISATION) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE
ARTICLE 3 AND PART III OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?

The abrogation of Article 370, which granted special autonomous status to the state of Jaish & Kaish,
by the Government of Aryavartta has been a matter of significant controversy and debate. A non-
governmental organization (NGO) brings forth a legal challenge asserting that this act of abrogation
violates Articles 3 and Part III of the Aryavarttan Constitution. This argument contends that the manner
in which Article 370 was abrogated infringed upon fundamental principles enshrined in the
Constitution, particularly concerning federalism, consultation, and basic human rights.

Violation of Federalism and Article 3

The abrogation of Article 370 by the Government of Aryavartta is argued to be in violation of the
principles of federalism enshrined in the Aryavarttan Constitution. The abrogation was done without
prior consent or consultation with the state of Jaish & Kaish, thereby bypassing a fundamental aspect
of federalism. Article 3 empowers the Parliament to alter state boundaries and reorganize states, but
this power should be exercised with due regard to the linguistic and cultural differences and the opinion
of the affected regions. The abrogation, however, did not consider the will of the people of Jaish &
Kaish, undermining the principles of federalism.

In the case of State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (AIR 1951 SC 318), the Supreme Court emphasized
that reorganization of states must respect the federal structure and the wishes of the concerned
populace, setting a precedent for consulting affected regions.

The petitioners have invoked the 'doctrine of colourable legislation, which posits that actions deemed
impermissible through direct means cannot be circumvented indirectly. Their contention centers
around the contention that the President has, through indirect means, effectively amended Article 370
of the Constitution without the requisite concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jaish and Kaish.
This alteration was made possible by substituting the 'constituent assembly' with the 'legislative
assembly.'

Furthermore, they argue that the Jaish and Kaish Reorganisation Act of 2019 stands in violation of the
Constitution, specifically Article 3. This particular article grants the Parliament the authority to create
new States and modify the boundaries of existing states. The petitioners assert that Article 3 does not

25
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

empower the Parliament to demote federal democratic states to a less representative form, such as a
Union Territory.

Additionally, the petitioners assert that within a federal democracy, the right to autonomous self-
governance, particularly concerning constitutional and political status, constitutes a fundamental right
enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. They contend that this right cannot be abrogated without
adhering to the established legal due process. This complex legal matter may be subject to adjudication
in the Supreme Court.

Violation of Basic Structure Doctrine

The abrogation of Article 370 alters the basic structure of the Aryavarttan Constitution. The doctrine
of basic structure asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or
altered, as they are the essence of the Constitution. Article 370 was a fundamental aspect of the
Constitution, and its abrupt removal disrupts the delicate balance and federal structure envisioned by
the framers.

Violation of Part III and Basic Human Rights

The abrogation of Article 370 is argued to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part
III of the Aryavarttan Constitution. The sudden abrogation had a profound impact on the residents of
Jaish and Kaish, depriving them of their rights to freedom of speech, expression, and movement. The
abrogation was executed amidst a communication blackout and restrictions, violating the right to
information and peaceful assembly.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (MANU/SC/0133/1978), the Supreme Court held
that fundamental rights are interconnected and should be interpreted expansively, highlighting the
importance of preserving fundamental rights even during state actions.

The NGO, acting as the petitioner, contends that the abrogation of Article 370 by the Government of
Aryavartta violates the fundamental principles of federalism and the fundamental rights enshrined in
Part III of the Aryavarttan Constitution. The cited case laws establish important precedents that
underscore the necessity of respecting federal principles and upholding fundamental rights while
effecting constitutional amendments or reorganization of states. The case demands a thorough
examination of the abrogation and its compliance with the Constitution, ensuring the preservation of
the fundamental principles that underpin the Aryavarttan democratic framework.

26
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

The Petitioners, representing the concerns of citizens and upholding the sanctity of fundamental rights
and constitutional principles, implores the hon’ble Supreme Court to carefully consider the arguments
presented. The abrogation of Article 370 should be thoroughly evaluated in the light of the
Constitution's fundamental tenets, ensuring that it aligns with the principles of equality, freedom, and
the basic structure of the Aryavarttan Constitution. It is imperative that the Court upholds justice,
protecting the essence of our democratic and federal nation.

27
 Kes’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College Intra Collegiate Moot Court Competition, 2023

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I. We beseech this Hon'ble Court to consider the maintainability of the present Petition under
Article 142 with conjunction to32 of the Aryavarttan Constitution, as it pertains to vital
constitutional issues.
II. With utmost respect, we implore the Court to scrutinize the validity of the abrogation of Article
370 in light of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Aryavarttan Constitution, ensuring justice and
equality for all.
III. It is our humble plea that this Court thoroughly examines whether the method employed to
abrogate Article 370 is in harmony with the provisions of Articles 356, 367, and 368 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution, safeguarding the sanctity of constitutional processes.
IV. We humbly request this Hon'ble Court's scrutiny of the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act,
2019, for any potential violations of Article 3 and Part III of the Aryavarttan Constitution, thus
upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens.

And pass any other order it deem fit in light of justice, equality, and good conscience. All of
which is respectfully submitted.

Date:13/10/2023

Place: Delhi

Sd/-

Counsels on behalf of Petitioners

28