1
Team code – DYPLC07
THE D.Y. PATIL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
Mr. JITENDRA JAGGA…………………………………………………………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR. JAGGANATH SALVI…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
UPON SUBMISSION
TO THE HONBLE JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATION PG. 3
LIST OF CASES PG. 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PG. 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION PG 6
STATEMENT OF FACT PG. 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUE PG.8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PG. 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PG. 10-17
PRAYER PG. 18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATION USED
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SSP SHAKTI SANGH PARTY
GUA GRAMIN UDAY AGHADI
GOVT GOVERNMENT
ECI ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIANA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
4
LIST OF CASES
Romesh [Link] of Madras :(1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594, AIR 1950)…………….……………11
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(1978) AIR 597, (1978) SCR (2) 621)………………………………….11
P.V Narsimha Rao [Link](CBI/SPF)(AIR 1998 SC 2120)…………………………………………………...11
Rigde v. Baldwin1964 AC 136…………………………………………………………………….12
Board of Education v. Rice[1911] UKHL J0406-1……………………………………………………..….12
Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha &Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 184………………………16
S.A Sampath Kumar [Link] (SLP(C) No(s). -33677/2015)…………………………………….14
.
Keishammeghachandrasingh …appellant versus the hon’ble speaker manipur legislative
assembly &ors. (SLP Civil no 18659 Of 2019)…………………………………………..……14
KshetrimayumBiren Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2022 2
SCC 759 )………………………………………………………………………………………’’15
Franklin v. Ministerof town and country[1948] ac 87 416………………………………….15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED
1. [Link] CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 BAREACT Lexis Nexis
2. M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW, Lexis Nexis, Eight Edition (2018)
3. DD BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2010)
4. J.N PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL LAW
PUBLISHING CO. LTD
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel humbly submits that the respondent has appeared in this Hon’ble Court in response
to the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Union of Indiana is a diverse country located on the continent of [Link] a population
of over 1.4. Billion it is the largest democracy in the world has a federal form of government and
claimed independence in 1947.
ISSUES INVOLVED
SSP formed a post alliance with RJP and IJP which came to be known as Gram Uday Agadhi in
June 2022, it was reported that some MLAs of SSP were meeting senior leaders of ILP the
reason they claimed was the difference in ideology.
LEGAL SCENARIO
[Link] Jagga filed a writ petition in the Supreme court of Indiana, a faction led by the him is
petitioner and the faction led by Mr. Jagganath Salvi is the respondent because CM Jitendra
Jagga was removed from the position of Chief Minister.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
8
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. Whether the Anti Defection law under 10th Schedule of the Constitution affect the
legislators ability to make decisions? Does change in ideology after the elections by a
political party entitle the election members to quit their party/switch sides without being
penalized under the Anti – Defection Law?
2. Whether a notice for removal of a speaker restricts him/her from continuing with
disqualification proceedings under 10th Schedule of the constitution?
3. Whether the pendency of disqualification petition against members impact the
proceedings of the house of State Legislature?
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1:WHETHER THE ANTI-DEFECTION LAW UNDER THE 10th SCHEDULE OF
THE CONSTITUTION AFFECTS LEGISLATORS' ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS?
DOES A CHANGE IN IDEOLOGY AFTER THE ELECTIONS BY A POLITICAL
PARTY ENTITLE THE ELECTED MEMBERS TO QUIT THEIR PARTY/SWITCH
SIDES WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED UNDER ANTI-DEFECTION LAW?
The counsel humbly submits that anti-defection law affects legislators' ability to make decisions
because the 10th schedule of the constitution is unconstitutional. After all, it violates the
fundamental rights of the members of the legislative assembly.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER A NOTICE FOR REMOVAL OF A SPEAKER RESTRICT
HIM/HER FROM CONTINUING WITH DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE 10TH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
The counsel humbly submits that the notice for removal of a speaker restricts him/her from
continuing with disqualification proceedings under the 10th schedule of the constitution
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PENDENCY OF DISQUALIFICATION PETITION
AGAINST MEMBERS IMPACT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF STATE
LEGISLATURE?
The counsel humbly submits that pendency in disqualification will impact the proceedings of
parliament because when half of the members of the parliament are disqualified how laws passed
would be effective in nature pendency in disqualification petitions not only affect the
proceedings but also affects democracy of a country because if half of the members of
parliament would be absent how proceedings will be conducted.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1:WHETHER THE ANTI-DEFECTION LAW UNDER 10th SCHEDULE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AFFECTS LEGISLATORS ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS?
DOES A CHANGE IN IDEOLOGY AFTER THE ELECTIONS BY A POLITICAL
PARTY ENTITLE THE ELECTED MEMBERS TO QUIT THEIR PARTY/SWITCH
SIDES WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED UNDER ANTI-DEFECTION LAW?
1.1 ANTI-DEFECTION LAW AFFECTS LEGISLATORS ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS AS IT
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
1.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that anti-defection law affects legislators' ability to make
decisions because the 10th schedule of the constitution is unconstitutional. After all, it violates
the fundamental rights of the members of the legislative assembly. After all, these members
changed their ideology for the people. After all, they know that the political party is not sticking
to that ideology which is adversely affecting the public and it is also a clear violation of Article
19 of the constitution.
1.1.2 It is most humbly submitted that the Tenth Schedule cannot be used to stifle intra-party
dissent amongst members of the same political party. Intra-party dissent cannot be termed as
defection. Therefore, the respondents did not indulge in prohibitory conduct under Paragraph
2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. Any act of expression of dissent against the leadership of the party
does not constitute ‘voluntarily giving up membership of the party’ under Paragraph 2(1)(a).
Paragraph 2(1)(b) also has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
1.1.3 It is most humbly submitted that freedom of speech would entail that a person has a right to
his opinion. This opinion may fall in line with the majority or go against the majority and amount
to dissent. Nowhere is this dissent more vital than in the Parliament. This is justified owing to the
gradual development of a deliberative democracy. This implies that, in contrast with the earlier
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
11
understanding of a democracy that encompassed mainly voting and interest aggregation, there is
a focus on justifying all decisions made to the people subject to the same. Such deliberation
mandates a critical assessment of all the predetermined interests in society(.John S. Dryzek,
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (2000)
1.1.4 It is pertinent here to take into account the case Romesh [Link] of Madras1in
which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“Freedom of speech and the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for
without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of
the processes of popular government, is possible”.Anti-defection law violates the right to
freedom of speech because every member of the legislative assembly is required to articulate
their opinions freely to formulate unbiased laws and this law restricts members of the legislative
assembly from expressing their views freely.
1.1.5 It is pertinent here to take into account the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India2Supreme Court held that:
“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion for that is the only
corrective nature of the government action in a democratic setup. If democracy means the
government of the people and by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to
participate in a democratic process to enable him to intelligently his right of making a choice,
free and general matters of public matters are essential”
1.1.6 The counsel humbly submits that democracy is based upon free debate and discussion
without it a healthy democratic cannot exist because changing opinion or the right to dissent is
not wrong anyone can have a different ideology and anti-defection restricts legislators make
1
:(1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594, AIR 1950)
2
(1978) AIR 597, (1978) SCR (2) 621)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
12
decisions if ideologies would not match they will be disqualified they had fear of getting
disqualified.
1.2 Members of legislative assemblies enjoy privileges
1.2.1 The counsel humbly submits that Article 105 of the constitution of Indiana clearly states
that
“Subject to the provisions of this constitution and the rules and standing orders regarding the
procedure of parliament there shall be freedom of speech in parliament” Article 105 clearly
states that there shall be freedom of speech in the parliament and anti-defection fundamental
right of freedom and protected is a privilege given to the members of the parliament
1.2.2 It is pertinent here to take into account the case P.V Narsimha Rao v.State3 the Supreme
Court held that
The scope of protection of immunity available to members of parliament is quite wide and not
confined to judicial proceedings but also against civil and criminal action or anything said or any
vote given to them by in House of Parliament the object of protection is to enable members to
speak their mind in parliament freely and fearlessly.
1.2.3 The counsel humbly submits that there should be no fear in members of parliament while
expressing their views and opinions and they have been penalized under defection if their
ideology does not match with other members of the parties so anti-defection curbs the right to
dissent from a person which is a clear violation of fundamental rights of the members of the
parliament hence anti-defection law affects decision making ability of the legislature.
1.3 CHANGE IN IDEOLOGY ENTITLE ELECTED MEMEBERS TO QUIT PARTIES THEY
SHOULD NOT BE PART OF PENALISED UNDER ANTI DEFECTION LAW
3
(CBI/SPF)(AIR 1998 SC 2120)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
13
• VIOLATION OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
1.3.1 The counsel humbly submits that there is a clear violation of basic principle natural justice
[Link] alteram partem which means everyone should be given a chance to heard similarly in this
matter members of legislative assembly are affected by the anti defectiondefection as they are
disqualified if they dissent with their party which is a clear violation of basic principle of natural
justice.
1.3.2 It is pertinent here to take into account of the case of Rigde v. Baldwin4this case is
described as magna carta of the principles of natural as it was held that:
Power of dismissal could not be exercised without giving reasonable opportunity of been heard
and without observing principles of natural justice the order of dismissal was not upheld
similarly in this matter MLA’s disqualified for change in ideology which is clear violation of
basic principles of natural justice have been violated.
1.3.3 It is most humbly submitted that the requirement of giving a fair hearing before making a
decision affecting someone's rights. This case reinforced the principle that natural justice
requires that a person be given an opportunity to present their case before a decision is made
against them.(Board of Education v. Rice5 (1911)
1.3.4 The counsel humbly submits that the principles of natural justice are inherent in the
concept of rule of law and must be followed in all administrative and quasi-judicial actions. This
case broadened the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to
life and personal liberty, to include the principles of natural [Link] Gandhi v. Union of
India6
4
1964 AC 136
5
1911] UKHL J0406-1
6
(1978) AIR 597, (1978) SCR (2) 621)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
14
1.4 The right to dissent is a fundamental right
1.4.1 The counsel humbly submits that the right to dissent is a fundamental right and members
have the right to dissent and shall be the opportunity to their ideology without any fear of getting
disqualified and in this matter members of SSP have been disqualified only on the ground of
dissenting with the ideology which is a clear violation of fundamental right.
1.4.2 It is pertinent here to take into the account of the case Maneka Gandhi v Union of India7in
this case, Supreme court held that:
“The right to dissent by ruling against the government's attempt to suppress criticism through
censorship during the period of Emergency. The court reaffirmed the importance of free speech
and dissent as essential elements of democracy.”
So, in this present anti-defection violating the rights of the members of the parliament is
unconstitutional, and it's against the principles of democracy and violative of the principles of
natural justice.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER A NOTICE FOR REMOVAL OF A SPEAKER RESTRICT
HIM/HER FROM CONTINUING WITH DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE 10TH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
2.1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF SPEAKER RESTRICTS HIM FROM CONTINUING
DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS
2.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that notice of removal of speaker restricts him from
continuing disqualification proceedings because under Article 179 “(c) clearly states that if the
resolution is passed by the members of legislative assembly against the speaker he may be
7
(975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
15
dismissed so in this present matter resolution against speaker has been passed notice have been
issued so he cannot continue disqualification proceedings
2.1.2 It is pertinent here to take into account of case S.A Sampath Kumar v.KaleYadaiah8 ( in
which the Supreme court held that a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Speaker cannot be
covered by the shield contained in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, and that when a Speaker
refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time.
2.1.3 It is humbly submitted that It is time that Parliament have a rethink on whether
disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when
such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto.
Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the
Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as arbiter of disputes concerning disqualification which
arise under the Tenth Schedule.(KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH …APPELLANT
VERSUS THE HON’BLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.9
2.1.4 It is most humbly submitted that the disqualification of a member by the Speaker under the
Tenth Schedule has drastic consequences. There can never be an automatic or deemed
disqualification of an elected representative without affording any opportunity of hearing
(reliedon KshetrimayumBiren Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly10
2.1.5 The counsel humbly submits that speaker cannot shield from the schedule 10 of the
constitution and speaker does not have power to delay the disqualification petitions in this matter
the members had only ideological differences and they were disqualified and right to dissent so
similarly in this present matter disqualification of members of legislative assembly is arbitrary
and speaker is the member of the elected government he himself is biased.
8
S.A Sampath Kumar [Link] SLP(C) No(s). -33677/2015
9
(SLP Civil no 18659 Of 2019)
10
2020 SC 54
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
16
2.2 VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
● NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
2.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice
which clearly states that no one shall be judge in its own case and in the present scenario speaker
is a person who is member elected political party and he has the power to disqualify members of
legislative it is well established fact that speaker is person who is biased he has no right to
adjudicate in proceedings of the legislative assembly because he will always be biased.
2.1.2 It is pertinent here to take into account of the case Franklin v. Minister of town and
country11 in this case it was held that: My lords,I could wish the use of the word bias should be
confined to is proper [Link] proper significance in my opinion is to denote a departure from
the even handed justice which the law requires from those who occupy judicial office or those
who are commonly regarded as holding a quasi judicial office such as the [Link];y
in this present case speaker is holding a quasi-judicial office which is violation of principles of
natural justice as speaker is the member of elected party speaker can never adjudicate a fair
decision
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PENDENCY IN DISQUALIFICATION PETITION
AGAINST MEMBERS IMPACT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF STATE
LEGISLATURE?
3.1 PENDENCY IN DISQUALIFICATION PETITION AGAINST MEMBERS IMPACTS THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF STATE LEGISLATURE
11
Franklin v. Minister of town and country [1948] ac 87 416
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
17
3.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that pendency in disqualification will impact the proceedings
of parliament because when half of the members of the parliament are disqualified how laws
passed would be effective in nature pendency in disqualification petitions not only affect the
proceedings but also affects democracy of a country because if half of the members of
parliament would be absent how proceedings will be conducted.
3.1.2 It is most humbly submitted disqualifying MLAs and not deciding disqualification is a
clear violation of constitutional norms and rules of the parliament as a result proceedings are
affected and thus so disqualification petition shall be decided as soon as possible because it is the
responsibility of f ruling party to ensure proceedings of parliament run smoothly it's important
for the democracy proceedings of the state legislature are not affected.
3.1.3 It is pertinent here to take into account of the case Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok
Sabha &Ors12.
While this case primarily dealt with the authority of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to disqualify
Members of Parliament (MPs), it also indirectly addressed the need for timely and fair resolution
of disputes within the parliamentary framework. The judgment emphasized principles of natural
justice and procedural fairness in parliamentary proceedings, which are crucial for maintaining
the efficiency and integrity of the legislative process.
3.1.4 It is most humbly submitted that in this case also the same circumstance and the MLA of
Maharashtra legislative assembly have been suspended by the speaker their disqualification is
arbitrary and this disqualification is affecting the proceedings of the parliament hence the
pendency in the disqualification petition affects the proceedings of parliament.
.
12
2007 3 SCC 184
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
18
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED, SUBMISSIONS MADE HERETO ABOVE AND
THOSE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING,
1. To declare that the Anti-Defection law under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution does
affects the legislators ability to make decision and change in ideology entitles the elected
members of the political parties to quit their party without being penalized under Anti-
Defection Law.
2. To declare that a notice for removal of a Speaker restricts him/her from continuing with
disqualification proceedings under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.
3. To declare that the pendency of disqualification petition against members does impact the
proceedings of the house of State Legislature.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND APPROPORIATE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICES,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCES. ALL WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,
TC DYPLC07
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
