Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'A'

TEAM CODE: J
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT

OF
ARCADIA
GULRAK STARK
.......PETITIONER
V/s
STATE OF ARCADIA AND OTHERS
.......RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
22nd M.C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Page |1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..........................................................
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...
13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
17
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act does not violate

Article 19 of the Constitution of India.................
17
Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment

Act is good in law.
27
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection act is in consonance

with Article 301 of the Constitution of India
31
Section 4 and Section 6 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker

Protection Act should be declared as good in law
PRAYERS
35
39
Page |2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr. No.
Abbreviation
Full form
1.
Honble
Honourable
2.
U.O.I
Union of India
3.
Vol.
Volume
4.
J.
Justice
5.
SC
Supreme Court
6.
U. P.
Uttar Pradesh
7.
s.
Section
8.
Vs.
Versus
9.
Ors.
Others
10.
AIR
All India Reporter
11.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
12.
Art.
Article
13.
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
14.
Anr.
Another
15.
BOMR
Bombay Reports
16.
Ltd.
Limited
17.
i.e.
id est (that is)
18.
SCW
Supreme Court Weekly
Page |3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Sr. No.
1
Name of the Case

Narendra Kumar vs Union of India
Full Citation
Page No.
AIR 1960 (SC) 430
18
AIR 2006 (SC) 212
18, 20, 22
AIR 1999 (SC) 188
19
AIR 1994 (SC) 2696
20
State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi

2
Kassab Jamat
3
M.R.F Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Govt

Workmen Of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Others
4
vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Anr
5
Laxmi Khandsari vs State of U.P
AIR 1981 (SC) 873
21
Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja
2014 (7) SCC 547
23
Ramesh Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
2014 TLHPH 1635
24
MADLJ 2014-5-9
24
AIR 2003 (SC) 3240
28
2004 3 SCC 402
29
S. Kannan V/s. Commissioner of Police

8
Madurai
9
Indian Handicraft Emporium vs Union of India
10
Om Prakash vs State of U.P
Writ Petition (L) No.

11
Arif Usman Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra
29
777 of 2015
Dhariwal Industries Limited Vs. State of
AIR 2012 (BOMR)
12
31
Maharashtra
6-198
The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D.

13
1957 SCR 874
32
1984 (2) SCC 302
33
Chamarbaugwala
14
Premchandjain v. R.K. Chhabra
Page |4
Rajvendra Chingaaravellu vs Commissioner of
AIR 2009 (SCW) 0-
15
36
IT
7558
Pattambi Service Co-operative bank vs Union

16
ITR-2015-374-254
36
(GJH)-2015-6-11
37
of India
17
Paresha G Shah vs State of Gujarat
Special Criminal
18
Foziya Samir Godil vs Union of India
Application no. 1725
37
of 2014
BOOKS REFERRED
1.
C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.
2.
Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.
3.
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.
4.
G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.
5.
H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India, 2ndEdition, 2006.1987 AIR 748
6.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.
7.
J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India.
8.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.
9.
P.M. Bakshi & Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.
10. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.

11. C.C.V. Subba Rao, Indian Constitutional Law, 1st Edition, 2006.
12. D. J. De, The Constitution of India, 3rdEdition, 2002, Vol. 1 & 2.
13. D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8thEdition, 2008, Vol. 4&5.
Page |5
14. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEdition, 2010, Vol. 1 & 2.
15. Animal Laws of India, by Maneka Gandhi and Raj Panjwani.
16. Law of Forest in India, by R.N. Chowdhary.
STATUTES.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS,
THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
WEBSITES REFERRED
http://india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india
Page |6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has filed the present PIL invoking the jurisdiction of the Honble High Court
of Arcadia as provided under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
(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, ordersor
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
Page |7
(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.
This memorandum sets out the substantial questions of law which needs to be settled in
the Honble Supreme Court and the submissions there under.
Page |8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The province of Arcadia is an economically advanced and highly agriculture based society
located in the Targaryen Union. The economy of Arcadia relies heavily on marine
agriculture i.e. the cultivation of Kingslayer weed which is consumed locally as well
exported to other areas of Targaryen Union. A key element in the cultivation of Kingslayer is
the Whitewalker fish whose spawning process has the side effect of distribution of
Kingslayer seeds and thereby sowing a new crop of Kingslayer. Thus, Whitewalker came to
be closely related with the culture of Arcadia and are therefore not eaten by many Arcadians
who mostly hailed from farming backgrounds.
After the spawning period ends,
Whitewalkers enter a period called the Long Night and thus are not used for the cultivation.
Wild Whitewalkers spend time in the deep sea outside territorial waters of the Targaryen
Union, but within its Economic Zone but during the spawning period come to the shoreline of
Arcadia.
With time the cultivation of Kingslayer became more organised and the Whitewalkers began
to be bred in the inland saline ponds to help sowing Kingslayer. As technology progressed,
the use of Whitewalkers reduced to some extent as the mechanised sowing machines became
more affordable however many small farmers still used Whitewalker as they were cheaper
than the machines. Whitewalker meat was consumed in the some parts of the Targaryen
Union. The best edible Whitewalkers are usually caught in the deep sea and exclusively a
community called First Men conducts the fishing of Whitewalker in Arcadia and
neighbouring provinces.
Page |9
In 1978 as the Arcadian National Party formed the part of the ruling coalition at the centre
and ensured the passing of the legislation that successfully amended the Targaryen
Constitution to insert a new Article 48 A which reads as follows:Organisation of marine agriculture and fish farming:- The state shall endeavour to organise
marine agriculture and fish farming on modern scientific lines and shall in particular, take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter, of the
Whitewalker fish and other such productive fish.
The challenge to the constitutionality of this article was refused by the Targaryen Supreme
Court on the grounds of it being in pari materia with article 48 of the Constitution of Arcadia.
Later in 2014 Arcadian Nationalist party came to power in Arcadia and subsequently in 2015
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act was passed in furtherance of Article 48A,
which prohibited the killing of Whitewalker unless it is certified that they have entered the
Long Night or were otherwise not useful for sowing Kingslayer. The said bill received
Presidential assent and was notified on 3rd March 2015.
The relevant sections of the said act read as follows:Section 31) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any
usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall kill or cause to be killed any
Whitewalker in any place in the state of Arcadia, unless he has obtained a certificate
in writing from the competent authority.
2) No certificate shall be granted under sub sec (1), if in the opinion of the competent
authority the person applying for the certificate is likely to kill or cause to be killed:
a) A Whitewalker, which is economical for the purpose of marine agriculture
operations and sowing of Kingslayer.
P a g e | 10
Section 4:
1) The police may, subject to the provisions of this act, enter any place and seize any
property that is used to slaughter any Whitewalker in respect of which no certificate is
granted under the act.
With the passing of this legislation the problem was not solved, as price of Whitewalker meat
in Arcadia skyrocketed and a black market of illegally slaughtered fish thrived. The
legislation had to be made further stringent and thence following course of events took place.
The Right wing of the Arcadian Nationalist Party grew unhappy and felt that the legislation
was not enough to protect Whitewalker which they considered as the national fish of Arcadia.
Subsequently the Right wing replaced Jaideep Lannister as the Chief Minister of Arcadia
with Gaurav Clegane and the application for grant of certificate were summarily being
rejected on the grounds that all Whitewalkers contributed to the sowing of Kingslayer in
some way and never ceased to be useless altogether. Subsequently the state assembly of
Arcadia also passed the K&W Amendment Act on 15th June 2015 a step towards stringency
in regard to the previous legislation, which received presidential assent the next day, notified
and made law on 18th June 2015. The Amendment read as follows: Sec 5 (sec 2 of the Amendment Act)
5 (a) (1) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this act, shall transport or
arrange a transport of a Whitewalker, from any place within the State to any place outside the
place, for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
P a g e | 11
(2) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this Act, personally or through his
agent, representative, servant or any such other person acting on behalf of him, export or
import any Whitewalker outside the State of Arcadia.
(b) No person shall purchase or sell or dispose of any Whitewalker for slaughter or with the
knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this law for the time being in force, no person
shall, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, possess (keep in custody) meat of any
Whitewalker.
(d) No person shall possess the meat of any Whitewalker slaughtered outside the state of
Arcadia.
Sec 6 (Sec3 of the amendment act)
6. Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 5 shall be punished with an imprisonment
for the term which may extend to one year after conviction or with a fine which may extend
to rupees one thousand.
Ms. Gulrak Stark is a firebrand Arcadian from the Radical Liberal Party that is a principal
opposition to the Arcadian Nationalist Party. She is though a popular environmental activist,
has earlier been involved in an incident wherein she destroyed the equipment of a logging
company that was felling trees and destroying the natural habitat without resorting to judicial
help. Also due to her public popularity couldnt be prosecuted. In the present case she has
filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging violation of her fundamental rights, those of every
Targaryen Citizen as well as those of every Targaryen Citizen as well as those of the First
Men, Ms. Stark filed a PIL in the Arcadian High Court with the reliefs to quash and set aside
the K&W Act and the K&W Amendment Act 2015.
P a g e | 12
The said PIL is now placed for hearing and final disposal before the division bench of the
High Court of Arcadia.
The laws in the Targaryen Union are similar and in pari materia with those of India.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 is in consonance with
Article 19 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection (Amendment) Act
should be declared as good in law?
3. Whether the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is in consonance with Article 301
of the Constitution of Targaryen?
4. Whether the Section 4 of the Kingslayer and Protection Act should be declared as good in
law?
P a g e | 13
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
1.
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act does not violate Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
The freedom to carry out any business, trade or occupation guaranteed by the Constitution
under Article 19(1) (g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Honble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Narendra Kumar vs Union of India held, that
restriction includes prohibition also. The prohibition on the slaughter of Whitewalkers and
possession of Whitewalker meat in the present case is thus a reasonable restriction imposed
by the State of Arcadia in the interest of the public. The said Act being in consonance with
Art 19 (6) is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
1.1 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is in furtherance of Article 48A of
the Targaryen Constitution.
Article 48A of the Targaryen Constitution casts a duty upon the state to endeavour to take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of the
Whitewalker fish. Hence, the State of Arcadia in enacting such a law, furthered Article 48A
of the Targaryen Constitution by preventing slaughter of the Whitewalker fish important for
the protecting the culture of Arcadia.
1.2 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is in furtherance of article 51-A of
the Constitution of India.
P a g e | 14
Article 51A of the Constitution of India states that it is the duty of every citizen of India to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and
to have compassion for living creatures. The State of Arcadia by enacting the Kingslayer and
Whitewalker Protection Act, ensures the protection and compassion for the Whitewalker fish.
1.3 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker protection Act is in line with the doctrine of
Parens Patriae.
The doctrine of Parens Patriae is a concept where the State acts as a parent of the people who
are not quite able to or competent to fight for their rights or assert their rights. This very
doctrine has been used and asserted by the Honble Courts of India in many cases concerning
animals. It is humbly submitted that in the present case too, this doctrine of Parens Patriae is
applicable.
2.
Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment Act, 2015 is

good in law.
Section 5(1) (a) of the Act restricts transportation of animals and the same is necessary to
ensure that the Whitewalkers are not taken out from the state for the purposes of slaughter
and thus defeat the objects and purpose of the Act by circumventing its provisions.
Similarly Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act prohibits the
possession of the meat of any Whitewalker fish. It is humbly submitted that Section 5(d) of
the Act is merely an ancillary provision and is included for the better implementation of the
Act. Without the prohibition on possession of Whitewalker meat, the proper implementation
of the Act for the protection of Whitewalkers and the livelihood of farmers is not possible.
P a g e | 15
3.
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection act is in consonance with Article 301 of
The object of Article 301 of the Constitution of India is to prevent any economic barrier in
trade. It is humbly submitted that the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is enacted
for the protection of the livelihood of the farmers of Arcadia and is in no way sought to
disrupt the trade or create any kind of economic barrier. In the present case there is complete
prohibition on the sale of Whitewalker meat in the state of Arcadia as well as on importation
of the meat. Thus the said Act is not discriminatory and thus does not violate Art 301. of the
Constitution of India.
Moreover, the free trade under Article 301 is not absolute and is subject to reasonable
restrictions under Article 304 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the interest of the
public, Article 301 has been placed with reasonable restriction under Article 304 and the
same is applicable in the present case making it in consonance with Article 301.
4.
Section 4 and Section 6 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act should
be declared as good in law.
4.1 Section 4 of the K&W Act should be declared as good in law.

Section 4 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act empowers the police to enter,
search and seize any property that is used to slaughter any Whitewalker with respect to which
no certificate is granted. It is humbly submitted that Section 4 of the K&W Act is in line with
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 132 of Income Tax Act, both of
which also empowers the respective police and assessing officer to search and seize any
P a g e | 16
property. Hence, to stop the illegal sale and slaughtering of Whitewalker meat, the
enforcement of Section 4 of the K&W Act is imperative and reasonable.
4.2 Section 6 of the K&W Act should be declared as good in law.
Section 6 of the K&W Act provides for penalties for contravening the provisions of this Act
and it is submitted the same is in line with Section 428 and Section 429 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
P a g e | 17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 does not violate Art. 19(1) (g)
of the Constitution of India.
It is humbly submitted that the State Legislative Assembly of Arcadia passed the Kingslayer
and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 and thereby regulated slaughter of Whitewalkers in
the State of Arcadia. The present Act is in consonance with the constitutional provisions as
only reasonable restrictions are imposed by the Act in conformity with the constitutional
purport and thus the Act should be declared as good in law.
Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of the India reads as follows:
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(g) To practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
However the freedom granted by Art 19(1) (g) is not absolute and reasonable restrictions may
be imposed in the interest of general public. In the present case both these tests get satisfied
as the restrictions are reasonable and also in the interest of the people of Arcadia.
It is submitted that the present Act imposes a prohibition only on slaughter of Whitewalkers.
The slaughter of other fishes is still permitted. Thus First Men and other fishermen can carry
out fishing of other fishes in the Arcadian waters and there is no prohibition on their activity
to fish.
Similarly First Men carry out the fishing of Whitewalkers in several provinces and it is only
in Arcadia that their activity is restricted. Thus the restrictions imposed are reasonable.
P a g e | 18
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narendra Kumar vs Union of India1 held,
that restriction includes prohibition also.
Thus even if an activity is prohibited it would be considered as a reasonable restriction.
However, in the present theres no prohibition on fishing of all kinds of fishes but there is
merely a restriction on slaughter of Whitewalkers alone.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgement comprising a bench of 7
Judges in the case of State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat2 held, We
hold that though it is permissible to place a total ban amounting to prohibition on any
profession, occupation, trade or business subject to satisfying the test of being reasonable in
the interest of the general public, yet, in the present case banning slaughter of cow progeny is
not a prohibition but only a restriction.
Further it is submitted that the restriction imposed on slaughter of Whitewalkers is in the
paramount interest of the people of Arcadia. The Arcadian society is a highly agricultural
based society and the economy heavily relies on marine agriculture i.e. cultivation of
Kingslayer weed. The Kingslayer weed is consumed locally and is also exported to other
provinces of Targaryen Union and thus is an important source of livelihood for many
Arcadians.
The most important element in the cultivation of Kingslayer weed is the Whitewalker fish
which help in distributing seeds of Whitewalker and thus helps in sowing new crops of
Kingslayer. As per the facts of the case it is evident that many small farmers still use
Whitewalkers for cultivating Kingslayer and thus carry out the cultivation in an organic
manner. Secondly being a small farmer and having a small area of cultivation, use and
maintenance of machines is not feasible and affordable. Thus they depend heavily on
1
2
AIR 1960 (SC) 430

AIR 2006 (SC) 212
P a g e | 19
Whitewalkers for their livelihood and the present Act is thus in furtherance of the aforesaid
objective. The Act seeks to prohibit slaughter of Whitewalker keeping in mind its paramount
importance for the people of Arcadia. If the slaughter of Whitewalkers is not prohibited then
the Whitewalkers would be slaughtered indiscriminately and that would be a serious threat to
the agrarian economy of Arcadia.
1.1 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 is in furtherance of Art 48A
of the Targaryen Constitution
Secondly it is submitted that the present Act is in furtherance of Art 48A of the Constitution
of the Targaryen Union. Art 48A of the Constitution of the Targaryen Union states:
48 A Organisation of marine agriculture and fish farming: The State shall endeavour to
organise marine agriculture and fish farming on modern and scientific lines and shall in
particular take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter, of
the Whitewalker fish and other such productive fish.
The Article firstly directs the state to organise marine agriculture on modern and scientific
lines and thus the most efficient way to cultivate the Kingslayer is to resort to organic
farming i.e. through the use of Whitewalkers. Similarly, the Article specifically directs the
state to preserve the Whitewalkers, improve their breeds and prohibit the slaughter of
Whitewalker fish.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R.F Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Govt. and
Ors3 held that, The Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable but are
nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and have to be applied by the
State in making the laws. They are essential articles of faith of the country and as such the
Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary have to follow them unless there is likely to be an
3
AIR 1999 (SC) 188

P a g e | 20
infringement of any express provision of the constitution. They have to be regarded as the
"Wisdom" of the Nation manifested in the "paramount" law of the country.
Similarly Art 48A of the Constitution of India states:
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country.
The present Acts ensures protection to wild Whitewalkers of Arcadia and thus the objective
of Art 48A is also furthered.
Thus it is humbly submitted that the present Act and the amendment thereto seeks to protect
the livelihood of the farmers and secondly furthers Art. 48A of the Constitution of the
Targaryen Union and thus should be declared as in the interest of general public.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat4 held, The message of Kesavananda Bharati is clear. The interest of a
citizen or section of a community, howsoever important, is secondary to the interest of the
country or community as a whole. For judging the reasonability of restrictions imposed on
Fundamental Rights the relevant considerations are not only those as stated in Article 19
itself or in Part-III of the Constitution; the Directive Principles stated in Part-IV are also
relevant.
Similarly, in the case of Workmen Of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Others vs Meenakshi Mills
Ltd. And Anr,5 The Honble Supreme Court of India held that Ordinarily any restriction so
imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be
presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest.
4
5
AIR 2006 (SC) 212

AIR 1994 (SC) 2696
P a g e | 21
Further in the case of Laxmi Khandsari vs State of U.P6, The Honble Supreme Court of India
held,
It is difficult to lay down any hard or fast rule of universal application but this Court
has consistently held that in imposing such restrictions the State must adopt an
objective standard amounting to a social control by restricting the rights of the
citizens where the necessities of the situation demand. If the restrictions imposed
appear to be consistent with the directive principles of State policy, they would have to
be upheld as the same would be in public interest and manifestly reasonable. Further,
restrictions may by partial, complete, permanent or temporary but they must bear a
close nexus with the object in the interest of which they are imposed. Sometimes even a
complete prohibition of the fundamental right to trade may be upheld if the commodity
in which the trade is carried on is essential to the life of the community and the said
restriction has been imposed for a limited period in order to achieve the desired goal.
Thus it is submitted that the present Act being in furtherance of Article 48 deserves to be
declared as intra vires Art 19 and thus should be upheld as constitutionally valid.
Further it is submitted that the protection granted by Art 48 is to all Whitewalkers
irrespective of the fact whether they have entered Long Night or not. The Article clearly
directs that the state must prohibit the slaughter of Whitewalkers and preserve and improve
their breeds. It cannot be said that the protection granted by the Article is only to the
Whitewalkers that are capable of producing Kingslayer and not to the ones not being used to
cultivate Kingslayer at present. Thus the provisions of the Act completely prohibiting the
AIR 1981 (SC) 873

P a g e | 22
slaughter of Whitewalker is in consonance with the object of Art 48A of the Constitution of
the Targaryen Union.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat7 held, No doubt, cow ceases to be 'milch' after attaining a particular age. Yet,
cow has been held to be entitled to protection against slaughter without regard to the fact that
it has ceased to be 'milch'. This constitutional position is well settled. So is the case with
calves. Calves have been held entitled to protection against slaughter without regard to their
age and though they are not yet fit to be employed as 'draught cattle'. A milch cattle goes
through a life cycle during which it is sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This
does not mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce milk, for a short period as a
part of its life cycle, it goes out of the purview of Article 48, and can be slaughtered. A
draught cattle may lose its utility on account of injury or sickness and may be rendered
useless as a draught cattle during that period. This would not mean that if a draught cattle
ceases to be of utility for a short period on account of sickness or injury, it is excluded from
the definition of 'draught cattle' and deprived of the benefit of Article 48. A specie of cattle
which is milch or draught for a number of years during its span of life is to be included within
the said expression. On ceasing to be milch or draught it cannot be pulled out from the
category of "other milch and draught cattle."
1.2 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is in furtherance of Article 51A of
Similarly Art 51 A of the Constitution states,
51A. Fundamental duties. It shall be the duty of every citizen of India
AIR 2006 (SC) 212

P a g e | 23
(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
The said Article thereby provides that it is the duty of every citizen to protect, conserve and
improve the environment and also have compassion towards living creatures. Showing
compassion towards animals would be an act of gratitude to them for their enormous service
to the mankind.
Whitewalker is the backbone of State of Arcadia and thus it is the duty of every Arcadian to
preserve and protect the same and the Present Act is enacted keeping in mind the aforesaid
objective.
Mahatma Gandhi once said that, The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
judged by the way its animals are treated.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A
Nagaraja8 banned the festival of Jallikattu that meted out cruelty to animals and caused them
unnecessary sufferings and the Honble Court held, When we look at the rights of animals
from the national and international perspective, what emerges is that every species has an
inherent right to live and shall be protected by law, subject to the exception provided out of
necessity. Animal has also honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived of and its
rights and privacy have to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks.
So far as animals are concerned, in our view, ''life '' means something more than mere
survival or existence or instrumental value for human -beings, but to lead a life with some
intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals' well -being and welfare have been statutorily
recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act.
2014 (7) SCC 547

P a g e | 24
Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to
animals as well.
Thus it is submitted that the Act is in furtherance of Art 51A of the Constitution of India and
thus the Act deserves to be declared as good in law.
1.3 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is in line with the doctrine of
Parens Patriae.
It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of Parens Patriae deserves to be invoked in the
present case. The doctrine states that the State must protect the rights of the citizens who are
not in a position to protect their rights and the same has been extended to animals too. Thus,
it is the duty of the state and every resident of Arcadia to protect the Whitewalkers from the
indiscriminate killing and thus the Act is in furtherance of the doctrine of Parens Patriae.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v.
A.Nagaraja9 and Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Ramesh Sharma vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh10 invoked the said doctrine for protecting the rights of the animals.
Similarly Honble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Kannan V/s. Commissioner of
Police Madurai11 held, When our forefathers thought about the non -killing of the animals
and treating them with compassion, which is also enshrined in our Constitution, it is the
bounden duty of the every citizen to treat animals with compassion and sympathy except for
necessity. The birds and animals are friends of human kind. Pleasure, joy, happiness should
be derived by treating the fellow human beings equally and considering the animals, birds,
etc. are entitled to co -exist in this world. After all, the animals and birds are always useful to
the mankind for their sustenance and therefore, we should take care of their well being in our
9
2014 (7) SCC 547

2014 TLHPH 1635
11
MADLJ 2014-5-9
10
P a g e | 25
own interest. When the rights of the voiceless species are sought to be affected, obligation is
cast upon this Court to protect their rights. This Court is not only custodian of rights of the
Citizens but also rights of voiceless non -humans.
Further it is submitted that many Central and State laws prohibit hunting and slaughter of
Animals and the present Act is consonance with such acts.
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits Hunting of Wild animals under Section 9 of
the Act that reads as follows, No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedule I,
II, III and IV except as provided under Section 11 and Section 12.
Similarly several acts have been enacted by many states in India that have banned the
slaughter of Cow and its progeny in furtherance of Art 48 of the Constitution of India and the
same has been implemented to protect the cows and other draught cattle considering the
agrarian society of India similar to Arcadia. The statutes that prohibit cow slaughter are as
follows:
1. The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977
2. The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955
3. The Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004
4. The Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994
5. The Goa, Daman and Diu prevention of Cow slaughter Act, 1978
6. The Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.
7. The Punjab Prohibition of Cow slaughter Act, 1955
8. The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of slaughter and regulation of temporary
migration or export), Act 1995.
9. The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow slaughter Act, 1955
P a g e | 26
Thus it is humbly submitted that the Kingslayer and Whitewalker is also a step to protect the
Whitewalkers considering their importance to our Agriculture based society and the same
must be declared as good in law.
P a g e | 27
2. Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Amendment Act deserves to be declared

as good in law.
Section 5(a) (1) and Section 5(2) of the Act states that:
5 (a) (1) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall transport or
arrange a transport of a Whitewalker from any within the state to any place outside the
state, for the purpose of slaughter or with a knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
(2) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this Act, personally or
through his agent, representative, servant or any such other person acting on behalf of
him export or import any Whitewalker outside the state of Arcadia.
It is humbly submitted that the main purpose of the aforesaid provisions is to ensure that no
Whitewalker is transported out of the state for the purpose of the slaughter so as to
circumvent the provision of the Section 3 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act,
2015.Thus to fully achieve the purpose of the Act, the aforesaid provisions were necessary.
Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Amendment Act states that No person shall
possess the meat of any Whitewalker slaughtered outside the state of Arcadia
It is most humbly submitted that the above section has been included in the Act by way of an
amendment to further the object and the purpose of the Act and to provide greater protection
to the Whitewalker fish in the state of Arcadia.
The section prohibits the possession of the meat of Whitewalker slaughtered outside the state
of Arcadia by any person. The main object of the State behind the enactment of the Act was
to protect the Whitewalker and to prevent its slaughtering. Therefore the most important and
the primary step in this regard is to ensure that no person possesses its meat.
P a g e | 28
This section is very fundamental to ensure the successful implementation of the Act. In
absence of the prohibition cast upon by this section it would be very difficult to differentiate
between the meat of the Whitewalkers slaughtered outside the State of Arcadia from the ones
slaughtered in Arcadia itself. Therefore if this is not done then the very purpose of the Act is
defeated as the protection sought to be provided to the Whitewalkers through this Act will be
whittled down as would give the law breakers an easy way to circumvent the provisions of
the Act by claiming that the meat possessed by them is of the Whitewalkers slaughtered
outside the state of Arcadia which would result in inability on part of the Government
officials to successfully implement the Act.
Also there might be a situation where the Whitewalkers are smuggled outside the state of
Arcadia and are later slaughtered in some other state and its meat then being imported in the
State of Arcadia. This eventually is taken care of by the protection granted by this very
section because it prohibits the possession of the meat itself thereby curbing the possibilities
of non-abidance of the Act.
It is only when the possession of meat is banned in the State of Arcadia will the demand for
its meat reduce. This indirectly would put an end to the slaughtering of the Whitewalkers as
with there being no demand there would be no incentive for the people to slaughter the
Whitewalkers thereby giving them total protection as is sought by the Act.
It is humbly submitted that Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Handicraft
Emporium vs Union of India12 upheld a complete prohibition on possession of Imported
Ivory so as to provide protection to Indian Elephants and held it necessary for achieving the
objects of the Act. The Court held, Experience shows that poaching may be difficult to be
completely checked. Preventive measures as regard poaching leading to killing of elephants
12
AIR 2003 (SC) 3240

P a g e | 29
for the purpose of extraction of their tusks is a difficult task to achieve and, thus, the
Parliament must have thought it expedient to put a complete ban in trade in ivory to meet the
requirement of the country. The manner in which despite legal ban on trade a person may not
take recourse to illegal trading is a matter which squarely falls within the purview of the
legislative competence. It is now well-settled that the Parliament can not only enact a law for
avoidance or evasion of commission of an illegal trade but also may make law to see that the
law is not evaded by taking recourse to machination or camouflage. The loopholes, if any, in
such matters can and should be plugged.
Further in the case of Om Prakash vs State of U.P13 there was a complete prohibition on the
sale of meat, fish as well as eggs in Rishikesh and The Honble Supreme Court of India
upheld the same as the same was in public interest and the fact that not many people in
Rishikesh eat non-vegetarian food. The Court held, The appellants who are running hotels
and restaurants and others like them constitute comparatively a very small section of the
society engaged in carrying on trade of non-vegetarian food items in the town.
The reasonableness of complete restriction imposed on trade of non-vegetarian food items
has, therefore, to be viewed from the cultural and religious background of the three
municipal towns. Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify
complete restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian food items including eggs
within the municipal limits of the towns. The High Court rightly upheld it to be a reasonable
restriction.
Further, it is humbly submitted that in the case of Arif Usman Kapadia v. State of
Maharashtra14, the Honble High Court of Bombay refused the prayer of the petitioner for a
13
2004 3 SCC 402

Writ Petition (L) No. 777 of 2015
14
P a g e | 30
grant of stay on the operation of the Sec 5D of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,
1976 that banned possession of beef and made it a criminal offence. The Honble Court
concluded by declaring the said section as operational
Thus it is submitted that the prohibition on possession of an animal product has been upheld
and the thus Section 5(d) of the Act should be declare as good in law being extremely
necessary for ensuring proper implementation of the Act.
P a g e | 31
3. The Present Act and the Amendment is in consonance with Art 301 of the
Constitution of the Targaryen Union.
It is humbly submitted that the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act, 2014 and the Amendment
Act does not violate Art 301 of the Constitution read with Art 304 of the Constitution of
India. Art 301 of the Constitution states that the trade and commerce shall be free throughout
the territory of India. Art 304 states the same could be restricted by imposition of reasonable
restrictions in the interests of public.
Thus firstly, the right granted by the Article is not absolute and can be restricted in the
interests of public.
Secondly it is submitted that the Article 301 read with Article 304 provides for free trade
without being subject to any economic barriers. The purpose of the Article is to see that the
goods imported into a territory from other states are not made subject to unnecessary levy of
tax which may hamper the free flow of trade. On perusal of Art 302 and Art.303 the same is
evident. Thus it is applicable only when an unreasonable economic restriction is imposed.
However in the present case, there is no such discrimination made between the sale of
Whitewalker meat slaughtered in Arcadia and Outside Arcadia and there is complete
prohibition on the sale of Whitewalker meat in the state of Arcadia and thus the present Act
does not violate Art 301 of the Constitution.
Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra15 AIRBOMR-2012-6-198 held, In Indian Cement v. State of Andhra Pradesh16,
(1988) 1 SCC 743, the Supreme Court has held that the declaration contained in Part XIII of
15
AIR 2012 (BOMR) 6-198

(1988) 1 SCC 743
16
P a g e | 32
the Constitution (Articles 301 and 304) is against creation of economic barriers and/or
pockets which would stand against the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse. The
impugned statutory order dated 19 July 2012 does not create economic barriers and/or
pockets the barriers would have been created by permitting manufacture, etc. of gutka and
pan masala within the State of Maharashtra and restricting import of gutka and pan masala
from other States into the State of Maharashtra. On the contrary, the statutory order imposes
prohibition on manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of gutka and pan masala
irrespective of the fact whether they are manufactured within or outside the State of
Maharashtra.
Hence, it is submitted that the K&W Act does not impose any discriminatory economic
barrier and thereby not violating Art. 301 of the Constitution of India and thus should be
declared as good in law.
Further it is submitted that wild Whitewalkers too contribute in sowing Kingslayer seeds and
thus the protection under this Act is also extended to them. As per the facts of the case, wild
Whitewalkers usually spend the time in the exclusive economic zone but during the spawning
period, they come to the shoreline which is within the territorial waters of Arcadia. Thus it is
submitted that for the proper implementation of the Act, some area beyond the territorial
waters of Arcadia would also get covered.
It is submitted that for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Act, the State Laws can
have extra territorial operation if there is a territorial nexus or connection between the subject
and the enacting state.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D.
Chamarbaugwala17 1957 SCR 874 held, The doctrine of territorial nexus is well established
17
1957 SCR 874

P a g e | 33
and there is no dispute as to the principles. As enunciated by learned counsel for the
petitioners, if there is a territorial nexus between the person sought to be charged and the
State seeking to tax him the taxing statute may be upheld. Sufficiency of the territorial
connection involves a consideration of two elements, namely (a) the connection must be real
and not illusory and (b) the liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that
connection.
In the present case, both the aforesaid conditions get fulfilled as the connection is real which
is evident from the facts of the case that the wild Whitewalkers come to the shoreline of
Arcadia during their spawning period and further even the second condition gets fulfilled as
the purpose of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act is to protect Whitewalkers and promote
cultivation of Kingslayer.
It is humbly submitted that in the present case, the doctrine of territorial nexus should be
invoked, the protection granted to wild Whitewalkers is necessary for achieving the purpose
of the Act and thus applying the said doctrine, the Act should be declared as good in law.
The Act has been enacted by virtue of entry 21 of List II which gives the state the power to
enact laws on Fisheries and it is humbly submitted that in course of its implementation if it
incidentally also reaches a subject of list I, the same should be looked upon harmoniously
invoking the pith and substance doctrine.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Premchand Jain v. R.K Chhabra18, held
As long as the legislation is within the permissible field in pith and substance, objection
would not be entertained merely on the ground that while enacting legislation, provision has
been made for a matter which though germane for the purpose for which competent
legislation is made it covers an aspect beyond it. In a series of decisions this Court has opined
18
1984 2 SCC 302

P a g e | 34
that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the
Constitution upon the legislature enacting it, it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it
incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature.
Hence it is submitted that the present Act should be declared as intra vires and should be
P a g e | 35
4. It is humbly submitted that the Section 4 and Section 6 of the K&W Act should be
4.1 Section 4 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 is good in law.
Section 4 of the Act states, the Police shall have the power to enter, search and seize the
property if it used in commission of the crime.
It is humbly submitted that the said power is of paramount importance for achieving the
objects of the Act and securing proper implementation of the provisions therein. The power
granted to the police will help in stopping illegal slaughter of the Whitewalkers from being
carried out and would act as a deterrent to the persons involved in illegal trading.
The search and seizure provisions in the present case are in line with the provisions of
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: Any police officer
may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of
the commission of any offence.
Similarly several acts provide for search and seizure in order to achieve the purpose of the
Acts. Section 132 of the Income Tax act grants the power of search and seizure to the
Assessing officer if the assessing officer has the reasons to believe that the money is
undisclosed and may be concealed from the assessment. Similarly Prevention to Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1986 provides the right of search and seizure under section 32 of the Act which
states that,
32. Powers of search and seizure.
(1) If a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector or any person authorised by the
State Government in this behalf has reason to believe that an offence under clause (1) of sub-
P a g e | 36
section (1) of section 11 in respect of any such animal as is referred to in section 30 is being
or is about to be, or has been, committed in any place, or that any person has in his possession
the skin of any such animal with any part of the skin of the head attached thereto, he may
enter and search such place or any place in which he has reason to believe any such skin to
be, and may seize such skin or any article or thing used or intended to be used in the
commission of such offence.
Thus it is submitted that the provisions of search and seizure are necessary to stop illegal
slaughtering of Whitewalkers and sale of Whitewalker meat. The purpose of allowing seizure
of property is two-fold.
1) It suspends illegal slaughtering if it is carried out and thus protects the animals.
2) The property can be used as evidence in the proceedings.
Further it is submitted that the search being for the purpose of the Act, the same could not be
said to be violating right to privacy of an individual. The Honble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Rajvendra Chingaaravellu vs Commissioner of IT19, any bona fide measures
taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of black money,
cannot be objected as interference with the personal liberty or freedom of a citizen. In this
background if the officers wanted to fully satisfy themselves that the funds were not intended
for any illegal purposes, such action cannot be termed as highhanded or unreasonable.
Therefore, even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in carrying the money, the
verification or seizure may be warranted to ensure that the money is not intended for
commission of a crime or offence.
19
AIR 2009 (SCW) 0-7558

P a g e | 37
Honble High Court of Kerala in the case of Pattambi Service Co-operative bank vs Union of
India20 held, even assuming that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, such
fundamental right must be subject to restriction, on the basis of compelling 'public interest'.
There is no prohibition on the State in gathering information for preventing tax evasion and
curb black money. The petitioners cannot field the wrongdoers, if any, and unless necessary
information is furnished, the data collection will become impossible and no proceedings can
be pursued against wrongdoers to guard economy of the country?
Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Paresha G Shah vs State of Gujarat21 held, He
(the authority) may be in possession of some material which may create some doubt or
suspicion, and in such circumstances, the authority may have to carry out some investigation
before he could proceed to pass a provisional order of attachment under Section 5 of the
PMLA. It does not deprive any person of his liberty or his property. It is necessarily
temporary i.e. till the adequate material is collected. . It clothes the authority with the power
to preserve a property suspected to have been used in the commission of the offence in any
manner. The property, therefore, requires to be protected from dissemination, depletion or
destruction by any mode.
Foziya Samir Godil Versus Union of India22, The Honble Supreme Court of India reviewing
the search and seizure provisions provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
held,
The term investigation as defined in section 2 (na) of PML Act has to be read in consonance
with the provisions of section 65 which empowers the authorities under PML Act to issue
such directions/prohibitory orders. Therefore, any such direction issued in the course of
investigation is within the four walls of law and in consonance with the object and reasons of
20
ITR-2015-374-254
(GJH)-2015-6-11
22
Special Criminal Application no. 1725 of 2014
21
P a g e | 38
the Act to ensure that the proceed of crime do not change hands making it impossible for
authorities to trace and recover such proceeds of crime. The provisional order of attachment
of a property suspected to be proceeds of crime in terms of section 2(u) of the Act and prima facie involved in money laundering and confirmation thereof in terms of section 8 of the Act
by the Adjudicating Authority do not violate the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 300A
of the Constitution of India.
Thus it is humbly submitted Section 4 is extremely necessary for achieving the purpose of
this Act and thus would help in protecting the Whitewalkers and punishing the offenders.
Thus it is submitted that the search and seizure provisions are extremely important to achieve
the objects of the Act because in its absence securing convictions would become difficult.
The seizure of property would act as a deterrent to the offenders and help in protecting the
Whitewalkers.
4.2 Section 6 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 is good in law.
Similarly Section 6 is included for the purpose of punishing the offenders and protecting the
Whitewalkers. Section 6 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act is in line with Section 428
and Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which criminalise the act of hurting or killing
of an animal and prescribe a punishment for the same.
428. Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten rupees.Whoever commits
mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal or animals of the
value of ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of
fifty rupees.Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering
useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the
value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with
fine, or with both.
P a g e | 39
Thus it is submitted that Section 4 and Section 6 both are necessary for proper
implementation of the Act and thus should be declared as good in law.
PRAYERS
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, counsel for
the State of Arcadia & Others, most humbly pray that: -
1. The PIL filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be dismissed with costs.
2. Any other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit.
Respectfully submitted,
Sd/-
P a g e | 40
(Counsel for Respondents)

Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'A'

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'A'

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TEAM CODE: J

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act does not violate

Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment

The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection act is in consonance

Section 4 and Section 6 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reports

id est (that is)

Supreme Court Weekly

Name of the Case

AIR 1960 (SC) 430

AIR 2006 (SC) 212

AIR 1999 (SC) 188

AIR 1994 (SC) 2696

State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi

M.R.F Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Govt

Laxmi Khandsari vs State of U.P

AIR 1981 (SC) 873

Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja

2014 (7) SCC 547

Ramesh Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014 TLHPH 1635

AIR 2003 (SC) 3240

2004 3 SCC 402

S. Kannan V/s. Commissioner of Police

Indian Handicraft Emporium vs Union of India

Om Prakash vs State of U.P

Writ Petition (L) No.

Arif Usman Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra

Dhariwal Industries Limited Vs. State of

AIR 2012 (BOMR)

The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D.

1957 SCR 874

1984 (2) SCC 302

Premchandjain v. R.K. Chhabra

AIR 2009 (SCW) 0-

Pattambi Service Co-operative bank vs Union

Paresha G Shah vs State of Gujarat

Foziya Samir Godil vs Union of India

Application no. 1725

C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.

Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.

G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.

H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India, 2ndEdition, 2006.1987 AIR 748

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.

J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India.

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.

P.M. Bakshi & Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.

10. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS,

THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

After the spawning period ends,

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Section 5 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment Act, 2015 is

4.1 Section 4 of the K&W Act should be declared as good in law.