17 Nalsar Justice Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2024

TEAM CODE – 60
17TH NALSAR JUSTICE BODH RAJ SAWHNY MEMORIAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KADARU
WRIT PETITION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF KADARU
IN THE MATTER:
Ms. KERRI & ORS …………PETITIONER

Vs.
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KADARU (DPRK) ………. RESPONDENT
WP ___ OF 2023 | SLP ___ OF 2023
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023
TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023
UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF

KADARU
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
1
17th BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...…………………..02
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………....03
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….............04
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….………...08
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………....10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………....14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..………..16
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….………...18
ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?.......................18
ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
RESPECTIVE COURTS? ……………………………………………………………….21
ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF
KADARU?……………………...………………………………………………26
ISSUE – IV: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER 2023 IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL?........31
PRAYER... ...………………………………………………………………………...…………38
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL TEXT
KIM Kaduriga Independence Movement
MM Maluru Makkalu
SFJ Solurans For Justice
ANR Another
ORS Others
ACT Delimitation Act, 2023
ORDER Delimitation Order, 2023
PIL Public Interest Litigation
¶ Para
i.e. That is
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
1. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1980 AIR 1789
2. State Bank of India vs S.N. Goyal AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2594
3. Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr 1975 AIR 1331
4. Union Bank of India v. Swati Tondon & Ors. AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3413
5. Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 INSC 579
6. Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661
7. Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 1896
8. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)
9. EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (2) SCR 224
10. Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs Union Of India AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 366
11. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr AIR 1973
SUPREME COURT 1461
12. Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. & Ors 2023:AHC:180417
13. Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 1621
14. T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa & Anr. 1954 AIR 440 at ¶ 2 (headnote)
15. Rex v. Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 K.B. 171
16. Radheshyam Khare & Anr. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 1959 AIR 107
17. Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., & Anr ... vs The Union Of India & Ors at Pg.19
18. Sathyanarayana Sinha Vs Lal & Co AIR 1973 SC 2720.
19. Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissoner, AIR 1971 SC 1896 at ¶ 24.
20. People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors v. Union of India & Ors (1982) 3 SCC
235
21. Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd., Sindri & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
AIR 1981 SC 844
22. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1989 SC 549
23. Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380.
24. S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149
25. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374.
26. Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298
4
27. United Food And Commercial Workers Union Local 751 V. Brown Group, Inc., Dba
Brown Shoe Co. 517 U.S. 544
28. National Human Rights Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (1966) 1 SCC
742
29. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330.
30. Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661
31. Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 1896.
32. Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and
Ors AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2615
33. Mahinder Vs The union of Indian (1995) 1 SCC 85.
34. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. 1976 Air 578
35. National Human Rights Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (1966) 1 SCC
742
36. Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. The Union of India & Ors. 1951 AIR 41
37. Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 INSC 579 at ¶5
38. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 1980 AIR 1789
39. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others 1992 SCR (1) 686
40. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600
U.S. (2023)
42. The State Of Tamil Nadu Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department
Secretary Vs National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association 2021
INSC 777
43. Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunnimoopil Nayar Vs. The State Of Madras & Ors 1959
SCR SUPL. (2) 316
44. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
45. Om Kar & Ors v. Union of India; AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3689
47. R.C. Poudyal And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc 1993 AIR 1804
48. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
49. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 2299
50. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh 1952 1SCR889
51. Marbury v. Madison
52. R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
5
53. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Constitution of Kaduru
3. Delimitation Act of Kaduru, 2023
4. Delimitation Commission Act, 1952
COMMENTARIES
1. Justice G.P. Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, India 2010,
12th Edition
2. D.D. Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India, Wadhwa, India, 2007, 8th
Edition, Volume I And II
3. M.P. Jain, India Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, India, 2010, 6th Edition
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitution Law Of India, Universal Publications, India, 2004, 4th
Edition, Volume I,II And III
DICTIONARIES
1. Cambridge Legal Dictionary
2. Oxford Reference
3. Black’s Legal Dictionary
4. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
ONLINE SITES AND SOURCES

1. Dr. BR Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, 09.12.1948 at
https://main.sci.gov.in/AMB/pdf/cad%2009.12.1948.pdf
2. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
3. www.vakilno1.com
4. www.indiakanoon.org
5. www.manupatra.com
6. www.ncaer.org
7. www.britannica.com
8. www.en.wikisource.org
9. www.legalserviceindia.com
6
10. www.thehindu.com
11. www.law.cornell.edu
12. www.thebluebook.com
13. www.legalsutra.org
7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that, given the Constitution of Kadaru is heavily inspired by the
Constitution of India in several material respects, the former ought to have contained provisions
/ articles corresponding to Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. In view of the above,
the following jurisdiction is stated.
SUPREME COURT
It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners have filed a Petition and invoked the Writ jurisdiction
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kadaru in pursuance of Article 32 of the Constitution of
Kadaru read 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.”
HIGH COURT
It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners have filed a Petition and invoked the Writ
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Malurite Enclave in pursuance of Article 226 of the
Constitution of Kadaru read as follows:
“Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. —
8
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories’ directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or
in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of
the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the
High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of
two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the
copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High
Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so
disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case
may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.”
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND OF KADURU
Kaduru, a former colony of Birur Empire, gained its independence after 2 centuries of
independence struggle. Whilst it was a colony, Kaduru witnessed people from other colonies of
Birur Empire, coming and settling within Kaduru. Consequently, ethnic tensions arose among
the different communities. Birur Empire had introduced a proverbial policy of “to each, their
own” which made certain by way of “ethnic enclaves” that they can “avoid any untoward
interaction between communities”. This policy prohibited individuals from purchasing land or
settling outside the territory of their ethnicity with the exception of Birurish persons. Any
attempt to circumvent this policy required a special reason justifying the need to do so and
marriage and cohabitation were not considered as cogent reasons.
In 1962, so as to curb the ethnic tensions, the Birur Empire introduced a representation system
that provided reservations in jobs and educational institutions for individuals of all ethnicities.
The ethnicity-based quotas were divided as follows:
a. General (no reservation): 50%
b. Kadurigas: 25%
c. Solurans: 10%
d. Malurites: 10%
e. Other under-represented ethnicities: 5%
Kaduriga Independence Movement (KIM), a political party, took up the cudgels against the
proposed reservation system, subsequently thereafter Solurans For Justice (SFJ) and Maluru
Makkalu (MM) organisations also emerged, advocating for the rights of their respective
communities.
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION
The rule of the Birur Empire was set to end by 2022, and to that end, they established a
Constituent Assembly for Kaduru. Two-thirds (2/3rd) of the Constituent Assembly were elected
based on Universal Adult Franchise (UAF), while one-third (1/3rd) were nominated by the
Birurish to ensure adequate representation for every ethnicity. Once the constitution-making
10
process was completed, observers noted that the Constitution of Kaduru appears to be heavily
inspired by the Constitution of India in several material respects. It even includes a clause
stating that, unless otherwise decided, the judgments of foreign judicial bodies shall be followed
in interpreting the Constitution of Kaduru where necessary.
Subsequently, it was decided that Kaduru would hold its first election in 2024, based on the
principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value,’ or the principle of Equal Representation in voting.
Adherence to this principle required that each vote in Kaduru carries the same value,
irrespective of the voter’s location within the country.
The 1st elections of Kaduru, would also elect members to the State Assemblies in Kaduru, who
in turn would elect the members of the upper house of the Kadaru Legislature. Such voting was
patterned upon the India’s Rajya Sabha.
The boundaries of the states of Kaduru overlapped with the Ethnic Enclaves which were
established under the Birurish Rule.
Mr. Gartazap, the last Governor General appointed by the Birurish continued as the President
of Kaduru till the 1st Presidential Elections were held.
FACTS OF THE CASE
As one of the first laws, the Kaduru legislature passed the Delimitation Act, 2023 which
provisioned for creation of a Delimitation Commission. The Prime Minister was empowered,
under the act, to choose the Chairperson of the Commission. The act also contained an
ambiguous provision wherein the Prime Minister was given the liberty to choose the number of
members of the commission as per s/he deems fit.
The commission was tasked with delimitation / determination the boundaries of constituencies
for both Union Legislature and State Assemblies. Further, under the act, it was directed to
ensure similar number of votes in each constituency. The Delimitation Act, 2023 provided that
Delimitation Commission may take into account the need to give adequate representation in the
Legislature for each community in Kaduru. Additionally, in all other respects, the Delimitation
Act, 2023 was in para materia with the Delimitation Act, 1952 of India.
11
The Prime Minister of Kaduru, Ms. Sartha, appointed 5 members to the Commission who were
all ethnically Kadurigas and were members of KIM. The commission submitted its report to the
PM with the following findings:
a. Given the historic under-representation of native Kadurigas under Birur rule, they
should be over-represented in the legislature.
b. The other seat allocations are deemed “adequate representation” for the other
communities which have anyway benefited from over-representation under Birur rule.
c. Based on the 2021 census, the following is the approximate breakup of the major
ethnicities in Kaduru:
Kadurigas – 68%
Solurans – 12%
Malurites – 12%
Other ethnicities – 8%
d. Out of the 200 contested seats in the lower house of the legislature, each ethnic majority
area (State) would be allotted the following seats:
Kaduriga Enclave – 160
Soluran Enclave – 15
Malurite Enclave – 15
The remaining enclaves – 10 (with at least one seat per enclave)
e. Out of the 100 seats in the upper house, the following seats are allotted to each enclave
for indirect election:
Kaduriga Enclave - 80
Soluran Enclave - 8
Malurite - 8
The remaining - 4 (to be selected as a group from the members of
the other enclaves)
There was immediate uproar from the non-Kaduriga members of the Legislature, especially the
Solurans and Malurites who felt they were being grossly under-represented. Nevertheless,
because the KIM had a simple majority in the legislature, the Report was adopted and the next
day, Delimitation Order, 2023 was issued to implement the recommendations of the
Delimitation Commission.
As a result of the above developments, the following cases were filed:
12
 Writ Petition by Maluru Makkalu (MM), before the High Court of Malurite Enclave,
challenging the Delimitation Order, 2023 contenting it to be in violation of the
Constitution and of the Delimitation Act, 2023.
 Writ Petition by Mr. Lino Koy, before the High Court of Malurite Enclave, challenging
the validity of the Delimitation Act, 2023.
In both cases, the DPRK filed a response questioning the maintainability of the writs, the locus
standi of the petitioners and defended the constitutional validity of the Delimitation Order,
2023.
 Writ Petition by Ms. Kerri, the chairperson of Solurans For Justice (SFJ), before the
Supreme Court of Kaduru contending that her fundamental rights as a Soluran had been
violated, thereby challenging the constitutionality of Delimitation Order, 2023.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kaduru, on the ground the commonality of the Issues,
transferred the Writ Petitions in the High Court to itself and tagged them with the Writ Petition
filed by Ms. Kerri.
The hon’ble court has now placed the matter before a Constitution Bench, to adjudicated upon
the following issues framed:
I. Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable in each instance?
II. Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to approach the respective courts?
III. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the Constitution of Kaduru?
IV. Whether the Delimitation Order, 2023 is legal and constitutional?
Hence, this Petition…..
13
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE – I:
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?
A. Whether the writ petition, by Maluru Makkalu (MM), before the High Court
of Malurite Enclave, challenging the Delimitation Order 2023,
maintainable?
B. Whether the writ petition of Mr. Lino Koy in the Hon’ble High Court of
Malurite Enclave challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023, is maintainable?
C. Whether the writ petition filed by Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for
Justice (SFJ), challenging the constitutional validity of Delimitation Order,
2023 on the ground of violation of her fundamental right, before the
Supreme Court of Kadaru, is maintainable?
ISSUE – II:
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
RESPECTIVE COURTS?
A. Whether the Maluru Makkalu (MM), challenging the Delimitation Order
2023, has locus standi before the High Court of Malurite?
B. Whether Mr. Lino Koy has the locus standi to file the Writ Petition
challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023?
C. Whether Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for Justice (SFJ), challenging the
constitutional validity of Delimitation Order, 2023 on the ground of violation
of her fundamental right, before the Supreme Court of Kadaru, has locus
standi?
ISSUE – III:
WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF
KADARU?
A. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the fundamental rights

guaranteed by the Constitution?
14
B. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violated the Constitution of Kaduru?
C. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 is ambiguous and bad in law?
ISSUE – IV:
WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER 2023 IS LEGAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL?
A. Whether the order violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution?
B. Whether the order violates the Constitution of Kaduru?
C. Whether the order violates the Delimitation Act, 2023?
15
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?
It is humbly submitted that that the writ petitions filed by Maluru Makkalu (MM) in the High
Court of Malurite Enclave, Mr. Lino Koy in the High Court, and Ms. Kerri in the Supreme
Court are maintainable. The High Courts and Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article
226 and 32 respectively to review the constitutionality of the Delimitation Act and Order,
2023, which are central legislations. It is averred that petitioners have locus standi and their
fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equal protection) and 32 (constitutional remedies) may
be violated. The Delimitation Commission, as a statutory body, falls under the definition of
'state' under Article 12, making it subject to judicial review.
ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE RESPECTIVE
COURTS?
It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have the requisite locus standi to file writ petitions
challenging the Delimitation Act and Order, 2023. It is submitted that the petitioners are
aggrieved persons whose fundamental rights have been infringed and are thus entitled to seek
judicial remedy under Article 32 and 226. It is averred that the petitions should be treated as
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) since they represent the rights of vulnerable ethnic minorities
adversely affected by the Act and Order. Maluru Makkalu (MM), as an organization
representing Malurites, has standing to file the petition in the High Court. Mr. Lino Koy and
Ms. Kerri, though filing in their personal capacities, also have standing as their petitions
involve significant public interest and represent the broader interests of underrepresented
communities.
ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF
KADARU?
It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the Constitution of Kaduru by
infringing on fundamental rights, contravening specific constitutional provisions, and
undermining the constitutional philosophy. The Act's allowance for ethnic-based delimitation
violates the right to equality under Article 14, and the principles of equal representation
enshrined in Articles 81, 170, and 327. Furthermore, the Act's ambiguous goals and indefinite
16
application of ethnic reservations contradict the constitutional promise of political justice

outlined in the preamble. Additionally, the Act also puts a bar on the intervention of Judiciary
so as to check the validity of the legislations made under it and thus the right to judicial remedy
under Article 32 stands violated. Therefore, the petitioner argues that the Delimitation Act,
2023 should be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.
ISSUE – IV: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER 2023 IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order, 2023 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is averred that the order is arbitrary and fails the test of reasonable classification, also it lacks
intelligible differentia and rational nexus to its objectives. The Order is disproportionate,
violates the "one person, one vote" principle under Articles 81 and 170, and undermines the
basic structure of the Constitution, including democracy, equality, representation and
federalism. Further, the Order amounts to colourable legislation, has procedural improprieties,
is tainted with mala fides due to the biased composition of the Delimitation Commission, and
fails to meet international standards for electoral delimitation. Therefore, the Petitioner
contends that the Order is unconstitutional.
17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE IN EACH

INSTANCE?
1. The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court flows form Article 321, which empowers the court
with the power of Judicial review2 of any legislation or provision brought by the
Legislature. It is submitted that writ petitions filed by each of the petitioners, contain
substantial questions of law3, bringing into question the constitutional validity of the
legislations and orders passed by the Legislative Assembly and the violation of
Fundamental rights caused thereof.
2. Article 12 provides the definition of ‘the state’ as to include all authorities under the control
of the Government. 4 It is ‘the state’ against whom Fundamental Rights can be enforced. In
Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr 5, it was opined that
the statutory bodies, i.e. bodies created by a statute / legislation, fall under the ambit and
scope of ‘the state’ under article 12. It is therefore submitted, that the Delimitation
Commission, formed by the Delimitation Act, 2023, would fall within the definition of ‘the
state’ and therefore fundamental rights can be enforced against it with the help of courts.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have no other alternative remedy6
available to them under the provisions of the Constitution of Kaduru. It is also a settled
principle that Supreme Court is the custodian of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the
Constitution and also public interest7. It is humbly submitted that the petitions, therefore,
should be held as maintainable before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Kaduru and also the
High Court of Malurite Enclave.
4. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors8, it was held by the SC
that issue of order of delimitation of constituencies, under Delimitation Act 9, is not
completely insusceptible to judicial review. Article 329, was interpreted as to not entirely
1
INDIA CONST art. 32
2
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1980 AIR 1789
3
State Bank of India vs S.N. Goyal AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2594 at ¶ 9.1
4
INDIA CONST art. 12
5
Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr 1975 AIR 1331
6
Union Bank of India v. Swati Tondon & Ors. AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3413 at ¶18
7
Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 INSC 579 at pg.3
8
ibid
9
Delimitation Act, 2023 of Kaduru
18
save every action of delimitation exercise.10 The courts are therefore entitled to judicial
review of the orders passed by Delimitation Commission.11 It is respectfully submitted that
the A.32912 does not bar the present petition and therefore it should be held as maintainable.
5. Furthermore, a writ petition is maintainable even before the violation of a constitutional or

otherwise legal right has been committed.13 Once a law or order has been passed which
potentially infringes a legal right, a writ petition may be filed. 14 In the given scenario, the
Delimitation Act and Order, 2023 have been passed but the elections are yet to be
conducted, therefore the write petitions are maintainable.
6. It is submitted that all the writ petitions are maintainable:

I.A That the writ petition filed by MM filed in the High Court is maintainable;
I.B That the writ petition filed by Mr. Lino Koy is maintainable;
I.C That the writ petition filed by Ms. Kerri in the Supreme Court is maintainable.
I.A: THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MALURU MAKKALU (MM) BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF MALURITE ENCLAVE IS MAINTAINABLE
7. The Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts’ flows from Article 226,15 which confers wide
powers enabling the Court to issue writs, directions, orders for the enforcement of
fundamental or legal rights.16 It is submitted that the petitioner has maintainability on the
grounds: High courts are empowered to judicial review of central legislation17; [II(a)] that
the petitioner has locus standi; [IV] that the fundamental rights of the petitioner may stand
violated.
I.A.i HIGH COURT’S POWER TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CENTRAL LEGISLATIONS
8. It is important to mention that the bar upon the High Court’s scope of judicial review of
Central legislations was removed with the 43rd Constitutional Amendment Act 1977, which
removed A.131-A, that provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court over
Central Legislations. In the given case, the petitioner had approached the High Court
10
Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 INSC 579 at ¶5
11
Ibid, at ¶7
12
Factsheet at pg. 11
13
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 at ¶ 8.
14
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 1896 at ¶ 24.
15
INDIA CONST art. 226
16
H. M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 4th ed., vol. 2, 2007 at p. 1586.
17
INDIA CONST art. 131-A (omitted by the Constitution 43rd Amendment Act, 1977), Constitution of India
19
challenging the Delimitation Order, 2023, which is a Central or Union Legislation and
therefore he has evoked an appropriate jurisdiction for his petition.
I.A.ii THAT A.14 COVERS ‘EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW’ WHICH MAY STAND VIOLATED
9. Article 14 of the Constitution of India grants ‘equal protection’ of law to all its subjects18.
It is herein submitted that the fundamental right under A.14 may stand infringed. The
government’s passing the order of reserving 80% seats to representatives of Kadurigas
violates the principle of equal protection of law19 under article 14. Justice PN Bhagwati
had observed that the arbitrariness of State action constitutes a violation of A.1420. In the
present case, the state’s action of providing grossly disproportionate representation to one
Ethnic group in the Union Legislature is outrightly arbitrary.
I.A.iii THAT A.32, WHICH ENSHRINES THE RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES, MAY
STAND VIOLATED
10. Article 32 21
confers a right to move to Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental
rights.22 It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Act, 2023 under section 9 clause 1,
puts a restraint on a person’s right to move to court against the order passed by the
Delimitation Commission, 2023. Article 32 is the soul and heart of the constitution23 and
also a part of Basic Structure Doctrine24 and therefore cannot be curtailed by any
legislation.25
I.B: THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MR. LINO KOY, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF DELIMITATION ACT, 2023, BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MALURITE
ENCLAVE IS MAINTAINABLE?
11. It is humbly submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the appropriateness of jurisdiction
of the High Court to entertain the petition challenging the constitutional validity of
Delimitation Act, 2023 has been explained in the previous sub-issue [I(A)(i)]. Further, it
has also been explained [I(A)(ii & iii)] that the fundamental rights of the petitioner may
18
INDIA CONST art. 14
19
Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) at ¶257
20
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (2) SCR 224
21
INDIA CONST art. 32
22
Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs Union Of India AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 366 at ¶14
23
Dr. BR Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, 09.12.1948 at
https://main.sci.gov.in/AMB/pdf/cad%2009.12.1948.pdf on ¶953
24
25
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461
at ¶1198
20
stand violated. In view of the same, it is reverently submitted that the writ petition filed by
Mr. Lino Koy before the Hon’ble High Court is maintainable.
I.C: THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MS. KERRI, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF DELIMITATION ORDER, 2023, ON GROUNDS OF VIOLATION OF HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KADURU IS MAINTAINABLE
12. Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court flows from Article 32,26 which confers wide powers
enabling the Court to issue writs, directions, orders for the enforcement of fundamental
rights27. Further, the fundamental rights envisaged under Article 14 and Article 32 of the
petitioner may stand violated for which she is entitled in law to approach the Supreme
Court and seek relief under the Writ Jurisdiction.28 Establish the prima facie violation of
fundamental rights of the petitioner.
13. It is respectfully submitted that Delimitation Commission of Kaduru is a statutory body,

given that it has been established with use of a statute29, i.e. Delimitation Act, 2023.
Moreover, it has been stated by the hon’ble Supreme Court of India, “If the order is found
to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values, the Court can
grant the appropriate remedy to rectify the situation.”30 It is thereby submitted that the
Delimitation commission is under the ambit of ‘state’ under article 1231, thereby
fundamental rights can be enforced against it.
ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPRAOCH

THE RESPECTIVE COURTS?
14. The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘locus standi’ as the right or ability to bring a legal
action to a court of law, or to appear in a court.32 It enables an aggrieved party to be heard.33
The SC has the jurisdiction to determine the locus Standi of the petitioner to present the
26
INDIA CONST art. 32
27
Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 1621
28
Ibid
29
Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/statutory-body, (last visited
27.08.2024)
30
Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India And Ors. 2024 INSC 579
31
INDIA CONST art. 12
32
Cambridge Dictionary; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/locus-standi; (last visited 08.08.24)
33
Merriam-Webster Dictionary; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/locus%20standi; (last visited
08.08.2024)
21
petition under Article 226 of the Indian constitution.34 It is thereby submitted by the counsel
for petitioners that the writ petitions filed possess the requisite locus standi.
15. A person is entitled of judicial remedy under art.32 in case of an enactment which takes
away or abridges the fundamental rights.35 Further, infringement of fundamental is
completed as soon as the enactment is passed.36 A person whose fundamental right has
been infringed by the mere operation of an enactment, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction
of this Court under Art. 32 for the enforcement of his right.37 It is humbly submitted that
the petitioners in the present case, possess the requisite locus standi to file writ petitions in
each instance.
16. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, ‘aggrieved person’ refers to a person who has
suffered sufficient harm by a legal order or decree and has standing to prosecute for the
harm suffered.38 It is a settled principle of law that an aggrieved person possesses locus
standi to enforce his rights.39 In the present case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the Act
and Order of the Parliament as they infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners
guaranteed by the Constitution. Once a law or order has been passed which potentially
infringes a legal right, a writ petition may be filed.40
17. Public Interest Litigation is a collaboration between the petitioner, the state / public
authority, and the court to uphold constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges
conferred upon the vulnerable parts of the society.41 The ‘standing’ in PIL must be of
receptive nature at the judicial doorsteps.42 The purpose of PIL is for making basic human
rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community. 43 It is hereby
submitted that the Act and the Order, damage the rights and privileges of the ethnic
minorities of Kaduriga and therefore renders them as deprived and vulnerable. Therefore,
the petitions in the court must be treated as PILs because the present petitions intend to
uphold the rights of the larger and deprived group of societies.
34
Sathyanarayana Sinha Vs Lal & Co AIR 1973 SC 2720.
35
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunnimoopil Nayar Vs. The State Of Madras & Ors 1959 SCR SUPL. (2) 316
36
ibid
37
ibid
38
Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person%20aggrieved; (last visited
28.08.2024)
39
Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. & Ors 2023:AHC:180417
40
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 1896 at ¶ 24.
41
People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors v. Union of India & Ors (1982) 3 SCC 235
42
Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd., Sindri & Ors v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1981 SC 844
43
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1989 SC 549
22
18. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India,44 it has been observed that in determining
the question of locus standi in PIL the Court must look into: (i) the credentials of the
applicant; (ii) prima facie correctness of information; (iii) information should show
failure of public duty; (iv) must not go into merits of the case.45 It is humbly submitted
that in the present scenario, the petitioners fulfil all the conditions provided above.
II.A: THAT MALURU MAKKALU (MM) HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT, CHALLENGING THE DELIMITATION ORDER, 2023
II.A.i THAT THE ORGANISATION OF MM HAS LOCUS STANDI
19. The expression ‘aggrieved person’ cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact
and comprehensive definition and its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable
factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the
specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the
nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.46 It is humbly
submitted, thus the ambit of locus standi would include the organisation of MM within it
provided that in the present case, the organisation is seeking to enforce rights of a large
group of society.
20. In public law, the rule that only the aggrieved person is entitled to seek judicial redress has
been liberalised to include any “public-spirited individual” or “association”.47 In case a
class of people have a collective grievance, even an unrecognised association may initiate
writ proceedings.48 An organisation having special interest in the subject matter or a
member thereof should be allowed to apply49. The concept of aggrieved person has been
enlarged, to include any public spirited individual or association50, acting bona fide the
cause of justice and it is not purported by any political motive51. In the present scenario,
the organisation MM represents the rights of the Malurites in the country of Kaduru, which
44
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380.
45
Ibid at ¶¶ 27-30.
46
Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 58
47
S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 at ¶¶ 14-25 (per P. N. Bhagwati, J.); Banwasi Seva
Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374.
48
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298 at ¶ 63 (per Krishna Iyer).
49
Fertiliser Corporation Kamagar Union Vs Union of India AIR 1981 SC 344.
50
ibid
51
SP Gupta Vs The Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
23
have been infringed by the Act and the Order. It is thereby submitted that that MM
possesses the necessary Locus Standi to file the writ petition52.
II.A.ii THAT WRIT PETITION OF MM CAN BE TREATED AS A PIL
21. The evolution of the locus standi doctrine through the PIL paradigm allows individuals or
groups to approach the court even when they are not directly aggrieved, provided the matter
involves a significant public interest53. Given the widespread implications of the
Delimitation Order on the democratic process and ethnic representation in Kaduru, the
petitioners argue that they represent not just their personal interests but the broader interests
of underrepresented communities.
22. The petitioners also invoke the theory of representative standing54, where individuals or
groups act on behalf of those who are directly affected but may lack the resources or
capability to approach the court. The petitioners argue that they represent the
disenfranchised ethnic minorities whose rights are purportedly being undermined by the
Delimitation Order.
II.B THAT MR. LINO KOY HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE
DELIMITATION ACT, 2023.
II.B.i THAT MR. LINO KOY HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE WRIT PETITION
23. It is the obligation of the State to protect the life and liberty of every Human being, be he
a citizen or not55. In instances of public wrong or injury, if an act or omission by the State
runs contrary to the Constitution then any member of the public has locus standi.56 It is
submitted that the Act and the Order runs contrary to the Constitution of Kaduru and
therefore has caused legal injury to the fundamental right of the petitioner.
24. Further, a writ petition is maintainable even before the violation of a constitutional or
otherwise legal right has been committed.57 Once a law or order has been passed which
potentially infringes a legal right, a writ petition may be filed. 58 In the given scenario, the
52
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 298
53
SP Gupta Vs The Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
54
United Food And Commercial Workers Union Local 751 V. Brown Group, Inc., Dba Brown Shoe Co. 517
U.S. 544 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/517/544)
55
National Human Rights Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (1966) 1 SCC 742
56
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330 at ¶ 10.
57
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 at ¶ 8.
58
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissoner, AIR 1971 SC 1896 at ¶ 24.
24
Delimitation Act and Order, 2023 have been passed but the elections are yet to be
conducted, therefore the writ petitions are maintainable.
II.B.ii THAT MR. LINO KOY’S WRIT PETITION COULD BE TREATED AS PIL
25. In Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and
Ors59, it was held that where the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest
and for redressal of the personal grievance, the Court in furtherance of public interest may
treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the
interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public interest case.
It is hereby submitted that the petition of Mr. Koy, despite being private in nature, could
be treated as a PIL.
II.C THAT MS. KERRI HAS LOCUS STANDI TO SEEK WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON GROUNDS THAT
HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED.
II.C.i THAT MS. KERRI HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE WRIT PETITION
26. Any person who complains of any infraction of any Fundamental right guaranteed by the
constitution is at the liberty to move to the court60. However, in order to have locus standi
to invoke certiorari jurisdiction a person must be an aggrieved person.61 To have a "standing
to sue", which means locus standi to ask for relief in a court independently of a statutory
remedy, the plaintiff must show that he is injured, that is, subjected to or threatened with a
legal wrong.62 It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has suffered a legal injury as in
the way of her fundamental rights being violated, and therefore is covered under the ambit
of ‘aggrieved person’.
II.C.ii THAT WRIT PETITION OF MS. KERRI COULD BE TREATED AS A PIL

27. The writ petition of Ms. Kerri, despite being filed in personal capacity, could be treated
as of having ‘public interest’63 and therefore the writ petition can be treated as a Public
Interest Litigation.
59
Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors AIR 2004
SUPREME COURT 2615
60
Mahinder Vs The union of Indian (1995) 1 SCC 85.
61
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. 1976 Air 578
62
ibid
63
Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors AIR 2004
25
ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION OF KADARU?
28. According to Article 13(2)64 of the Constitution of India, the state is prohibited from
making any law which abridges any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution65.
It is the obligation of the State to protect the life and liberty of every Human being, be he
a citizen or not66. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘ultra-vires’ as an action by an
authority outside its legal power or authority67. It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation
Act, 2023 be declared ultra-vires of the Constitution of Kaduru on the grounds:
III.A That the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution;
III.B That the Delimitation Act, 2023 violated the Constitution of Kaduru;
III.C That the Delimitation Act, 2023 is ambiguous and bad in law.
III.A THAT THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023 VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
III.A.i THAT ARTICLE 14 OF THE PETITIONER(S) MAY STAND VIOLATED
29. Article 1468 of the Constitution provides for ‘equal protection of law’, i.e. the state cannot
deny the equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction.69 It is therefore
submitted that the Delimitation Act, 2023 provides the leeway to apportion more legislative
seats to some group / identity at the cost of other, it violates the principle of equal protection
of laws, enshrined under article 14.
30. In Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. vs. President And Fellows Of Harvard College70, the
US Supreme Court held that any exception to equal protection of law must survive II-step
examination called ‘strict scrutiny, i.e. (i) whether the racial classification is used to further
compelling governmental interest and (ii) whether the government’s use of ethnicity is
necessary to achieve that interest.
III.A.i.i COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST
AGAINST POLITICAL EQUALITY
64
Article 13, Constitution of India
65
ibid
66
National Human Rights Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (1966) 1 SCC 742
67
Cambridge Dictionary; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ultra-vires; (last visited 28.08.24)
68
69
Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. The Union of India & Ors. 1951 AIR 41
70
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
26
31. It is submitted that providing "adequate" representation for certain ethnicities compromises
the essential equality of all citizens in the political sphere. It elevates ethnicity over all other
political values and identities.
AGAINST UNITY
32. It is averred that by diverging from the principle of equal representation, as enshrined in
the constitution of Kaduru71, and allocating seats based on ethnicity rather than population,
the Act subverts the core constitutional value of political equality. Further, the Act is against
‘unity’ by the way of entrenching and formalizing ethnic divisions, which weaken the
shared civic identity necessary for a stable democracy and thus violates the Constitution's
basic structure72.
THREAT OF PERPETUITY
33. It is submitted that the provision of the Act affords a threat of perpetual application of such
discrimination. The object of the Act to provide ‘adequate representation’ to one ethnicity
is mingled vagueness of the interest and thereby allows it to persist indefinitely. For an
interest to be compelling, it must be concrete and time-limited.73 The U.S. Supreme Court
has rejected such indefinite classifications, holding that "all governmental use of race must
have a logical end point and must be assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm
of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in
the service of the goal of equality itself."74 It is submitted that, in the present case, providing
"adequate representation" is a nebulous, open-ended goal without any discernible endpoint.
III.A.i.ii GOVERNMENT’S USE OF ETHNICITY IS NOT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT
34. Arguably, the government, through the act, since it neither establishes that it explored other
non-ethnic based methods to increase political participation nor could it prove the need to
take ethnicity into consideration. It is submitted that; therefore, the use of ethnicity is not
necessary to achieve the object of alleviation of certain historically-discriminated groups
in the population and hence the Act fails this test.
35. The SC in State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkarhabib Mohamed, The State of
Hyderabad & I 75 laid down II conditions for reasonable classification, i.e. (i) intelligible
71
Factsheet at ¶ 21
72
73
74
ibid
75
State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkarhabib Mohamed, The State of Hyderabad & I 1952 AIR 75 at pg.33
27
differentia (distinguish those that are grouped together from others left out) and (ii) rational
nexus (to the object sought to be achieved by the statue).
INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
36. It is a settled principle that the differentiation should be rational and not vague in nature,
i.e. intelligible. It is thereby submitted ethnicity does not provide any discernible or
understandable basis for differentiation between citizen for the purpose of allocating seats
in the legislature. According to A.80 and A.17076, the facet of ‘population’ is to be
considered, and thereby bringing in the differentiation on basis of ‘ethnicity’ would
contravene the mentioned articles. Further, unlike other permissible bases for classification
like age, sex, educational qualifications, etc, ethnicity has no bearing on a person’s ability
to entitlement to participate in the democratic process. Ethnic groups as classes are not
distinguishable from each other in any intelligible manner when it comes to delimitation.
37. Venice Commission's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters77 (2002) states that
"Equal voting power: seats must be evenly distributed between the constituencies.” Ethnic
delimitation contravenes these international standards by distributing seats based on
ethnicity rather than population equality. Further, The German Federal Constitutional
Court, in a landmark decision on electoral equality, held that " The equal treatment of all
citizens in the exercise of the right to vote is one of the essential foundations of the liberal-
democratic basic order, as drafted by the Basic Law…It is to be understood in the sense of
a strict and formal equality”78 These comparative examples demonstrate that ethnic
delimitation is an outlier practice that violates core constitutional principles of democratic
equality and non-discrimination. Ethnic proportionality in legislatures echoes the long-
repudiated notion of "separate electorates" based on religion under British rule. It
fragments the body politic into competing ethnic blocs and erodes the shared civic identity
essential for democratic self-governance.
RATIONAL NEXUS
38. Further, in view of the (ii) test, the Act79 clearly states its object as to ensure fair and equal
representation based on population changes. The phrase “for matters connected therewith”
cannot be stretched to include ethnicity, as it would be contrary to the express constitutional
76
Constitution of Kaduru, Factsheet at p.g. 10
77
Venice Commission's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters at
(https://www.venice.coe.int/images/SITEIMAGES/Publications/Code_conduite_PREMS 026115 GBR.pdf)
78
(2 BvC 1/07)
79
Delimitation Act, 1952
28
provisions, mandating population-based representation as under article 82 of Constitution

of Kaduru.80
39. It is submitted that the historical context in which the Delimitation Act was framed shows
a clear intent to ensure equal representation based on population. The Birur Empire’s policy
of ethnic enclaves and the subsequent independence movement led by the Kadurigas were
aimed at establishing a fair and just system of representation. The Delimitation Act, 2023,
by distorting this representation, goes against the very spirit of Kaduru’s struggle for
independence and the legislative intent behind the delimitation provisions.
III.A.ii THAT ARTICLE 32 MAY STAND VIOLATED
40. Article 32 81
confers a right to move to Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental
rights.82 It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Act, 2023 under section 9 clause 1,
puts a restraint on a person’s right to move to court against the order passed by the
Delimitation Commission, 2023. Article 32 is the soul and heart of the constitution83 and
also a part of Basic Structure Doctrine84 and therefore cannot be curtailed by any
legislation.85
41. It if further submitted that the Act encroaches upon the powers of the judiciary by
attempting to shield its provision from judicial review contrary to the principles of
separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
42. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 86, it was held by the SC
that issue of order of delimitation of constituencies, under Delimitation Act 87, is not
completely insusceptible to judicial review. Article 329, was interpreted as to not entirely
save every action of delimitation exercise.88 The courts are therefore entitled to judicial
review of the orders passed by Delimitation Commission.89
III.B THAT DELIMITATION ACT, 2023 IS ULTRA-VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF KADURU
80
Factsheet at pg. 10
81
INDIA CONST art. 32
82
83
Dr. BR Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, 09.12.1948 at
https://main.sci.gov.in/AMB/pdf/cad%2009.12.1948.pdf on ¶953
84
85
at ¶1198
86
ibid
87
Delimitation Act, 2023 of Kaduru
88
Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 INSC 579 at ¶5
89
Ibid, at ¶7
29
43. Article 245 of the Indian Constitution provides that the parliament may make laws subject
to the provisions of the Constitution.90 The Constitution is the law of the land and is
supreme 91, therefore, any act/ provision or order passed by Legislature would be deemed
as ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the Constitution.
III.B.i THAT THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF A.81 & A.170 OF CONSTITUTION OF KADURU
44. Article 81 & 17092 enshrine the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, requiring equal
representation based on population, not ethnicity. The Delimitation Act fundamentally
violates the aforementioned principle by allowing for consideration of ethnic identities for
the purpose of delimitation of seats of legislation.
45. The phrase 'may take into account' 93

of the Act vests the Delimitation Commission with
unconstitutional freedom to deviate from the principle of equal representation. In Minnevra
Mills 94
it has been held by the apex court that any law that attempts to bypass the
Constitution is void. It is thereby submitted that the Act thus violates the Constitution of
Kaduru.
46. By reason of this unconstitutional leeway there is a certainty that the Elections will be not
be fair and free and fair elections has already been declared as part of basic structure
doctrine. 95
III.B.ii THAT THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF A.327 OF CONSTITUTION OF KADURU
47. Article 327 of the Constitution96 provides for the 'due' constitution of the Upper and Lower
Houses of the Central Legislature and delimitation of constituencies. The said due
constitution requires the formation of the houses to be subject to the provisions of the
Constitution (A.82 & 170 of Constitution of Kaduru).
48. The Rule of Law is supreme and therefore cannot be suspended by any Parliamentary
legislation.97 It is humbly put forth that the Delimitation Act 2023, insofar as it deviates
from constitutional principles, is unconstitutional.
90
INDIA CONST art. 143
91
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 1980 AIR 1789
92
Factsheet at pg. 10
93
Factsheet at ¶ 25 (c)
94
95
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others 1992 SCR (1) 686
96
Factsheet at pg. 11
97
30
III.B.iii THAT THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY
49. In Kesavananda Bharati 98 it was held that Preamble outlines the objectives of the whole
Constitution and provides an insight into the minds of the makers. The preamble promises
to provide ‘Justice – Social, Economic and Political’ for all citizens. The preamble has also
been accepted as a part of Basic Structure Doctrine 99
. Political justice, as promised by
preamble, entails equal representation and voting power for all citizens, regardless of
ethnicity. It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Act violated the fundamental
promise by the preamble to the citizens by allowing for ethnic-based delimitation.
III.C THAT THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023 IS AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE
50. The goals that the Act seeks to achieve through ethnic reservations are undefined and
ambiguous. This lack of clarity risks perpetuating the reservation system indefinitely. This
encumbrance has been well documented and addressed by the judgement of Students For
Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President And Fellows Of Harvard College.100 Court wasn’t able
to comprehend how is a court to know whether leaders have been adequately 'trained';
whether the exchange of ideas is 'robust'; or whether 'new knowledge' is being developed?
These were the goals that the Harvard college stated it indeed wanted achieve and by virtue
thereof it wanted to have gates of the college opened for diversity. But none of them were
measure and thus making it arbitrary and unconstitutional.
ISSUE – IV: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER, 2023 IS LEGAL AND

CONSTITUTIONAL?
51. It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order is neither legal nor constitutional,
primarily on 3 grounds:
IV.A That the order violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution
IV.B That the order violates the Constitution of Kaduru
IV.C That the order violates the Delimitation Act, 2023
IV.A THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
IV.A.i THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 14 MAY STAND VIOLATED
98
Kesvananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461
at ¶101
99
ibid
100
31
52. Article 14101 of the Indian Constitution, on which the Kaduru Constitution is based,
guarantees equality before the law. The arbitrariness of State action constitutes a violation
of A.14.102 Further, the right under a.14 includes a right against "arbitrariness" of the
State.103 Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to
political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of a.14.104 It is put forth that
the Order is based on the Commission's ipse dixit105, i.e. without any coherence, and
provides no reasonable explanation for such a gross deviation from constitutional norms.
It is therefore liable to be struck down as arbitrary.
53. It is pertinent to record here that allocating just 15/200 lower house seats and 8/100 upper
house seats each to the Soluran and Malurite enclaves, despite them constituting 12% of
the population each, amounts to discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. It relegates these
groups to political irrelevance. The Order institutionalizes the political supremacy of the
Kaduriga ethnicity by providing 68% Kadurigas with 80% reservation of seats in lower
house and upper house. This offends constitutional values and will perpetuate ethnic strife
that the Constitution aimed to redress.
IV.A.ii THAT THE ORDER FAILS THE TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE
14
54. A.14 of Indian Constitution forbids unreasonable classifications. The court in National
South Indian River Interlinking Case106, has given II-pronged test for ‘reasonable
classification’: (i) classification must be founded on intelligible differentia; (ii) differentia
must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Order. It is humbly
submitted that the Order fails on both prongs of the test.
INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
55. Firstly, this differentia is not intelligible as until it is established that ‘historic under-
representation’ of Kadurigas in the Birur empire was attributable to their under-
representation in the legislature and it can be demonstrated that they were indeed under-
represented in the legislature on the ground of ethnicity under the Birur empire, employing
101
102
103
Ibid
104
Ibid
105
Merriam-Webster; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ipse%20dixit; (last visited 29.-8.2024)
106
The State Of Tamil Nadu Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Secretary Vs National
South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association 2021 INSC 777
32
ethnicity as the standalone basis for delimitation of constituencies is not intelligible

differentia.
56. It is submitted that the Order disregards factors such as current population distribution,
geographic spread, and socio-economic conditions of different ethnic groups. It only was
concerned with past under-representation and failed to establish a direct association
between previous under-representation and present classification.
RATIONAL NEXUS
57. Secondly, the chosen classification lacks any rational nexus to the objects of delimitation,
i.e. ensuring the equitable apportionment of political and fair representation for all
communities. Far from advancing these goals, the Order subverts political justice, which
indeed is part of basic structure doctrine, by entrenching one ethnic group's electoral
dominance at the expense of all others. State’s assertion of a classification serving
legitimate goal cannot be insulated from scrutiny under a.14 and putting it to test of ‘cogent
material’ for the classification107. It is respectfully put forth, that the State has furnished no
empirical data or "cogent material" showing that Kadurigas have suffered unique hardships
warranting their grossly disproportionate representation. The Order thus rests on a naked
ethnic preference destructive of democratic equality.
58. It is submitted that by severely diluting the voting power of certain ethnic groups, the Order
infringes on the principle that sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. Further,
the Order effectively transforms Kaduru from a democracy based on equal citizenship to
an ethnocracy privileging one group. It is submitted that the order is against deliberative
democratic theory, which emphasizes the importance of diverse voices in the democratic
process. It ensures that minority communities have a meaningful say in governance,
enhancing the legitimacy of democratic institutions.
IV.A.iii THAT THE ORDER FAILS BOTH – PROPORTIONALITY AND WEDNESBURY PRINCIPLE
59. When an administrative action is challenged as discriminatory under a.14, a question of

‘proportionality’ arises on which courts acts as the primary reviewing authority, tasked with
scrutinizing the justification for the differential treatment.108 As a classification, the Order's
reservation of seats for Kadurigas based on ethnic identity rather than neutral delimitation
107
The State Of Tamil Nadu Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Secretary Vs National
South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association 2021 INSC 777
108
Om Kar & Ors v. Union of India; AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3689
33
principles like population equality is both over- and under-inclusive. It is under-inclusive

because it ignores other disadvantaged minority groups who may be equally or more
deserving of representational guarantees. And it is over-inclusive because it grants reserved
seats to all Kadurigas, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, based on crude ethnic
headcounts. Such an indiscriminate racial quota system, divorced from individual
circumstances, cannot be justified as narrowly tailored to the goal of ensuring fair
representation.
60. However, in Royappa 109

, Wednesbury Principle110, in reference to the Wednesbury case,
was followed, i.e. whether the authority had considered irrelevant factors, ignored relevant
factors, or reached a decision so outrageous that no reasonable person could have arrived
at it. Here, the court plays a more deferential, secondary role, interfering only if the
Wednesbury criteria are met. It is submitted that no reasonable constitutional authority
could conclude permanently placing one ethnic group in a dominant electoral position
based on ancestral identity is a permissible use of the delimitation power in a republic
founded on equality. Such an approach replaces representative democracy with a spoils
system parcelling out political power on ethnic lines – the very antithesis of
constitutionalism.
61. It is humbly presented that whether viewed as a "discriminatory" classification failing the
test of proportionality or as an "arbitrary" measure failing Wednesbury review, the Order
runs afoul of Article 14's guarantee of equal treatment. The Constitution does not permit
the state to divisively and irrationally apportion legislative representation based on racial
quotas in this manner.
IV.B THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION
IV.B.i THAT THE ORDER MAY STAND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 170 & 81
62. Article 170 & 81 of Constitution of Kaduru, provides the principle of ‘one person, one vote
and one value’. The principle of one man, one vote envisages that there should be parity in
the value of votes of electors. Although the constituencies elect one member, the value of
the vote of the elector in the constituency having lesser population is more than the value
of the vote of the elector of the constituency having a larger population.111 It is submitted
109
110
ibid
111
R.C. Poudyal And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc 1993 AIR 1804
34
that by allocating a disproportionately high number of seats to the Kaduriga enclave

compared to its population share, the Order subverts the equal value of each vote
irrespective of ethnicity or region. This strikes at the heart of representative democracy.
63. In the landmark U.S. case of Reynolds v. Sims 112, it was held that the ‘equal protection of
law’ requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be
apportioned on a population basis." It is respectfully advanced that the Order effectively
dilutes and debases the votes of non-Kaduriga citizens by giving disproportionate weight
to Kaduriga votes.
IV.B.ii THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
64. Any parliamentary legislation / provision / order in violation of the ‘basic structure
doctrine’ would be considered as ultra-vires of the Constitution. 113 It is thereby put forward
that by subverting democracy, equality and representation, the Order violates the basic
structure of the Constitution, a doctrine well-established in Indian jurisprudence.
65. The Basic Structure, non-exclusively, includes Free & Fair Election114, Rule of Law115,
Equality116, and Constitutional Supremacy117, and so on. It is submitted that the Order, in
letter and spirit, defiles these basic features. An Order that perpetuates the hegemony of
one ethnic group in a multi-ethnic polity shakes the foundations of constitutional
democracy and therefore should not stand.
IV.B.iii THAT THE ORDER IS A COLOURABLE LEGISLATION
66. The doctrine of colourable legislation postulates that what cannot be done directly cannot
be done indirectly.118 In other words, the legislature cannot do indirectly what it is
prohibited to do directly. It is hereby submitted that the order is a colourable exercise of
power on part of the Delimitation Commission and it vitiated by mala fides. The Act and
Order are a veiled attempt to manipulate the democratic process to institutionalise
Kaduriga’s dominance over the other ethnic minorities.
112
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
113
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT
1461
114
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Other 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
115
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr
116
ibid
117
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT
1461
118
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh 1952 1SCR889
35
IV.B.iv THAT THE ORDER IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF FEDERALISM
67. The Constitution of Kaduru, by way of being heavily inspired from Constitution of India,
envisages a federal structure, as also evidenced by the existence of States, a bicameral
legislature, and direct elections to State Assemblies. In S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India119
and Keshvananda Bharti120 judgments, federalism is found to be a part of the basic
structure doctrine. It is submitted that by unfairly privileging the Kaduriga-dominated
enclave in seat allocation, the Delimitation Act upsets federal equality and balance of the
country and jeopardizes the rights of States and union territories to equal representation.
68. The Delimitation Act, 2023, however, overrides this federal balance by imposing a Union-
controlled delimitation process that disproportionately favours one ethnic group over
others.
69. In the Indian case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 121

, the Supreme Court stressed that
"states have an independent constitutional existence and they have as important a role to
play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union. They
are neither satellites nor agents of the Centre. “The Delimitation Act, by undermining the
principle of federalism, breaches the basic structure of the Constitution.
IV.B.v THAT THE ORDER HAS PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETIES AND MALA FIDES
70. Lord Hewart CJ has famously stated "It is not merely of some importance but is of
fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done.”122 “Nothing is to be done that creates even a suspicion
that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”123 It is thereby
submitted that the Delimitation Commission is biased since it entirely consists of KIM
Members who were ethnically Kadurigas. Such composition of the Commission raises
serious concerns about bias and lack of diverse perspectives.
71. The homogeneous composition undermines the credibility and fairness of the delimitation
process. It is also important to record here that the commission fails the test of perceived
impartiality.
119
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India 1994 AIR 1918
120
121
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India 1994 AIR 1918
122
R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
123
ibid
36
72. Procedural impropriety in the case of the order was missing and it is manifest from looking
at the composition of the commission. In Maneka Gandhi124 it was held that,” The
procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or
arbitrary” here the procedure of delimitation is dreadfully disproportionate in favour of
Kadurigas and commission failed to provide coherent reason for such unjust order.
IV.C THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023
73. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.125
It suggests that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to every
clause, rather than ignoring or downplaying any part. The doctrine of expressio unius est
exclusio alterius i.e. the express mention of one thing excludes all others. While the Act
allows consideration of "adequate representation," this cannot be interpreted to justify such
extreme disproportionality The Order's interpretation effectively nullifies the primary
mandate of equal representation, which is an impermissible statutory construction.
74. The order effectively goes in contravention of articles of the constitution by way of
bringing ethnicity into consideration, this can solely be done through constitutional
amendment. However, KIM disguised this as an act and as an order which is abhorrent
misuse of legislature. This indeed is fraud on legislative power or, more frightfully, fraud
on the constitution and by reason of that such an exercise is inexcusable and unallowable.
The Order is not a bona fide attempt to give equitable representation, but a stratagem to
skew the balance of power in favour of the ruling dispensation. It is therefore liable to be
invalidated. The order should have been a constitutional amendment as the corollary of this
order conflicts with Constitutional articles such as 81 and 170 which enshrines principle of
equal representation
124
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
125
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
37
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners by MM and Mr. Lino Koy is
maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court of Malurite Enclave.
2. That the Writ Petition filed by Ms. Kerri before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Kaduru is maintainable.
3. That the Delimitation Act, 2023 is ultra vires to the Constitution of Kaduru.
4. That the Delimitation Order, 2023 is ultra vires of the Constitution of Kaduru and
the Delimitation Act, 2023.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper,
for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
38

17 Nalsar Justice Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2024

Uploaded by

17 Nalsar Justice Bodh Raj Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2024

Uploaded by

TEAM CODE – 60

17TH NALSAR JUSTICE BODH RAJ SAWHNY MEMORIAL

WRIT PETITION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF KADARU

Ms. KERRI & ORS …………PETITIONER

TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023

TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?.......................18

ABBREVIATION FULL TEXT

KIM Kaduriga Independence Movement

SFJ Solurans For Justice

ACT Delimitation Act, 2023

ORDER Delimitation Order, 2023

PIL Public Interest Litigation

53. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597

ONLINE SITES AND SOURCES

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

“Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. —

a. General (no reservation): 50%

e. Other under-represented ethnicities: 5%

MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION

FACTS OF THE CASE

As a result of the above developments, the following cases were filed:

I. Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable in each instance?

IV. Whether the Delimitation Order, 2023 is legal and constitutional?

Hence, this Petition…..

A. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the fundamental rights

B. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violated the Constitution of Kaduru?

C. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 is ambiguous and bad in law?

B. Whether the order violates the Constitution of Kaduru?

C. Whether the order violates the Delimitation Act, 2023?

ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?

application of ethnic reservations contradict the constitutional promise of political justice

ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE IN EACH

5. Furthermore, a writ petition is maintainable even before the violation of a constitutional or

6. It is submitted that all the writ petitions are maintainable:

HIGH COURT OF MALURITE ENCLAVE IS MAINTAINABLE

I.A.i HIGH COURT’S POWER TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CENTRAL LEGISLATIONS

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KADURU IS MAINTAINABLE

13. It is respectfully submitted that Delimitation Commission of Kaduru is a statutory body,

ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPRAOCH

II.A.i THAT THE ORGANISATION OF MM HAS LOCUS STANDI

II.A.ii THAT WRIT PETITION OF MM CAN BE TREATED AS A PIL

DELIMITATION ACT, 2023.

II.C.ii THAT WRIT PETITION OF MS. KERRI COULD BE TREATED AS A PIL

ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE

III.A.i THAT ARTICLE 14 OF THE PETITIONER(S) MAY STAND VIOLATED

III.A.i.i COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST

AGAINST POLITICAL EQUALITY

III.A.i.ii GOVERNMENT’S USE OF ETHNICITY IS NOT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT

provisions, mandating population-based representation as under article 82 of Constitution

III.A.ii THAT ARTICLE 32 MAY STAND VIOLATED

III.B THAT DELIMITATION ACT, 2023 IS ULTRA-VIRES OF CONSTITUTION OF KADURU

45. The phrase 'may take into account' 93

III.B.ii THAT THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF A.327 OF CONSTITUTION OF KADURU

III.B.iii THAT THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

III.C THAT THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023 IS AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE

ISSUE – IV: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER, 2023 IS LEGAL AND

ethnicity as the standalone basis for delimitation of constituencies is not intelligible

59. When an administrative action is challenged as discriminatory under a.14, a question of

principles like population equality is both over- and under-inclusive. It is under-inclusive

60. However, in Royappa 109

IV.B THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

that by allocating a disproportionately high number of seats to the Kaduriga enclave

IV.B.ii THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

IV.B.iii THAT THE ORDER IS A COLOURABLE LEGISLATION

IV.B.iv THAT THE ORDER IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF FEDERALISM

69. In the Indian case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 121

IV.C THAT THE ORDER VIOLATES THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

You might also like