ISSUE 1.

WHETHER THE DECLARARTION SOUGHT BY MAGRATHEA IN

RESPECT OF THE 14TH FINANCE COMMISSION CAN & SHOULD BE
GRANTED?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vyalikaval that the “Tadri
Formula” which was recommended by the 14th finance commission in exercise of its authority
under Art. 2801 and the subsequent acceptance of the same by the union government of
Vyalikaval is unconstitutional as it falls against the basic structure of the Constitution of
Vyalikaval.

Your lordship to prove the same the counsel is having 3 contentions.

1. What is basic structure?

The concept was devised by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala2.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine is a judicial innovation whereby certain features of the
Constitution of India are beyond the limits of the powers of amendment of the
Parliament of India.3 It limits the power of legislature in such a manner that they cannot
encroach upon the ethos on which the constitution was constructed. The concept was
summarized by the Honorable court in Minerva Mills case as: (if your lordships can
refer to page 14 1st paragraph, and with the permission of the bench the counsel
would like to quote the honorable bench)
“amend as you may even the solemn document which the founding fathers have
committed to your care, for you know best the needs of your generation. But, the
Constitution is a precious heritage; therefore, you cannot destroy it.”4

1
Finance Commission
(1) The President shall, within two years from the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the
expiration of every fifth year or at such earlier time as the President considers necessary, by order constitute a
Finance Commission which shall consist of a Chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to the President as to
(a) the distribution between the Union and the States of the net proceeds of taxes which are to be, or may be,
divided between them under this Chapter and the allocation between the States of the respective shares of such
proceeds;
(b) the principles which should govern the grants in aid of the revenues of the States out of the Consolidated
Fund of India;
(c) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President in the interests of sound finance
(4) The Commission shall determine their procedure and shall have such powers in the performance of their
functions as Parliament may by law confer on them.
2
AIR 1976 SC 1461. {hereinafter Keshvananda Bharti case}.
3
Keshvananda Bharti case, AIR 1976 SC 1461.
4
Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, AIR1980 SC.1789.
 Your lordship, in the instant case the Constitution of Vyalikaval is in pari materia with
the Constitution of India5. Etymologically it means in the same matter. And as per
Black’s law the definition goes as follows: (with the permission of the bench the
counsel would like to read out the definition MEMO page 13)
“it refers to a canon of construction that statutes that are in pari materia may be
construed together, so that the inconsistencies in one statute may be resolved by looking
at another statute on the same subject”
In the instant case, since the Constitution of Vyalikaval is in pari materia to the Indian
Constitution and doctrine of basic structure has been used by Indian Supreme Court to
limit the powers of the legislature so it can be said that the Indian concept of ‘basic
structure’ can very well be used to sort out the inconsistencies the Vyalikaval
Constitution. And hence there is a twofold increase in the persuasiveness of this
doctrine.

2. Is it applicable on the “Tadri Formula”

Your lordship it is submitted that normally the doctrine of basic structure is normally used
to strike down amendments, but in the case of S.R. Bommai the test was used to check the
validity of an executive order (Refer to VN Shukla). In the instant case as well, the Tadri
Formula is implemented by a presidential order under Article 267. Hence the basic structure
doctrine is applicable here.

3. It violates the basic structure of the constitution.

4. It is humbly submitted that the weights provided are flawed and the reasoning given for
the same is superfluous, as the commission has not considered the socio-economics of
the country and subsequent acceptance of the same from the part of union amounts to
grave injustice to the millions of citizens who reside in Magrathea. It is akin to the
colonial handling of finances and takes us back to the time of colonials.
5. “Tadri formula” goes against the spirit of Preamble and Art. 38 of the constitution. The
Preamble which has been described by Chief Justice Dyer as “key to open the minds of
the makers of the Act”.6 The Supreme Court’s opinion has been in sync with this opinion
of the great jurist in many cases.7 The objective of the expression “Socialism” in

5
¶ 1, Moot Proposition.
6
Susssex Peerage case, (1844) 11 Cl & F 85.
7
Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd, AIR 2001 SC 724. (Constitutional bench)
 Preamble is to alienate inequalities in income and status and standard of life8 and
especially provide security to people from cradle to grave. 9 After the addition of this
word, greater concern must be shown to improve the condition of poor in the country10
to clearly set up a “vibrant, throbbing welfare society”.11 This idea is further resonated
in Art. 3812 (Directive Principles) of the Constitution of Vyalikaval, which calls for the
mandate to build a welfare state.
6. A welfare state denotes a concept of government, in which the State plays a key role in
the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of all of its citizens,
which may include equitable distribution of wealth and equal opportunities and public
responsibilities for all those, who are unable to avail for themselves, minimal provisions
for a decent life.13 In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India:14

Part-III dealing with 'Fundamental Rights' and Part-IV dealing with 'Directive
Principles of State Policy' which represent the core of the Indian Constitutional
philosophy envisage the methodology for removal of historic injustice and
inequalities - either inherited or artificially created - and social and economic disparity
and ultimately for achieving an egalitarian society in terms of the basic structure of
our Constitution as spelt out by the Preamble.
7. In the light of the facts of the instant case it is submitted that Tadri formula enunciated
a formula of tax distribution which goes against these above-mentioned values.
Magrathea is a one of the least developed states in the country and is having higher
population and area. It used to get largest share (correctly) in the union taxes, as per the
“Deekayshi Formula”, but after the imposition of “Tadri Formula” its position tumbled
to the bottom of the table.15
8. Now the tax is not being divided according to the population but according to the ratio
of population in 2011 census to 1991 census. This is so egregious, suppose two states
A & B had a population of 4 and 100 respectively in 1991 census and the population
doubles to 8 and 200 respectively in the 2011 census, on calculation we’ll get the ratio
2, same for both the states. Tadri Formula will distribute the same tax to both the states

8
Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 913.
9
Nakara D.S v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130.
10
Sodhan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988.
11
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859.
12
State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
1. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may
a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national
life.
13
Lala Ram v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 813.
14
AIR 1993 SC 477.
15
¶14, Moot Proposition.
 and that too 30% of total tax. A state having population of 8 and 200 are getting the
same amount. How is this equitable and just? It must be noted that there is equality only
among equals and to equate unequals is to perpetuate inequality.16
9. The second criteria used in the Tadri formula is Total Fertility Rate, it is defined as the
average number of children born to women during their reproductive years.17 The state
having a lower total fertility rate gets the higher share, the reason given being that, they
want to reward those states who have increased female literacy, because low fertility
rate is connected to higher education levels among the women. Indeed, the analogy
cited by the center is correct, but what is the point of putting 30% weight on this
criterion. It seems as if that the intention of the “Tadri Formula” is enriching the
enriched. The third and fourth criteria also fall within this bracket of enriching the
enriched.
10. The states who need maximum protection are not getting their due. It appears that the
union is only concerned about the happiness of the few while our Constitutional ideals
of welfare state are polar opposite. Supreme Court while describing the obligations of
welfare state said that it refers to "Greatest good of greatest number and the benefit of
all and the happiness of all". It is important that public weal be the commitment of the
State, where the state is a welfare state. A welfare state is under an obligation to
prepare plans and devise beneficial schemes for the good of the common people.18 This
formula will render an increase in the gap between the haves and have nots.
11. To summarize the union is giving larger share of taxes to those states who have
comparatively less population, have developed infrastructure, high levels of education
among the women, etc. It is submitted that this formula is short-sighted and fails to see
bigger picture and fails to answer the following questions. How can the state with a
dense population survive? How will it ensure welfare of the people? How will it build
the infrastructure necessary to sustain a dignified life to the citizens of their state?19
12. Hence, this formula is in violation of the ideals of Socialism enshrined in the Preamble
of the Constitution. It also violates Art. 38 of the Constitution, i.e. mandate to build a
welfare state. Both of which constitute basic structure of the Constitution. It is

16
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
17
Fertility Rate 2018, BRITANNICA ACADEMIC (Sept. 10, 2018, 12:55 PM),
https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/Art./fertility-rate/607831.
18
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859.
19
See M Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
submitted henceforth that the Tadri formula is unconstitutional as it is in violation of
the basic structure of the Constitution.