3RD DR. R. U.

SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE: OC-3

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF ASGARD

IN THE MATTERS OF:

SAKAAR STATE VISION NGO………………………………………..…… PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF ASGARD………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

THANOS ABDULLAH & GAMORA MUFTI……………………………........PETITIONERS

V.

UNION OF ASGARD…………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTUION OF ASGARD

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

S. NO. TITLE PG NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED 11
8. ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 11
9. ISSUE 2. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 12
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

10. ISSUE 3. WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO 14

VORMIR) ORDER, 2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?
11. ISSUE 4. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF 17
PROCEDURE AND THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF
THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

12. Issue 4.1 THE ACTION OF STATE IS NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE 19
CITIZENS

13. ISSUE 5. WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO 21

UNION TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR VALID?
14. PRAYER 23

2
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ART. ARTICLE
ANR. ANOTHER
APP. APPLICATION
ASG ASGARD
CONST. CONSTITUTION
& AND
G. MUFTI GAMORA MUFTI
HON’BLE HONORABLE
J&K JAMMU AND KASHMIR
OJP ODIN JANATA PARTY
ORS. OTHERS
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SSV SAKAAR STATE VISION
ST. STATE
T. ABDULLAH THANOS ABDULLAH
VDP VORMIR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
VOR. VORMIR

3
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Nazeer ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253, 257.

2. Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 146
3. Puranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India (1962) 1 SCR 688
4. Kharak Singh vs The State of U. P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295
5. A. K.Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
6. S R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
7. Navtej Johar v Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
8. NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501
9. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
10. Information Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Anr, (1995) 2 SCC 161
11. Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. The State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1962 SC 1166
12. Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 1

BOOKS REFERRED

1. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th ed, 2014)

2. P. M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, (11th ed, 2011)
3. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, (5th ed, 2017)

ONLINE RESOURCES
1. HeinOnline, https://home.heinonline.org
2. Lexis India, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
3. Manupatra, http://www.manupatrafast.com
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.com
5. Westlaw India, http://www.westlawindia.com

4
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. That the Petitioners are citizen of Asgard entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Asgard in as much as their fundamental rights
guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of Asgard have been infringed.

ARTICLE 32- THE POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO ISSUE CERTAIN WRITS.

(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 clauses (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.

5
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Asgard is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic that follows federalism where by
power is shared between Union and States. The Constitution of Asgard came into existence when
colonial Asgard was divided into Union of Asgard and Republic of Titan. The State of Vormir
which shares borders with both Asgard and Titan. After signing the Instrument of Accession on
Oct 26th 1947 the State of Vormir was included in the part of Asgard. The accession of Vormir led
to inclusion of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution of Asgard.

2. There was an Agreement called “Sakaar Agreement” which extended Asgardian citizenship to
the 'State subjects' of Vormir. In the light of agreement 'Article 35A' was added to the Constitution
of Asgard by the Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 1954. It extended several provisions
of the Asgardian constitution to Vormir. In the year 1956, Vormir adopted its Constitution and
defined itself as an integral part of Asgard under Part II. The State's constituent assembly dissolved
itself on 25 January 1957 without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article.
Although the Article 370(3) permits deletion by a Presidential Order. The State's constituent
assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without recommending either abrogation or
amendment of the Article. Although the Article 370(3) permits deletion by a Presidential Order.

3. In 2016, The OJP Party formed Coalition govt. with VDP Party and again they returned to power
in 2019 and they were pressurised to remove the Art. 35A & 370. VDP lost their majority and
there was continuous stone pelting and attack on the army personnel’s in the state. On 30th July
Governor of Vormir send a report to the President for imposition of President’s Rule in the State
under Article 356. He cited breakdown of constitutional machinery and law and order as reasons
for the same.

4. The ODP party proposed a bill for the bifurcation of stated into Union territories i.e Wakanda
and Vormir by the application of the article 367 i.e interpretation clause present in the constitution
of Asgard they interpreted constituent assembly as the legislative assembly and interpreted sadar-
I- riyasat as the governor and imposed governor rule and abrogated the provision by transferring
the provisions of the state assembly to the governor.

6
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

5. Many leaders including G. Mufti and T. Abdulla were placed under house arrest after imposition
of sec 144 and internet and mobile services were curtailed. Opposite parties protested that the
Reorganization bill breached the 1954 Presidential Order as no consent or concurrence of the
Legislature or the State Government was taken at any point. Further the state was locked down by
imposing Sec. 144.

6. G. Mufti approached the Court against her house detention Thanos Abdullah filed writ petition
against the imposition of President’s Rule in the state without giving chance for floor test. SSV
(NGO) flagged the issue of Freedom of Press being violated and essential services including
ambulances, police and fire services are also not accessible due to communication blockade.

7. The present govt. stated that the essential services are not completely banned. Telephone booths
have been established at many places, medical and other necessary services are also been provided
and only the usage of private services is been prohibited and further stated that internet is shunned
for it was being misused to intensify the mass rebellion in the state.

8. The petitions before the court have cited many grounds and a substantial question is whether a
federal unit can be downgraded from the status of a State to that of a Union Territory, a move for
which there is no precedent. The constitutional morality of the rest of the country deciding the
destiny of a State without the consent or participation of its citizens is also a serious issue brought
before the courts.

7
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED:

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE II: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

ISSUE III: WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER,

2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

ISSUE IV: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND
THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

ISSUE V: WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION

TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR VALID?

8
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the petitioners are maintainable under
the Article 32 of the constitution of Asgard because their fundamental rights guaranteed under part
III of the constitution of Asgard have been infringed.

ISSUE II WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

It is humbly submitted before the apex court that the imposition of president rule under article 356
is invalid because of the special status that are prevailed for the state of Vormir by having its own
constitution unlike the other states in the nation of Asgard because according to the section 92 of
the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution the governor has the power to take all the powers of the state
assembly after there is any situation satisfying the breakdown of the constitution in the state of
Vormir.

ISSUE III WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER,

2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

The counsel on behalf of petitioner humbly submits that the enforcement of the constitution
(Application to Vormir) order, 2019 in the statement of Vormir is invalid because after the powers
of the state assembly of Vormir are transferred to the governor the abrogation of article 370
happened. Interpretation clause i.e article 367 of the constitution of the Asgard only provides for
the amending or modifying the constitution of state of Vormir but not creating a fresh clause i.e
clause 4 of article 367 only for the purpose of abrogating article 370 indirectly.

ISSUE IV. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND
THE HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the imposition of section 144 of the
criminal code of procedure and the house arrest of prominent political leaders of the state of Vormir
is invalid because the emergency imposed under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is
violative of the article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Asgard. The respondents have suspended

9
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

the rights of the individuals by imposing section 144. If the situation present in the state of Vormir
is such grave then the emergency under article 352 of the constitution of Vormir must have been
imposed. The constitutional safeguards enshrined in the article 352 has been circumvented by
imposing the section 144. The fundamental rights under part 3 of the constitution has to be given
wider interpretation.

ISSUE V. WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION

TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR VALID?

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the decision of the reorganisation of
the state of Vormir into territories of Wakanda and Vormir is invalid because in the light of
downgrading the status of the state of Vormir into two union territories, the Vormir reorganisation
act is ultravires to the constitution under article 3. It authorises the centre to alter the boundaries
of the state and the creation of the new states but not the downgrading the status of a state to that
of a union territory. This is even evident from the explanations of article 3. It is that Article 3
provides a range of powers alteration of state boundaries, the alteration of union territories, but
does not conspicuously authorise the degradation of the status of a state into a Union Territory.

10
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. That the Petitioners are citizen of Asgard entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Asgard in as much as their fundamental rights
guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of Asgard have been infringed.

2. That this Writ Petition is being filed for issuance of appropriate Writ, Direction or Order
declaring the Presidential Order i.e Vormir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 as unconstitutional being
Violative of Petitioners fundamental rights under article14, article 19 and article 21 of the
Constitution of Asgard and for issuance of order quashing the same.

3. That the impugned Presidential Orders and the legislation being unconstitutional, the Petitioners
have no other alternative, effective, remedy other than approaching the sole Constitutional Arbiter
as this Honorable Court and therefore, the Petitioners have not approached any other authority for
any relief.

4. It is respectfully submitted that both the petitioners are aggrieved by the Impugned Presidential
Orders culminating in unconstitutional legislation having the effect of tumultuous constitutional
repercussions and thus the Petitioners are constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court.

5. The writ petition raise substantial questions of law with respect to the constitutionality of
communication shut-downs and restrictions upon the freedom of movement, assembly, and
association, particularly a shutdown which brought to a standstill the lives of people of the state of
Vormir valley. In the history of independent Asgard, restrictions at such scale have never been
imposed in absence of a formal declaration of an emergency under the Constitution. It is therefore
submitted, that this case for the first time raises the issues of imposition of emergency like
restrictions in the absence of declaration of an emergency.

6. The freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1) (a) which is a fundamental right
guaranteed by the constitution of India under Part 3 has been grossly violated by the acts of the
respondents by imposing sanctions on the press.

11
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE 2: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ASGARD VALID?

Under section 92 of the constitution of Vormir when there is a situation where the governor of the
respective state is satisfied about the condition of the state then governor rule is imposed in the
state of Vormir for a period of 6 months but only with the consent of the president of Asgard and
if there is a need to further extend it then with the consent of the parliament presidential rule is
imposed. This procedure is anomalous to that of the rest of Asgard where a president rule is
imposed when the assembly of the respective state is diluted. The legislative assembly is also not
dissolved in the period of the governor rule. Governor assumes the power of the Government as
well as Legislature of Vormir.

Section 92 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir1

Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the State

(1) If at any time, the Governor is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of
the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor
may by Proclamation–

(a) Assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of
the powers vested in or exercisable by anybody or authority in the State;

(b) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Governor to be necessary
or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for
suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to
anybody or authority in the State

Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the Governor to assume to himself any of the
powers vested in or exercisable by the High Court or to suspend in whole or in part the operation
of any provision of this Constitution relating to the High Court.

1
The constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956

12
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

(3) Any such Proclamation whether varied under sub-section (2) or not, shall, except where it is a
Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate on the expiration of six months
from the date on which it divas first Issued.

But in the given set of facts, the present scenario clearly depicts the imposition of the president
rule under the article 356 of Constitution of Asgard which clearly violates section 92 of the
constitution of the Vormir mentioned as above.

This act clearly depicts the intention of the Central Government to abrogate the article 370, bring
it under the direct control of the central government of Asgard by converting it into union territories
by abrogating the status of Jammu and Kashmir from a state to union territory. Withdrawing
support to the VDP government by the OJP leader clearly depicts the intention of the ruling party
in the Centre.

Here the Sadar-i-Riyasat is assumed as a governor of the state appointed by the central Government
of the Asgard, the state assembly was dissolved and the governor is vested with the powers of the
state assembly and abrogated the provision of the article 370 without the consultation of the state
government which was against the constitution of the constitution of Vormir.

13
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE 3: WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO VORMIR) ORDER,

2019 IN THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

Central Government in downgrading the status of the state of Vormir into two union Territories
used the interpretation clause of article 367 of the constitution of Asgard and interpreted the word
Constituent assembly is interpreted as Legislative assembly

After the powers of the State Assembly of the Vormir are transferred to the governor the abrogation
of article 370 happened.

The order of the president is as serious as amending an article indirectly because he was not vested
with the powers to abrogate or amend the article 370. This was done through amending the article
367.

The rule was that in Nazeer ahmed v. King Emperor 2 the rule was that where a power is given to
do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in the said way and not the other way or
resorting to the other methods and the other methods of performance are forbidden necessarily.

The recent decision to rescript a part of the constitution is unconstitutional as it would involve
abrogating the basic structure of the constitution as to change the identity of it which was held in
the case Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala3. The major decision in the above case was to
upheld the federal structure of the constitution as the basic structure of the constitution.

The assail of the centre on the article 370 didn’t end with their whimsical intention to replace it
with a completely new provision by changing the identity of the old provision. As the centre could
be unable to do so with the recommendation of the constituent assembly of the state as required
under article 370(3) of the constitution here the constituent assembly was dissolved in the past in
1956 bereft of the clarification of whether article 370 should continue to operate or not.

The honourable president sought for amending the article 367 for the mere intentional purpose of
amending article 370 by the addition of clause (4) in the article 370. The said article 367 deals with

2
Nazeer ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253, 257.
3
Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 146.

14
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

the interpretation of the constitution. The constituent assembly of the state as read as the legislative
assembly and the article 370 was amended. The power under article 370(1)(d) extends to the extent
of amending or modifying the constitution of state of Vormir but not creating a fresh constitutional
provision which in present case refers to article 367(4).

In the case of Paranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India4, this honourable court by giving
wide amplitude of interpretation to the Meaning of modification abstained from using the word
create. In this case the court held that the word modify meant to vary and it also means to extend
or to enlarge. This interpretation refrains from covering a situation where in new constitutional
provision is created. The rationale behind this is that a presidential order cannot create a new
Constitutional Right, liability or disability. It is a basic principle in the democracy of the common
law system that constituent power does not vest with a single functionary.

Furthermore the abrogation of article 370 is done by vesting the powers of the state assembly is
dissolved and the powers are vested to the governor but article 370 of the Asgard constitution
explicitly says that.

In Article 370:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

(a) The provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) The power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to—

(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the
Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the
Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the
matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and

(ii) Such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State,
the President may by order specify.

4
Puranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India (1962) 1 SCR 688.

15
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The modifying of a state which is in the union list must be done with the concurrence of the
government i.e taking the views of the respective state government but as mentioned in the facts
the total powers of the government are given to the governor but the explaination to the article 370
clearly defines government as

Explanation-“For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for
the time being recognised by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of
the State as the governor of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers
of the State for the time being in office.”5

Here the government means the person acting on the advice of the council of minister of the state
but here the powers of the government are vested with the governor which is clear violation of
article 370(1).

So we ardently oppose the imposition of enforcement of Constitution (Application to Vormir)

Order, 2019 in the State of Vormir by the above mentioned arguments.

5
P M bakshi, Indian Constitution Law 9 (11th ed., Universal Law Publications 2011).

16
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE 4: WHETHER IMPOSITION OF SECTION 144 OF CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND THE
HOUSE ARREST OF PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADERS OF THE STATE OF VORMIR VALID?

Here the emergency imposed under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is violative of the
article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Asgard. The Respondents have suspended the rights of the
individuals by imposing section 144. If the situation present in the state of Vormir is such grave
then the emergency under article 352 of the constitution of Vormir must have been imposed. The
constitutional safeguards enshrined in the article 352 has been circumvented by imposing the
section 144. It was a settled principle that which cannot be achieved directly cannot be done
indirectly the maxim is y (Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur etper obliquum).

It was indeed that that terrorists from the nation titan pose a threat to Vormir. But the terrorist
outfits also penetrate to the country not only through crossing the border but they also penetrate
digitally. If the threat possessed by them is such grave that some unsourmountable situation arises
than the respondent must have declared Emergency under article 352 of the Constitution of Asgard.

Such pervasive restrictions amount to a violation of Article 19 and 21.

In Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P. & Others6., Justice Subbarao held as under:

“In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 7 (1), it is described to mean liberty relating to or concerning
the person or body of the individual; and personal liberty in this sense is the antithesis of physical
restraint or coercion. The expression is wide enough to take in a night to be free from restrictions
placed on his movements. The expression "coercion" in the modern age cannot be construed in a
narrow sense. In an uncivilized society where there are no inhibitions, only physical restraints may
detract from personal liberty, but as civilization advances the psychological restraints are more.
effective than physical ones. The scientific methods used to condition a man's mind are in a real
sense physical restraints, for they engender physical fear channelling one's actions through
anticipated” “and expected groves. So also the creation of conditions which necessarily engender
inhibitions and fear complexes can be described as physical restraints. Further, the right to personal
liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements, but also free
from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right

6
Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
7
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

17
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.
Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical
happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person's house, where lie lives with his
family, is his "castle": it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty. The pregnant
words of that famous Judge, Frankfurter J., in Wolf v. Colorado8 (1), pointing out the importance
of the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police, could have no less
application to an Indian home as to an American one.

If physical restraints on a person's movements affect his personal liberty, physical encroachments
on his private life would affect it in a larger degree. Indeed, nothing is more deleterious to a man's
physical happiness and health than a calculated interference with his privacy. We would, therefore,
define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions
or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed
or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the acts of surveillance
under, infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution. This leads
us to the second question, namely, whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (d)
is also infringed. What is the content of the said fundamental right? It is argued for the State that
it means only that a person can move physically from one point to another without any restraint.'
This argument ignores the adverb "freely" in cl. (d). If that adverb is not in the clause, there may
be some justification for this Contention; but the adverb "freely" gives a larger content to the
freedom Mere movement unobstructed by physical restrictions cannot in itself be the object of a
person's travel. A person travels ordinarily in quest of some objective.

He goes to a place to enjoy, to do business, to meet friends, to have secret and intimate
consultations with others and to do many other such things. If a man is shadowed, his movements
are obviously constricted. One can move physically, but it can only be a movement of an
automation. How could a movement under the scrutinizing gaze of the policemen be described as
a free movement?”

8
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).

18
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE 4.1 THE ACTION OF STATE IS NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS

The action of the state i.e imposition of the section 144 severely disrupts the private sector by
curtailing the market growth, speed of the economy. Even private hospitals, schools of private
sector are also barred from functioning.

1. Right to information and knowledge under Article 19(1)(a):

The persons inside and outside the state of Vormir have a right to access the information
about the current scenario in the state and some people may travel to and from the state for
their purposes. The state must facilitate such information as justified in the case of
The secretary of ministry of Information broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal
and Anr9
2. Right to livelihood under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g)- The core industries like
infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, etc have been effected due to the imposition of the
section 144. There have been shutting down of businesses also.
3. Right to health under article 21- The prohibition on the movement in the clear absence for
exceptions for health related needs have prevented the persons from accessing hospitals for
emergency as well as periodic treatment.
4. From these acts it is evident that the intention of the central government that it is
exaggerating the condition prevailing in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the section
144 has been imposed by an overzealous government and it is trying to take the control
over the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir. But the centre cannot curtail the fundamental
rights as is evident in –
Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. The State of Bihar and Another10 and in
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors11

9
Information Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Anr, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
10
Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. The State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1962 SC 1166.
11
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 1.

19
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The rights also carry correlative duties on the part of the state and the honourable court has
reiterated this in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India12, The fundamental rights
under part 3 of the constitution has to be given wider interpretation.

12
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

20
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE REORGANISATION OF THE STATE OF VORMIR INTO UNION

TERRITORIES OF WAKANDA AND VORMIR VALID?

In the light of downgrading the status of the state of Vormir into two union territories, the Vormir
reorganisation act is ultravires to the constitution under article 3. It authorises the center to alter
the boundaries of the state and the creation of the new states but not the downgrading the status of
a state to that of a union territory. This is even evident from the explanations of article 3

Explanation I. In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State'' includes a Union territory, but in the
proviso, "State'' does not include a Union territory.

Explanation II. The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a
new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or
Union territory.13

In both the explanations the word state is to be read as union territory.

It is that Article 3 provides a range of powers alteration of state boundaries, the alteration of union
territories, but does not conspicuously authorise the degradation of the status of a state into a Union
Territory.

This interpretation is also supported from the case of Navtej Johar v Union of India14

Where the apex court supported the principle of non- retrogression that the state should not take
steps or any measures that leads to the retrogression on the rights of enjoyment of rights under the
constitution.

The crucial right of representation and to be governed by the elected member was supported by
the apex court in the case of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India15

Article 1 extends to Vormir and is recognised as a state under the nation of Asgard. It states that
India as Bharat shall be Union of the States. Article 1(3) further states that “the territory of India
shall comprise - (a) the territories of the States”; (b) the Union territories specified in the First

13
P M bakshi, Indian Constitution Law 9 (11th ed., Universal Law Publications 2011).
14
Navtej Johar v Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
15
NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501.

21
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Schedule” It is asserted that for the purposes of Article 1, “states” and “union territories” are treated
differently, and “states” are the units of the Indian Union.

Further the power of Article 3 cannot not be vested to the centre for downgrading the status of the
states into the union territories that if chooses to downgrade it in the same manner with all the
states then Indian would become a union of territories and not the union of states.

It is also asserted in the case of S R Bommai v. Union of India16 that the apex court the courts
should not approach a method such that it effects the whitting down of powers of the state that are
reserved to them. The federalism in the Indian constitution is not for administrative convenience
but the outcome of the historical perspective of the framers of the constitution.

16
S R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.

22
 3RD DR. R. U. SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION,
AS WELL AS THE LEGAL GROUNDS RELIED UPON THEREIN, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS

HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

 A Writ under the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction, declaring that
the reorganisation of the state of Vormir into Union territories of Wakanda and Vormir
and also the enforcement of Constitution (Application to Vormir) Order, 2019 in the State
of Vormir as ultra vires Article 19 and 21 of the read with Article 370 and 356 of the
constitution and other provision therein, unconstitutional, void ab initio, invalid and
inoperative.
 Issue a direction to the Respondents to immediately relax all restrictions on house arrest
people and Private sectors as ultra vires Article 19 and 21.

Pass any such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.

AND FOR SUCH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND
FOREVER PRAY.

23