TEAM CODE – 60

17TH NALSAR JUSTICE BODH RAJ SAWHNY MEMORIAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KADARU

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER:

Ms. KERRI & ORS …………PETITIONER

Vs.
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KADARU (DPRK) ………. RESPONDENT
WP ___ OF 2023 | SLP ___ OF 2023

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023

TRANSFER PETITION ___ OF 2023

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

KADARU

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESOPONDENTS

1
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...…………………..02

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………....03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….............04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….………...07

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………....09

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………....13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………...…...………..15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….………...17

ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN EACH INSTANCE?.......................17

ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
RESPECTIVE COURTS? ……………………………………………………………….21

ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF

KADURU?……………………...………………………………………………25

ISSUE – IV: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ORDER 2023 IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL?........30

PRAYER... ...………………………………………………………………………...…………36

2
17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL TEXT

KIM Kaduriga Independence Movement

MM Maluru Makkalu

SFJ Solurans For Justice

ANR Another

ORS Others

ACT Delimitation Act, 2023

ORDER Delimitation Order, 2023

PIL Public Interest Litigation

¶ Para

i.e. That is

3
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya V. V.R. Rudani &
Ors. 1989 SCC (2) 691
2. Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP AIRONLINE 1996 SC 1178
3. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr v State of UP and Ors.: (1997) 3 S.C.R
4. Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) and Ors v. Delimitation Commission of
India and Ors
5. Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 58
6. Banaspati Co. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCR
7. Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. The Union of India & Ors. 1951 AIR 41
8. Chanan Singh v. Registrar. Co-op Societies, AIR 1976 SC 1821
9. Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O, AIR 1971 SC 870
10. Daryao & Ors v. The State Of U. P. And Ors 1962 SCR (1) 574
11. Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 4 S.C.R
12. HMT Ltd v. Mudappa, AIR 2007 SC 1106
13. Kapan v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 126
14. Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. & Ors 2023:AHC:180417
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
16. Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors., 1967 AIR 669
17. Minister of Finance and Other v Van Heerden (CCT 63/03) [2004] ZACC 3
18. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1980 AIR 1789
19. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar 1959 SCR 629
20. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. vs. Jan Mohammed
Usmanbhai and Ors.
21. Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar 2010 (4) SCC 460
22. R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1993 SCR (1) 891
23. R.S. Raghunath vs State Of Karnataka And Anr 1992 SCC (1) 335
24. Sathyanarayana Sinha Vs Lal & Co AIR 1973 SC 2720
25. Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27996/06 and 34836/06
26. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 1976 SCC (2) 310
27. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd; 1964 SCR (6) 846

4
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

28. Subrata Acharjee v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 725

29. Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187
30. Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State Of West Bengal & Ors, 2009 (1) SCC 768
31. Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. N.S. Rathnam & Sons; AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT
1273

STATUES
1. Constitution of India
2. Constitution of Kaduru
3. Delimitation Commission Act, 1952 (India)
4. Delimitation Commission Act, 2023 (Kaduru)

COMMENTARIES

1. Annie Philips, The Politics of Presence (1995)

2. Constituent Assembly Of India - Volume VII Monday, the 13th December, 1948
3. Justice G.P. Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation, Lexis Nexis, India 2010,
12th Edition
4. D.D. Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India, Wadhwa, India, 2007, 8th
Edition, Volume I And II
5. M.P. Jain, India Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, India, 2010, 6th Edition
6. H.M. Seervai, Constitution Law Of India, Universal Publications, India, 2004, 4th
Edition, Volume I,II And III

DICTIONARIES
1. Cambridge Legal Dictionary
2. Oxford Reference
3. Black’s Legal Dictionary
4. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ONLINE SITES AND SOURCES

1. Dr. BR Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, 09.12.1948 at
[Link]
2. [Link]

5
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
6. [Link]
7. [Link]
8. [Link]
9. [Link]
10. [Link]
11. [Link]
12. [Link]
13. [Link]
14. [Link]

6
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT

Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Kaduru under article 32
of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

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

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause
(2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.”

It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

HIGH COURT

The Petitioners have also invoked the Writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Malurite
Enclave under Article 226 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

“Article 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, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,

7
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat
of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or
stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition
under clause (1), without—

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of
the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the
High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a
period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on
which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the
next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is
not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the
case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.”

It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

8
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND OF KADURU

Kaduru, a former colony of Birur Empire, gained its independence after 2 centuries of
independence struggle. Whilst it was a colony, Kaduru witnessed people from other colonies
of Birur Empire, coming and settling within Kaduru. Consequently, ethnic tensions arose
among the different communities. Birur Empire had introduced a proverbial policy of “to each,
their own” which made certain by way of “ethnic enclaves” that they can “avoid any untoward
interaction between communities”. This policy prohibited individuals from purchasing land or
settling outside the territory of their ethnicity with the exception of Birurish persons. Any
attempt to circumvent this policy required a special reason justifying the need to do so and
marriage and cohabitation were not considered as cogent reasons.

In 1962, so as to curb the ethnic tensions, the Birur Empire introduced a representation system
that provided reservations in jobs and educational institutions for individuals of all ethnicities.
The ethnicity-based quotas were divided as follows:

a. General (no reservation): 50%

b. Kadurigas: 25%

c. Solurans: 10%

d. Malurites: 10%

e. Other under-represented ethnicities: 5%

Kaduriga Independence Movement (KIM), a political party, took up the cudgels against the
proposed reservation system, subsequently thereafter Solurans For Justice (SFJ) and Maluru
Makkalu (MM) organisations also emerged, advocating for the rights of their respective
communities.

MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION

The rule of the Birur Empire was set to end by 2022, and to that end, they established a
Constituent Assembly for Kaduru. Two-thirds (2/3rd) of the Constituent Assembly were elected
based on Universal Adult Franchise (UAF), while one-third (1/3rd) were nominated by the
Birurish to ensure adequate representation for every ethnicity. Once the constitution-making

9
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

process was completed, observers noted that the Constitution of Kaduru appears to be heavily
inspired by the Constitution of India in several material respects. It even includes a clause
stating that, unless otherwise decided, the judgments of foreign judicial bodies shall be followed
in interpreting the Constitution of Kaduru where necessary.

Subsequently, it was decided that Kaduru would hold its first election in 2024, based on the
principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value,’ or the principle of Equal Representation in
voting. Adherence to this principle required that each vote in Kaduru carries the same value,
irrespective of the voter’s location within the country.

The 1st elections of Kaduru, would also elect members to the State Assemblies in Kaduru, who
in turn would elect the members of the upper house of the Kadaru Legislature. Such voting was
patterned upon the India’s Rajya Sabha.

The boundaries of the states of Kaduru overlapped with the Ethinic Enclaves which were
established under the Birurish Rule.

Mr. Gartazap, the last Governer General appointed by the Birurish continued as the President
of Kaduru till the 1st Presidential Elections were held.

FACTS OF THE CASE

As one of the first laws, the Kaduru legislature passed the Delimitation Act, 2023 which
provisioned for creation of a Delimitation Commission. The Prime Minister was empowered,
under the act, to choose the Chairperson of the Commission. The act also contained an
ambiguous provision wherein the Prime Minister was given the liberty to choose the number of
members of the commission as per s/he deems fit.

The commission was tasked with delimitation / determination the boundaries of constituencies
for both Union Legislature and State Assemblies. Further, under the act, it was directed to
ensure similar number of votes in each constituency. The Delimitation Act, 2023 provided that
Delimitation Commission may take into account the need to give adequate representation in the
Legislature for each community in Kaduru. Additionally, in all other respects, the Delimitation
Act, 2023 was in para materia with the Delimitaiton Act, 1952 of India.

10
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

The Prime Minister of Kaduru, Ms. Sartha, appointed 5 members to the Commission who
were all ethnically Kadurigas and were members of KIM. The commission submitted its
report to the PM with the following findings:

a. Given the historic under-representation of native Kadurigas under Birur rule, they
should be over-represented in the legislature.

b. The other seat allocations are deemed “adequate representation” for the other
communities which have anyway benefited from over-representation under Birur rule.

c. Based on the 2021 census, the following is the approximate breakup of the major
ethnicities in Kaduru:
Kadurigas – 68%
Solurans – 12%
Malurites – 12%
Other ethnicities – 8%

d. Out of the 200 contested seats in the lower house of the legislature, each ethnic
majority area (State) would be allotted the following seats:
Kaduriga Enclave – 160
Soluran Enclave – 15
Malurite Enclave – 15
The remaining enclaves – 10 (with at least one seat per enclave)

e. Out of the 100 seats in the upper house, the following seats are allotted to each enclave
for indirect election:
Kaduriga Enclave - 80
Soluran Enclave - 8
Malurite - 8
The remaining - 4 (to be selected as a group from the members of
the other enclaves)

There was immediate uproar from the non-Kaduriga members of the Legislature, especially the
Solurans and Malurites who felt they were being grossly under-represented. Nevertheless,
because the KIM had a simple majority in the legislature, the Report was adopted and the next
day, Delimitation Order, 2023 was issued to implement the recommendations of the
Delimitation Commission.

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

11
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Writ Petition by Maluru Makkalu (MM), before the High Court of Malurite Enclave,
challenging the Delimitation Order, 2023 contenting it to be in violation of the
Constitution and of the Delimitation Act, 2023.

 Writ Petition by Mr. Lino Koy, before the High Court of Malurite Enclave, challenging
the validity of the Delimitation Act, 2023.

In both cases, the DPRK filed a response questioning the maintainability of the writs, the locus
standi of the petitioners and defended the constitutional validity of the Delimitation Order,
2023.
 Writ Petition by Ms. Kerri, the chairperson of Solurans For Justice (SFJ), before the
Supreme Court of Kaduru contending that her fundamental rights as a Soluran had been
violated, thereby challenging the Constitutional validity of the Delimitation Order,
2023.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kaduru, on the ground the commonality of the Issues,
transferred the Writ Petitions in the High Court to itself and tagged them with the Writ Petition
filed by Ms. Kerri.

The hon’ble court has now placed the matter before a Constitution Bench, to adjudicated upon
the following issues framed:

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

II. Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to approach the respective courts?

III. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the Constitution of Kaduru?

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

Hence, this Petition…..

12
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

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

A. Whether the writ petition, by Maluru Makkalu (MM), before the High
Court of Malurite Enclave, challenging the Delimitation Order 2023,
maintainable?

B. Whether the writ petition of Mr. Lino Koy in Hon’ble High Court of
Malurite Enclave, challenging the Delimitation Act 2023, is maintainable?

C. Whether the writ petition filed by Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for
Justice (SFJ), challenging the constitutionality of Delimitation Order, 2023
on the ground of violation of her fundamental right, before the Supreme
Court of Kadaru, is maintainable?

ISSUE – II:
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE
RESPECTIVE COURTS?

A. Whether the Maluru Makkalu (MM), challenging the Delimitation Order

2023, has locus standi before the Hon’ble High Court of Malurite Enclave?

B. Whether Mr. Lino Koy has the locus standi to file the Writ Petition
challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Malurite Enclave?

C. Whether the writ petition filed by Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for
Justice (SFJ), on the ground of violation of her fundamental right, before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kadaru, is maintainable?

13
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE – III:
WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF
KADARU?

A. Whether the Parliament of Kaduru is empowered to make Delimitation

Act, 2023?

B. Whether the Act is intra vires of the Constitution of Kaduru?

C. Whether the Act does not violate Fundamental Rights?

D. Whether the Act is a significant Legal Statute?

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

A. Whether the Order is intra-vires of the Delimitation Act, 2023?

B. Whether the Order is intra-vires of the Constitution of Kaduru, 2023?

C. Whether the Order does not stand in violation of Fundamental Rights?

14
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

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

It is humbly submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable due to the constitutional bar
under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of Kaduru, which prohibits courts from calling in
question the validity of laws related to delimitation. It is respectfully put forth that Article
329(a) of Constitution of Kaduru has a wider scope compared to its Indian counterpart,
demonstrating the framers' intent to specifically exclude delimitation matters from judicial
scrutiny. Furthermore, the counsels for respondents contend that the writ petitions filed are
premature and purely based on apprehensions, as no fundamental or legal rights have been
violated. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish grounds for
challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023 and Delimitation Order, 2023 required for invoking the
court's writ jurisdiction.

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

RESPECTIVE COURTS?

It is humbly submitted that the petitioners in each instance lack the requisite locus standi to file
their respective writ petitions. It is averred that the petitioners, in each instance, do not fall
within the ambit of ‘person aggrieved’ which is a general rule for establishing standing on part
of petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the impugned Act and Order are not in violation of
any of the Fundamental or statutory rights of the Petitioners, thereby the petitioners fail to
possess the requisite legal injury for locus standi. Lastly, it is submitted that the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners, in each instance, cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigations, given
that the petitioners fail to establish themselves as bonafide petitioners for fostering
constituitional values and public interest.

ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF

KADURU?

It is respectfully submitted that the Delimitation Act, 2023 is constitutionally valid given that it
has been enacted by the Parliament of Kaduru under powers conferred to them under Articles

15
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

82 and 327 of the Constitution. Further, the Act is in consonance with principles of proportional
and adequate representation. It is submitted that the Act's provision for ethnic-based
delimitation has the reasonable objective of protecting minority rights in light of Kaduru's
history of ethnic tensions, and does not violate the right to equality under Article 14, as varying
needs of different classes can justify special treatment. Further, the Act's bar on judicial review
of delimitation is authorized by the non-obstante clause in Article 329(a), which has overriding
effect. It is averred that the Act serves the vital purpose of facilitating fair representation for all
citizens, promoting unity and equality in the electoral process, and preventing unwanted delays
in Kaduru's first elections being held post-independence.

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

It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order, 2023 is legal and constitutional given that
it is intra vires the Delimitation Act, 2023 and the Constitution of Kaduru. It is averred that the
Commission had the capacity to make the order regarding the delimitation of seats and
allocation of seats, which is in accordance with clause ‘C’ and ‘D’ and section 8 and 9 of the
Act. Further, it is submitted that the order is also consistent with constitutional safeguards and
does not violate fundamental rights. It is submitted that Article 14 of the constitution provides
for classification based on intelligible differentia with a reasonable nexus to the object of
equitable representation. Furthermore, Section 9(1) of the Act bars judicial review of the order
once published in the official gazette.

16
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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

INSTANCE?

1. The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court flows from Article 321, while the High Courts are
empowered under Article 226.2 It is a settled principle that the exercise of writ jurisdiction
under article 226 is discretionary.3 In the present case, III writ petitions have been filed
whereby III legal issues arise: [I.A] Whether the writ petition, by Maluru Makkalu (MM),
before the Hon’ble High Court of Malurite Enclave, challenging the Delimitation Order
2023, is maintainable? [I.B] Whether the writ petition of Mr. Lino Koy before the Hon’ble
High Court of Malurite Enclave, challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023, is maintainable?
[I.C] Whether the writ petition filed by Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for Justice (SFJ),
on the ground of violation of her fundamental right, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Kadaru, is maintainable? It is submitted that all the writ petitions are not maintainable on
primarily 3 grounds:

I.i That Judicial Review is subject to Certain Limitations;

[Link] That Delimitation Commission is a High-Power body;

[Link] That writ petitions are purely based on apprehension.

I.I THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS

I.i.i CONSTITUTIONAL BAR ON JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 329

2. Article 3294 (a) of the Constitution of Kaduru, contains an absolute bar on any order of
Delimitation Commission to be called in question in courts and therefore of judicial
review5, reads:

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution —

a. the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question
in any court;

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32
2
INDIA CONST. art. 226
3
Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State Of West Bengal & Ors, 2009 (1) SCC 768
4
Factsheet at pg. 11
5
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors., 1967 AIR 669

17
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

It is humbly submitted that the current writ petitions are not maintainable in view the
constitutional bar on judicial intervention envisaged under article 329(a), given that the
subject matter of the writ petitions is the Delimitation Order, 2023 passed by the
Delimitation Commission 2023, which indeed is a law relating to Delimitation of
constituencies and therefore within the ambit of Article 329.

[Link] COMPARISON OF A.329 (A) – INDIA AND KADURU

3. Under the Constitution of India, the Delimitation Orders are made under Article 327 6 and
3287 and are immune from the Judicial test of their validity by the virtue of Article 329(a)8.
However, A.329(a)9 of the Constitution of Kaduru has a wider scope of the bar on judicial
review on all matters pertaining to Delimitation of Constituencies and not subject to those
made under articles 327 and 32810. It is humbly submitted that the makers of the
Constitution of Kaduru have put special emphasis on exclusion of matters relating to
delimitation of constituencies from judicial questioning thereby the scope of articles under
India and Kaduru differ.

4. The Supreme Court of India, in Meghraj Kothari11, explained the reason behind Article
329 and stated that if the orders made were not to be treated as final, the result would be
that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning
the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court.12 It is submitted that the provision
barring judicial scrutiny serves a critical purpose, i.e. to prevent indefinite delays in the
electoral process through the legal challenges.

[Link] STATUTORY BAR ON JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER DELIMITATION ACT 2023

5. Section 9 clause 1 of the Delimitation Act 202313, contains the bar on orders being called
in question in any court after such order is published in the official Gazette of Kaduru. It is
humbly submitted that in view of the aforementioned section, the Act bars the judiciary
from scrutinising the orders of the Delimitation Commission.

[Link] THAT DELIMITATION COMMISSION IS A HIGH POWER BODY

6
INDIA CONST. art. 327
7
INDIA CONST. art. 328
8
INDIA CONST. art. 329
9
Factsheet at p.g. 11
10
ibid
11
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors., 1967 AIR 669
12
Ibid.
13
Delimitation Commission Act, 1952

18
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

6. Delimitation commission has been described as a high-power body. Section 9 of the

Delimitation Act, 1952 provides that the orders of the commission, upon publication in the
official gazette, shall get full force of law. It is submitted that the Delimitation Commission
is a high-power body14 constituted to delimitate constituencies for State and Union
Legislature.

[Link] THAT WRIT PETITIONS ARE PURELY BASED ON APPREHENSION

7. A writ petition may be liable to be dismissed if it is premature. 15 Ordinarily, a Court

confines itself to the facts at hand and does not delve into assumptions. 16 In HMT Ltd v.
Mudappa,17 it was held that a writ petition against a notification for the proposed
acquisition of land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was
premature.18 Similarly, in the present case, the fear of violation of any fundamental or legal
rights, expressed by the petitioners have not been realised. It is submitted that the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and therefore deserve to be dismissed.

I.A WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION, BY MALURU MAKKALU (MM), BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF MALURITE ENCLAVE, CHALLENGING THE DELIMITATION ORDER 2023, IS

MAINTAINABLE?

8. It is a settled principle that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is
discretionary. 19 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for
enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there
is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. 20 High courts have been
granted wide powers under Article 226 to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights and for any other purpose.21 The petitioner, in the present case MM, has
to proof, to the satisfaction of the High court, that any of their fundamental or legal rights
has been violated.22 It is humbly submitted that the Order does not stand in violation of any

14
[Link] (Last visited 09.09.24)
15
Kapan v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 126, ¶ 25
16
Chanan Singh v. Registrar. Co-op Societies, AIR 1976 SC 1821, ¶¶ 6-7 (per V. R. Krishna Iyer J.)
17
HMT Ltd v. Mudappa, AIR 2007 SC 1106.
18
HMT Ltd v. Mudappa, AIR 2007 SC 1106, ¶¶ 17- 18.
19
Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State Of West Bengal & Ors, 2009 (1) SCC 768
20
Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. % Ors 2023:AHC:180417
21
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya V. V.R. Rudani & Ors. 1989 SCC (2)
691
22
INDIA CONST. art. 226

19
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner.23 Therefore the writ petition is not
maintainable.

9. Moreover, Article 329(a) of the Constitution of Kaduru provides for a bar on judicial
scrutiny of the any laws specifically relating to delimitation of constituencies. 24 It is
therefore submitted, that the writ petition filed by MM before the hon’ble High Court is
not maintainable.

10. In the present case, MM has challenged the Order contending that it violates the
Delimitation Act, 2023 and Constitution of Kaduru.25 It is thereby submitted, that none of
the grounds to challenge the Order have been satisfied by the Petitioners 26 and therefore,
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I.B WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MR. LINO KOY BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF MALURITE ENCLAVE, CHALLENGING THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023, IS

MAINTAINABLE?

11. Citing the averments mentioned in Issue I.A, here, given the similarity of issues. The
averments are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

12. In the present case, Mr. Lino Koy challenged the Act contending that it violates the
Constitution of Kaduru.27 It is thereby submitted, that none of the grounds to challenge the
Order have been satisfied by the Petitioners 28 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed.

I.C WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MS. KERRI, CHARIPERSON OF SOLURANS FOR

JUSTICE (SFJ), BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KADURU, CHALLENGING THE

DELIMITATION ORDER, 2023 IS MAINTAINABLE?

13. Citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under the provisions of Article 32 of the
Constitution only when, it is to the satisfaction of the court that a fundamental right of the
petitioner has been violated.29 It is humbly submitted, that in the present case, there is not

23
Respondent’s Written Submissions, Issue - IV
24
Factsheet at p.g. 11
25
Factsheet at ¶32
26
Respondent’s Written Submission, Issue - IV
27
Factsheet at ¶33
28
Respondent’s Written Submission, Issue - IV
29
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar 2010 (4) SCC 460; Daryao & Ors v. The State Of U. P. And Ors 1962 SCR (1) 574

20
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

prima facie case of violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, writ petition under article
32 by Ms. Kerri deserves to be dismissed.

ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO

APPRAOCH THE RESPECTIVE COURTS?

14. The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘locus standi’ as the right or ability to bring a legal
action to a court of law, or to appear in a court.30 It enables an aggrieved party to be heard.31
The SC has the jurisdiction to determine the locus standi of the petitioner to present the
petition under Article 226 of the Indian constitution.32 It is submitted that the petitioners in
all instances, i.e. [II.A] Whether the Maluru Makkalu (MM), challenging the Delimitation
Order 2023, has locus standi before the High Court of Malurite? [II.B] Whether Mr. Lino
Koy has the locus standi to file the Writ Petition challenging the Delimitation Act, 2023?
[II.C] Whether Ms. Kerri, chairperson of Solurans for Justice (SFJ), challenging the
constitutional validity of the Order on the grounds of violation of her fundamental rights,
before the Supreme Court of Kadaru, has locus standi? do not possess the requisite locus
standi primarily on 3 grounds:

II.i That the petitioners are not the ‘person aggrieved’;

[Link] That the Legal and Fundamental Rights of the petitioners do not stand violated;

[Link] That the petition is not a PIL.

II.i THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT THE ‘PERSON AGGRIEVED’;

15. ‘Person aggrieved’ is a person who is injured or adversely affected in a legal sense; or it is
a person wrongly deprived of his entitlement which s/he is legally entitled to receive and it
does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 33 It is settled law
that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order by filing
a writ petition.34 It is submitted that, in the present case, the petitioners do not fall under

30
Cambridge Dictionary; [Link] (last visited
08.08.24)
31
Merriam-Webster Dictionary; [Link] (last visited
08.08.2024)
32
Sathyanarayana Sinha Vs Lal & Co AIR 1973 SC 2720.
33
Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. & Ors 2023:AHC:180417
34
ibid

21
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

the scope of definition of ‘person aggrieved’ given that no entitlements have been taken
away from the petitioners.

16. In Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. & Ors35, a differentiation between ‘person aggrieved’
and ‘person annoyed’ has been made – a complainant may qualify as a 'person annoyed',
yet, he may never be a 'person aggrieved'. Consequently, the petitioner could neither have
filed an appeal and he has no locus to maintain the present petition. It is submitted that the
petitioners can be classified as ‘person annoyed’ and that the filing of writ petitions is the
manifestation of their malafide intent. Therefore, the writ petitions, in absence of any
statutory or fundamental right violation, lacks locus standi and hence is not maintainable.

[Link] THAT THE LEGAL AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS DO NOT STAND
VIOLATED

17. In case of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra36, it is held that the
expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers psychological or
imaginary injury. It is submitted that the Act and the Order (hereinafter collectively referred
to as impugned legislations), have been passed by the Parliament of Kaduru in view of all
due legal procedure and with respect to the Constitution of Kaduru. The impugned
legislation relates to the delimitation of constituencies 37 and therefore supplement
Elections. The date of 1st elections has not been decided yet and therefore the actual
application of the impugned legislations is yet to be done. Thereby, it is humbly submitted
that any injury complained of by the petitioners is imaginary in nature.

18. Further, it is submitted the impugned legislations have been made and enacted with due
process of law and are in consonance with the law.38 Therefore, there arises no locus standi
with the petitioners for the current writ petitions.

[Link] THAT THE PETITION IS NOT A PIL

19. Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of Public Interest
Litigation questioning constitutionality or validity of a Statute or a Statutory Rule. 39 It is
humbly submitted that in each of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the main subject-

35
Ibid
36
Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 58,
37
Factsheet
38
Respondent’s Written Submissions; Issue – III & IV
39
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & Anr. v. C.K. Rajan & Ors 2003 (7) SCC 546

22
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

matter of the petition is to check the validity of the enactments. Therefore, the court in view
of their routine practice, must not view these petitions as PILs.

20. This Court and the High Court should, unless there exists strong reasons to deviate or
depart therefrom, not undertake an unnecessary journey through the public interest
litigation path.40 Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than
what words themselves said viz. litigation in the interest of the public. 41 It is submitted that
the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not in interest of the pubic but arise out of their
own disagreements with Parliamentary actions.

II.A WHETHER THE MALURU MAKKALU (MM), CHALLENGING THE DELIMITATION ORDER
2023, HAS LOCUS STANDI BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF MALURITE?

21. Public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private
interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive.42 It is trite, where a segment
of public is not interested in the cause, public interest litigation would not ordinarily be
entertained. 43 Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to
ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved.44 It is humbly submitted that
the MM does not represent the voice of all Malurites. It is a reasonable apprehension that
MM is a publicity seeking, self-interest driven to file the writ petition to reap benefits and
to project themselves as the leaders of Malurites in Kaduru.

22. The rule of locus standi is relaxed for any member of the public acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury,
but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interpolar.45 The object of PIL can be
best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals
or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private
motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient
Interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury. 46 In view of the
above, the petitioner MM does not possess the requisite locus standi for the current petition.

40
ibid
41
ibid
42
ibid
43
ibid
44
Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 58
45
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. 1992 (4) SCR 226
46
ibid

23
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

II.B WHETHER MR. LINO KOY HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE WRIT PETITION
CHALLENGING THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023?

23. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only
with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and
clean objective47. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest
litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be
thrown out.48 It is humbly submitted, that the petitioner despite cognizant of the fact that
the act has been enacted in adherence to the Constitution of Kaduru and that there was a
bar on challenging such act, still approached the court. It is argued, that the petitioner has
a personal dissatisfaction with the enactment and that the petition must not be treated as
PIL as the petitioner lacks locus standi.

II.C WHETHER MS. KERRI, CHAIRPERSON OF SOLURANS FOR JUSTICE (SFJ), HAS LOCUS
STANDI TO FILE WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE

ORDER ON THE GROUNDS OF VIOLATION OF HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT OF KADARU?

24. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private
interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income
litigation”.49 Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. 50 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner, Ms. Kerri, is the charperson of SFJ and
therefore is politically involved. In view of the same, it is higly likely that her actions are
motivated by factors other than public good and social alleviation.

25. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations,
the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will
have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.51 It is submitted that

47
ibid
48
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 280
49
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 280
50
ibid
51
ibid

24
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Ms. Kerri is not the sole representative of the Solurans residing in Kaduru and therefore
lack the locus standi for her petition to be treated as a PIL.

ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE DELIMITATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE

CONSTITUTION OF KADARU?

26. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment. 52 Further,

the presumption lies in favour of the constitutionality, while considering the validity of a
statue, and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been
transgression of constitutional principles.53 The constitutional validity of the Delimitation
Act, 2023 was challenged.54 It is humbly submitted the Delimitation Act, 2023, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the act’, is in consonance with the Constitution of Kaduru and its underlying
principles. Further, the Delimitation Act is not ultra vires of the Constitution of Kaduru on
the following grounds:

III.A That the Parliament of Kaduru is empowered to make Delimitation Act, 2023;

III.B That the Act is intra vires of the Constitution of Kaduru;

III.C That the Act does not violate Fundamental Rights;

III.D That the Act is a significant Legal Statute.

III.A THAT THE PARLIAMENT OF KADURU IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE DELIMITATION ACT,

2023

27. Article 79 mandates a Legislature for the Union which shall consist of the President and
two houses – Upper House and Lower House.55 Article 327 of the Constitution of Kaduru
contains the power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to the elections to
Legislatures.56 The parliament could make provision for matters relating to delimitation of
constituencies. 57 It is humbly submitted that in exercise of the power conferred by article
327, the Parliament of Kaduru has enacted the Delimitation Act, 2023 providing for
delimitation of constituencies for elections to both Centre and State legislatures.

52
Banaspati Co. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCR
53
Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 4 S.C.R
54
Factsheet
55
Factsheet at p.g. 9
56
Factsheet at p.g 11
57
ibid

25
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

28. Article 82 of the Constitution of Kaduru58 mandates a delimitation exercise to be

undertaken after each census and vests power on to the Union Legislature to determine the
authority and manner in which the constituencies are thus delimitated. The last census in
Kaduru was concluded in 2021. It is submitted that, in discharge of the power vested upon
the Union Legislature by article 82, the Parliament of Kaduru enacted the Delimitation Act,
2023.

III.B THAT THE ACT IS INTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KADURU

29. Article 327 provides for the ‘due constitution of houses’.59 The composition of the Upper
House & Lower House is contained in Article 80, 81 and 170 of the Constitution of
Kaduru.60 The DPRK follows principles of ‘one vote, one value’ or ‘equal representation’,
adherence to which expects that vote of each voter carries the same value irrespective of
the parts of country. 61 Provision ‘C’ of the Act62 directs the Delimitation Commission to
determine the boundaries of each constituency in such a manner so as to ensure that there
are a similar number of voters in each constituency. It is respectfully submitted, that the
Act is, therefore, in consonance with the article 80 & 81 of the Constitution 63, which
enshrines the principle of ‘proportional representation’.

30. The Supreme Court in Subrata Acharjee v. Union of India64 held that the leverage given
by Article 82 & 170 by including words – ‘readjusted by such authority and in such manner
as parliament may by law determine’ – depicts the intention of the parliament as to its true
effect. Further, these are enabling provisions for adjustment of seats in accordance with the
need of the situation. 65 It was also held that proportionality, although mainly dependant
upon population, cannot be always effected with mathematical precision and arithmetic
nicety. 66 Provision ‘D’ of the Act 67 provides that the Commission may take into account
the ‘need to give adequate representation’ in the Legislature to each community in Kaduru.
Prof KT Shah68, In constituent assembly debates in India, opined that proportional
representation meant for a legislative body to reflect all shades of political philosophy, all

58
Factsheet at p.g. 10
59
ibid
60
Factsheet at p.g. 9 & 10
61
Factsheet at ¶21
62
Factsheet at ¶25
63
Factsheet at p.g. 9 &10
64
Subrata Acharjee v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 725
65
ibid
66
ibid
67
Factsheet at p.g. 5
68
Constituent Assembly Of India - Volume VII Monday, the 13th December, 1948

26
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

different interests, all the different opinions that may be found in the country. It is thereby
humbly submitted that proportional representation is not an absolute condition and
welcomes the facet of ‘adequate representation’ within its ambit.

III.C THAT THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

31. High courts have been granted wide powers under Article 226 to issue writs for the
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose.69 It is humbly
submitted that the Act does not violate any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of Kaduru, therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable, and primarily:

III.C.i That Article 14 does not stand violated

[Link] That the Act does not unjustifiably restraints Judicial Review

III.C.i THAT ARTICLE 14 DOES NOT STAND VIOLATED

32. Article 1470 provides for ‘equal protection of law’, i.e. the right to equal treatment in similar
circumstances, both in the privileges and in liabilities imposed. 71 The principle of equality
does not mean that every law must have universal application for all, but it means that the
state / legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification of persons
for legitimate purposes.72 In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the Parliament
of Kaduru, in exercise of their discretion, enacted the Act which provides for classification
of ethnic basis.

33. Discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable

justification, persons in relevantly similar situations. 73 The provision for "adequate
representation" is measure to protect rights of diverse ethnicities, a fundamental principle
in many constitutional democracies. It is humbly submitted that providing representation
to different communities is an "objective and reasonable justification" in a diverse society
like Kaduru.

34. Every classification is in some degree is likely to produce some inequality but mere
production of such inequality is not adequate to attract a violation of Article 14. It is
pertinent for violation of Article 14 that equal protection is denied when the persons belong

69
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya V. V.R. Rudani & Ors. 1989 SCC (2)
691
70
IND CONST, art. 14
71
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. N.S. Rathnam & Sons; AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1273
72
ibid
73
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27996/06 and 34836/06

27
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

to same class / category.74 In the present case, the Act provides ‘adequate representation’
to all ethnicities in the country and does not discriminate among them. It is humbly
submitted that the classification provided under the Act is saved from constituting violation
of Article 14’s ‘equal protection of law’.

35. The Supreme Court of India, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas75 stated that the varying
needs of different classes of persons require special treatment which the Legislature
understands and appreciates, its laws are directed to the said needs and its discriminations
are based upon adequate grounds. Further, the rule of differentiation / classification is
inherent in concept of equality. 76 Historical considerations can justify a differential
treatment.77 It is humbly submitted that Parliament of Kaduru took into account the
historical discrimination on ethnic lines in Kaduru and subsequently classified the
population on ‘ethnic’ basis to accommodate the varying needs of the populous.

36. In the present case, the Act in the provision ‘D’ provides that ‘adequate representation’ for
all ethnicities may be taken into account by the Delimitation Commission in course of
delimitation of constituencies. It is submitted, that the Act therefore runs in consonance
with the ‘principle of equality’ contained under Article 14 of the Constitution.

37. The facet of ‘adequate representation’ is consistent with the constitutional ethos of giving
voice to all communities. Similar to Article 330 providing for reservation of seats for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha, the Delimitation Act aims to
ensure adequate representation for Kaduru's various ethnic communities in the legislature.
It is humbly submitted that this is a valid and laudable objective that does not violate any
constitutional provision.

[Link] THAT THE ACT DOES NOT UNJUSTIFIABLY PUT RESTRAINT ON JUDAICAL REVIEW

38. The power of Judicial Review is conferred on the Judiciary by A.3278 and A.22679 of the
Constitution. 80 The power is an integral part of the Constitution and is part of the basic
structure doctrine.81 It is for the judiciary to uphold the constitutional values and enforce

74
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. N.S. Rathnam & Sons; AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1273
75
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 1976 SCC (2) 310
76
ibid
77
R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1993 SCR (1) 891
78
IND CONST. art. 32
79
IND CONST. art. 226
80
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1980 AIR 1789
81
ibid

28
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

the constitutional limitations and this is the essence of rule of law. 82 It is humbly submitted
that Article 239 (a) encompasses one such constitutional limitation on the power of judicial
review which the judiciary is bound with.

39. Article 329 (a) is a non-obstante clause, given it begins as: ‘Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution’.83 A non-obstante clause is appended to a provision with a view to give
the enacting part of the provision an overriding effect in case of conflict. 84 It is humbly
submitted that A.329 (a) therefore has an overriding effect over other articles of the
constitution in case of conflict.

40. Article 329(a) of the Constitution of Kaduru provides for restraint on Judicial Review on
any law relating to Delimitation of Constituencies, and reads:

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution —

a. the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or
allotment of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question in any
court;
It is humbly submitted that the Act, in view of article 329(a) of Constitution, provides under
§ 9 (1) that, upon publication in the Gazette, the final orders of the Commission shall have
full force of law and shall not be called in question in any court. Therefore, the bar provided
under § 9 (1) stands in coherence with the Constitution and is thus not ultra-vires.

III.D THAT THE ACT IS A SIGNIFICANT LEGAL STATUTE

III.D.i PREVENTION OF POLITICAL VACUUM

41. The Act has been enactment for the smooth conduct of 1 st elections in the newly
independent country of Kaduru. In The Meghraj Kothari85 it has been held that if the orders
made were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so
wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court.86 It is submitted that the Act is the cornerstone of the
electoral process and the writ petitions are mechanisms to stall the formation of the new
Parliament.

82
Ibid at p.g. 12
83
R.S. Raghunath vs State Of Karnataka And Anr 1992 SCC (1) 335
84
ibid
85
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors., 1967 AIR 669
86
Ibid.

29
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

[Link] OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT

42. A preamble of an act, outlines the objective of an act. The preamble to the Act 87 marks out
readjustment of constituencies and delimitation of those constitutes and for matters
connected therewith as the objective of the act. It is submitted that the Act seeks out to
guarantee fair representation for all its citizen. For Kaduru, with history of ethnic tensions,
the Act serves an important purpose facilitating promotion of unity and equality in electoral
process.

43. Thereby, it is humbly submitted that the Act does not stand in violation of the Constitution
of Kaduru and is intra vires of the same.

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

CONSTITUTIONAL?

44. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that
the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of
the constitutional principles. 88 It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order, 2023 is
an enactment and therefore is complemented with the strong presumption of constitutional
principles.

45. Every order made under a statutory provision must not only be within the authority
conferred by the statutory provision, but must also stand the test of constitutionality.89 It is
humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order, 2023 stands the test of constitutionality and
legality on the grounds:

IV.A That the Order is intra-vires of the Delimitation Act, 2023;

IV.B That the Order is intra-vires of the Constitution of Kaduru, 2023;

IV.C That the Order does not stand in violation of any Fundamental Rights.

IV.A THAT THE ORDER IS INTRA-VIRES OF THE DELIMITATION ACT, 2023

87
Delimitation Act, 1952
88
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar 1959 SCR 629
89
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.,
Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187

30
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

46. Every order made under a statutory provision must be within the authority conferred by the
statutory provision.90 It is humbly submitted that the Delimitation Order, 2023 is intra-
vires of the Delimitation Act, 2023, primarily on 4 grounds:
IV.A.i That the Commission has the capacity to make the Delimitation Report
[Link] That the Order is in accordance with the Clause ‘D’ of the Act
[Link] That the Order is in accordance with the Clause ‘C’ of the Act
[Link] That the Order is in Consonance with § 8 of the Act
IV.A.v That the Order is in Consonance with § 9 of the Act

IV.A.i THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE CAPACITY TO MAKE DELIMITATION REPORT

47. Provision ‘A’ of the Delimitation Act, 2023, passed by the Legislature of Kaduru, provides
for the Delimitation Commission, which has been constituted thereby. The commission,
under § 4 of the Act, is tasked with the duty to readjust the representation of the several
territorial constituencies in the House of the People and of the several territorial
constituencies in the Legislative Assembly of each State other than Jammu and Kashmir,
on the basis of the latest census figures and to delimit the said constituencies. It is thereby
submitted that the commission had the capacity to make order for delimitation of
constituencies as well as adjustment of representation.

[Link] THAT CLAUSE ‘D’ OF THE ACT

48. It is humbly submitted that clause ‘D’ of the Act, passed by the legislature of
Kaduru, contains a crucial provision that guides the work of the Delimitation Commission:
"(D) In drawing the boundaries, the Delimitation Commission may take into
account the need to give adequate representation in the legislature for each
community in Kaduru."91
49. The use of the word "may" in clause ‘D’ indicates that the Delimitation Commission
has discretionary power in how it interprets and implements the need for adequate
representation. The Delimitation Order 2023 demonstrates judicious use of this
discretion.

[Link] THAT CLAUSE ‘C’ OF THE ACT

90
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.,
Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187
91
Factsheet at ¶ 25

31
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

50. Clause ‘C’ of the Delimitation Commission Act of Kaduru 92 provides that there needs to
be “similar” number of voters in each constituency. It is humbly submitted that the use of
the term ‘similar’ corresponds to phrases ‘so far as practicable’ in article 81 & 170 of the
Constitution of Kaduru.
51. Article 25 of the ICCPR93 allows for ‘reasonable restrictions’ on equal suffrage. Further,
the UNHRC in General Comment No. 25 clarified.
"The principle of one person, one vote, must apply, and within the framework
of each State's electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the
vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of
allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate
against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right
of citizens to choose their representatives freely."
It is thereby submitted that the order provides for reasonable restriction on equal
representation.

[Link] THAT THE ORDER IS IN CONSONANCE WITH §8 OF THE ACT

52. § 8 of the Act mandates that the Commission has to determine the delimitation of
constituencies and readjustment of representation on the basis of latest census figures. The
Supreme Court in Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP94, that the delimitation of
constituencies and allocation of seats must be done on the basis of figures available from
the last census. It is humbly submitted that the Order basis itself on the last census
conducted in Kaduru, i.e. 2021 census.

IV.A.v THAT THE ORDER IS IN CONSONANCE WITH § 9 OF THE ACT

53. Section 9 of Delimitation Act, 1952 reads:

9. Readjustment of representation and the date of operation of such Readjustment. -

(1) The Commission shall cause each of its final orders to be published in the Gazette
of India; and upon such publication, the order shall have the full force of law and
shall not be called in question in any court.

92
Factsheet at ¶ 25
93
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; [Link]
mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (last visited 08.09.24)
94
Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP AIRONLINE 1996 SC 1178

32
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

(2) As soon as may be after such publication, every such order shall be laid before the
House of the People.

54. It is humbly submitted that the order was duly adopted by a simple majority 95. The order
was duly published in the Gazette and upon such publication, under § 9 (1), the order got
full force of law.

IV.B THAT THE ORDER IS INTRA-VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KADURU, 2023

55. Article 8296 provides that upon completion of the census the allocation of seats and the
delimitation of each state into constituencies shall be readjusted by ‘such’ authority and in
‘such’ manner as the Parliament by law may determine. Further, article 327 97 enjoins on
the Parliament to make provisions by law from time to time with respect to all matters
relating to or in connection with elections such as delimitation of constituencies. Article 82
read with article 327, endows upon the Delimitation Commission the authority and the
capacity to make order of delimitation of constituencies.

56. The Delimitation Order is constitutional i.e. it is in line with various safeguards provided
by the Constitution. It is in line with the principles of equity, fairness, good faith and justice
enshrined in the Constitution.

57. In the case of the Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Ors. vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors98., the Court highlighted that adequate representation of each
community is necessary and must be accounted for. The Articles 15 and 16(4) provide for
enabling reservations whereas the Articles 330,332,334 of the Constitution of India
mandate reservation to ensure adequate representation. The Court held that (para 126) An
examination of the constitutional scheme would indicate that the concept of ‘one person,
one vote’ is very tolerant and departures from a very strict application. The provisions in
the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general
and logical principle but not intended to be expressed with mathematical precision. Article
332 and 333 are some examples.”

58. The systemic deficiencies in the plenitude of the doctrine of full and effective
representation has not been understood in the constitutional philosophy as derogating from
the democratic principle. Indeed, the argument in this case, in perspective, is really one of

95
Factsheet ¶ 31
96
Factsheet at pg. 10
97
Factsheet at pg. 11
98
Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

33
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

violation of the equality principle rather than of democratic principle. The inequalities in
representation in the present case are an inheritance and compulsion from the past.
Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment."

59. In the case of Subrata Acharjee v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 725, the Court held that
the leverage given by the constitutional mandate in Articles 82 and 170 by including the
words,” readjusted by such authority and in such a manner as Parliament may by law
determine” depicts the intent of the parliament as to its true effect. It is an enabling
provision for adjustment of seats in accordance with the need of the situation.
Proportionality though mainly dependent on the basis of population, cannot always be
effected with mathematical precision and arithmetic nicety.”

IV.C THAT THE ORDER DOES NOT STAND IN VIOLATION OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

60. In Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O,99 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no question other
than that relating to fundamental right will be determined in proceedings under Article
32.100 It is submitted that the Order does not stand in the violation of any of the fundamental
rights as guaranteed by the constitution, and specifically:

IV.C.i That the Order is not in violation of Article 14

[Link] That the Order is not in violation of Judicial Review

IV.C.i THAT THE ORDER IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

61. Article 14101 of the Constitution provides for ‘equal protection of law’, i.e. the state cannot
deny the equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction.102 The principle
of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all, but it
means that the state / legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make
classification of persons for legitimate purposes.103 In light of the above, it is humbly
submitted that order provides for reasonable classification on ethnic basis.

62. In case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. vs. Jan Mohammed
Usmanbhai and Ors., the court held that while A.14 forbids class legislation it does not

99
Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O, AIR 1971 SC 870, ¶1.
100
IND CONST, art. 32
101
Article 14, Constitution of India
102
Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. The Union of India & Ors. 1951 AIR 41
103
ibid

34
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and that in order to pass the
test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, -

(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes

persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and

(ii) such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the statute in question.

The classification may be founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or according

to objects or occupations or the like. A necessity is that there must be a nexus between the
basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.

IV.C.i.i INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

63. Equality must become a living reality for large masses where it is necessary for the purpose
to bring about real equality of opportunity between those who are unequal, certain
reservations be ensured. 104 The concept of equality, under the constitution, rejects the
notion of purely formal equality, that requires the same treatment of all who find
themselves in similar situations.105 It is hereby submitted that a historically under-
represented ethnicity when provided reservation in a political setup constitutes an
intelligible differentia as can be corroborated by the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal
Sugar Industries Ltd 106. which held that where application of unequal laws is reasonably
justified for historic reasons.

64. Differential treatment becomes unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by a
rational relation with the object of the statute107. It is submitted that in the present case, it
the classification is justified when viewed in conjunction with the historical wrongs against
one ethnicity as illustrated below:

65. In view of ethnic conflicts, the Birurish, in 1962, formulated a job and educational
reservation system as follows:
General (No Reservation) – 50%
Kadurigas – 25%
Solurans – 10%

104
Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr v State of UP and Ors.: (1997) 3 S.C.R
105
Minister of Finance and Other v Van Heerden (CCT 63/03) [2004] ZACC 3
106
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd; 1964 SCR (6) 846
107
ibid

35
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Malurites – 10%
Other under-represented ethnicities – 5%
It is humbly submitted, that the aforementioned scheme of reservation is fundamentally
unjust and it is inconsistent with the principles of ‘equity’. Elsewise, the kadurigas would
have also received appropriate share in reservation analogous to their population like other
ethnicities in Kaduru. The aforementioned averments indicate the historical systematic
discrimination faced by the native kadurigas, which put them in a vulnerable place in
society despite being in majority.

[Link] REASONABLE NEXUS

66. The Delimitation Order's classification serves the clear object of achieving equitable
representation by redrawing constituency boundaries based on population data, with a
focus on ensuring fair representation for all communities. Annie Philips in her book ‘The
politics of presence (1995) stated that it is not enough to have educational or economic
opportunities; political representation ensures that groups have a voice in shaping the
policies that affect their lives.

[Link] THAT THE ORDER IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF JUDICAL REVIEW

67. The order of the commission determining the delimitation of constituencies, once
published in the official gazette, has to be treated in the same sense as a law made by the
parliament.108 It is humbly submitted that the order, under § 9(1) of the Act, cannot be
brought into question in any court of law.

108
Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) and Ors v. Delimitation Commission of India and Ors

36
 17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the Writ Petitions should be dismissed at the threshold of lacking

maintainability and locus standi;

2. The Delimitation Act, 2023 as intra-vires of the Constitution of Kaduru;

3. The Delimitation Act, 2023 as intra-vires as legal and constitutional.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

37
17TH BRS MOOT COMPETITION, NALSAR | 2024 | COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

38