TC - 000

LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, FACULTY OF UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MRS. FATIMA GHANSARI AND OTHERS

(PETITIONER)

v.

REPUBLIC OF INDICA
(RESPONDENT)

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART.32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

___________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER TC-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Type here.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. As this is the initial part of a memorial, teams should be conscious of the initial
impact that the headings in the table of contents can have upon the judges.

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 1 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Type here.

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Utilizing standard and common abbreviations is acceptable and at times strongly
encouraged when composing the Memorial. Any abbreviation used by participants
within the Memorial should be explained in this section.

2. Please do not include and explain abbreviations that are not used in your
Memorial.

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 2 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED:

1.Constitution of India …………………………. Dr.J.N.Pandey

2.

Sr. No. Title Citation Appear on page(s)

1 A v. B AIR 2007 SC 01 12, 15

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 3 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has invoked the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica under Article 32 of
Constitution of India,1949 for challenging the reservation policy for women in the
parliament and special provision for women in the constitution of Indica.The petitioner
reserves the right to contest the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

Article 32 dealt as follows:

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

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 4 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Indica is an independent ‘Union of States' which got its independence
from British Rule in 1947.It encompasses the values of Human Dignity and Equality. , Indica
is a member of the U.N. and has vowed to abide by and implement the mandate of all
International Human Rights instruments. Among the members of U.N., the image of Indica is
that of a ‘responsible State’.

2. The Republic of Indica is a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and secular

country which exhibits to the world the principle of "Unity in Diversity." The major religion
of Indica is ‘Hinduism' after which the majority of the people follow ‘Islam’. Historically,
Indica has been a male-dominated State since ancient times and patriarchy is an age-old
practice both among Hindus and Muslims.

3.Among 193 member countries of U.N. relating to the representation of women in the
Parliament, Indica had 64 women as MPs among 542 members in the Lower House which is
just 11.8% and 27 women as MPs among 245 members in the Upper House which is about
11% in 2005. The representation of women in the Parliament was indeed very low in
comparison to the representation of males in Indica. Concerns were raised for the reservation
in the membership of Parliament for women to build Indican society on the principle of real
equality and at least 33% seats in both Houses of the Parliament must be reserved exclusively
for women by enacting a law. This demand was forcefully laid before the Parliament.

4. Since there was no single political party from 1996 to 2005 in majority in the parliament,
this policy failed to come into effect. The one major political party which was in majority in
1996 named “Wrongrace Party” didn’t show any interst to pass such Law.Back in 1992, the
parliament introduced provisions for reservation of 33% of seats for women in Municipalities
and Panchayats.A part of the Male section of the majority community opposed this since they
had an Idea that the ultimate power must be in the hands of male section.This section also
wanted Indica as a religious state and Hinduism must be its official religion.

5.Being a social reformist Mrs. Garima Dhall, Mrs. Yamini Paul and Mrs. Mannat
Raichandani supported this demand and they were the leaders and flag bearers of this
movement. “Rashtiya Janata Party” came into power with absolute majority in lower house

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 5 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

during 2005. At initially they were reluctant to pass such law suddenly they decided to pass it
and subsequently received the assent of the president on 1st July 2006.

6.Some members of the both majority and minority opposed this law,Since they believed that
this law will empower only the Elite class women who are referred as “Parkiti
Mahilayen”.This law was irreconcilable for them because Indica is basically a Rural country
and majority of a women belong to Rural class where they are unaware even about their basic
rights.

7. In consequence of such law women representation in both Houses of the Parliament got
tremendously increased and now a situation has arisen where without the support of women
members of the Parliament, not even a single Bill can be passed. Moreover, in 2015, the
women-laden Parliament, by a constitutional amendment, to empower the women to express
themselves and their opinions freely with very few limitations, inserted a proviso to Article
19(2) of the Constitution which reads “Provided that in case of women, reasonable
restrictions can only be imposed on the grounds of immorality, public order and friendly
relations with foreign states”.

8. Most of the women members of the parliament, in 2015, which belonged to the ‘“Rashtriya
Janta Party”' and their supporters started utilizing this law as a political tool for achieving the
hidden agenda of their party by delivering venomous and hate speeches against the minority
community on religious lines, and also raised demand for appointment of women in all
important constitutional and Public Offices. Their desire transpired into reality and women
started acquiring all important Public Offices in Indica and a new kind of environment was
created by May 2016 wherein all strategic and important decisions in Indica were now being
taken by women but no visible action was taken against this scenario by ruling “Rashtriya
Janata Party”.

9. Dr. R.M Swain, filed a PIL in the High Court of the State of Dehri, on 27th December
2017 for providing 33% reservation to women on ground of it being arbitrary and to declare
such reservation as unconstitutional. On 26th December 2017, in the winter session of the
Parliament, one of the members of the Lower House, Mrs. Fatima Ghansari, brought a motion
in the House for repealing the law providing 33% reservation to women, alleging that this law
has become a tool in the hands of the ruling party which is using it to achieve their own
hidden agenda and objectives which are against the spirit of the Constitution of Indica. Her

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 6 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

other allegation was that behind the mask of women, some orthodox religious men of the
ruling party who wanted to make Indica a Hindu State were instigating such women members
to use their right of expression, under the guise of the proviso inserted by the amendment
made to Article 19(2) and she also made a written complaint to the speaker making various
revelations about her accusions. But as the majority of members of the parliament are of the
ruling party, therefore, the motion for repealing this law was defeated.

10. On the night of the same day i.e. 1st May 2018, she received an anonymous phone call on
her landline phone and the caller threatened her of dire consequences if she continues to insist
upon her stand to repeal the law of 2006. An F+.I.R. was lodged by her on the same night in
the police station of her locality and the police registered the case against an unknown person
for threatening her. She also informed the Speaker of Lower House, who, in turn, increased
the security of Mrs. Ghansari.However rejection by the speaker of lower house she filed a
petition in the Supreme Court of Indica praying for declaring the reservation law as
unconstitutional and amendment made to Article 19(2) of the Constitution should be
declared unconstitutional.

11.she further prayed to the court that she need adequate security as she played a role of
“Whistle Blower”. On 28th February 2018, Mrs. Garima Dhall, Mrs. Yamini Paul and Mrs.
Mannat Raichandani, who were instrumental forces behind the passing of this law providing
33% reservation to women in the Parliament, got arrested by the intelligence agency of
Indica, on the grounds of spying for and providing vital State Secrets to the enemy country of
Indica.The MPs of “Wrongrace Party” filed a PIL in supreme court for Foreign Powers
behind the enactment of this Law providing for 33% reservation for women in the
Parliament, for dividing Indica by using women as a tool

12.The ruling party has opposed all the allegations in the supreme court in both petitions filed
my Mrs. Fatima Ghansari and the MPs of “Wrongrace Party” party emphasizing that 33%
reservation and the constitutional amendment are constitutional and the petitioners want to
drag Indica backwards by filing such frivolous petitions.

13. Supreme Court of Indica has clubbed both petitions filed before it and the petition before
the High Court of Dehri under Article 139A of the Constitution.

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 7 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE LAW PROVIDING FOR 33% RESERVATION TO WOMEN IN

THE PARLIAMENT AND THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 19(2) ARE ARBITRARY
AND VIOLATIVE OF THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY?

II. WHETHER LEGISLATING THE LAW PROVIDING 33% RESERVATION TO

WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT AND THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 19(2) SMACKS OF
SOME ULTERIOUR RELIGIOUS MOTIVES, AND IF SO, DO THEY VIOLATE
SECULAR PRINCIPLES AND CAN THEY BE CHALLENGED ON THIS GROUND?

III. WHETHER A LAW CAN BE STRUCK DOWN ON GROUNDS THAT IT SERVES

THE MOTIVE OF ANY FOREIGN POWER OR HAS BECOME A TOOL OF
COMMUNAL POLITICS?

IV. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ART 19(2) VIOLATES

THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION?

V. WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT,

2014 EXTENDS TO MRS. FATIMA GHANSARI?

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 8 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Type here.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. The summary should be very precise and should usually not extend over two (2)
pages.

2. When writing the summary of your argument, it is recommended that participants

do not simply rely upon the headings and topic sentences in the Argument section.
This summary is the essential core of your entire argument, and should truly
illuminate the ultimate purpose of your Memorial.

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 9 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1.WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION

ACT, 2014 EXTENDS TO MRS. FATIMA GHANSARI?

Yes, protection of Whistle Blowers protection extends to Mrs.

Fatima Ghansari because the word Whistle Blowers refers to is a person who exposes any
kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an
organization that is either private or public.1

IS SHE WHISTLE BLOWED AGAINST THE RULING PARTY OR NOT OR THE ACT
DONE BY FATHIMA GHANSARI COMES UNDER WHISTLE BLOW

Yes, she was a whistle blower against the ruling party because
she condemned the act of the ruling party from the above statements on 26th december
2017 in the winter session of the Parliament, one of the members of the Lower House,
Mrs. Fatima Ghansari, brought a motion in the House for repealing the law providing
33% reservation to women, alleging that this law has become a tool in the hands of the
ruling party which is using it to achieve their own hidden agenda and objectives which
are against the spirit of the Constitution of Indica this statement clearly proves that she
whistle blowed against ruling party and also the act done by fathima ghansari exposed the
kind of information that is far against the ruling party.

IS WHISTLE BLOWERS ACT NEED ANY REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE AND THE
COMPETENT AUTHORITY EXTENTS TO THE SPEAKER

Yes,absolutely whistle blowers act need requiremnet of public

interst disclosure and the word competent authority also extents to the speaker . According to
Sec 4 of whistle blowers act which deals that,

4.Requirement of public interest disclosure.

1
Vandekerckhove, Wim (2006).Whistleblowing and Organisational social responsibility: A Global
Assessment..

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 10 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Official

Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), any public servant or any other person including any non-
governmental organisation, may make a public interest disclosure before the Competent
Authority.

(2) Any disclosure made under this Act shall be treated as public interest
disclosure for the purposes of this Act and shall be made before the Competent Authority and
the complaint making the disclosure shall, on behalf of the Competent Authority, be received
by such authority as may be specified by regulations made by the Competent Authority.

And here under the Sec3(b)(ii):

A competent authority means- ) in relation to a Member of Parliament, other than a Minister,

the Chairman of the Council of States if such Member is a Member of the Council of States
or the Speaker of the House of the People if such Member is a Member of the House of the
People.

So therefore from the above reference it is clear that Mrs.Fathima Ghansari was a whistle
blower and she can claim protection under whistle blowers act

Sec (11) Safeguards against victimisation.

(1)The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public

servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any
proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made
a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.

(2)If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the

ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry
under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in
the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable
directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to
protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 11 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

2.WHETHER A LAW CAN BE STRUCK DOWN ON GROUNDS THAT IT SERVES

THE MOTIVE OF ANY FOREIGN POWER OR HAS BECOME A POWER FOR
COMMUNAL POLITICS?

Yes,law can be struck down on ground of serving foreign

power and communal politics. As the result of giving special provision to women i.e)
Art.19(2) result in misusing of powers and it violates the fundamental rights .so on the
ground of violating fundamental right a law can be struck down.

WAS THE LAW CAN BE STRUCK DOWN OR ON WHAT GROUNDS THEY CAN BE
STRUCK DOWN

Yes,the law can be struck down on grounds of violating the

fundamental rights and this section led to much misuse of both personal and political
nature.In this case, As a result of ammending the Art.19(2) communal riots broke out in
various parts of Indica due to hate speeches delievered by the women members of parliament
who belonged to majority people and especially by the ruling party against their minority
religious and in addition to this “Zebra Post” which reveals that the member of the ruling
party in collusion with large media houses were running “Hindu” agenda which clearly
reveals that communal politics takes place here which violates the fundamental right as well
as preamble of the constitution which deals about secularism and itegrity of India.

IS ARTICLE 19(2) SERVES AS A TOOL OF COMMUNAL POLITICS

Yes,Art 19(2) gives exess of power to the women and with low
limitation as a result womens were delivering hate and venomous speech against minority
community which serving as a tool for communal politics and it also violates the fundamental
right of the people.

Art.25.Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise
and propagate religion

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State
from making any law

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 12 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity
which may be associated with religious practice

As a result of delivering hate and venomous speech against the

minority community which make the minority community people to feel and it was also
against the religious belief and also nobody has the right to intrept in the fundamental right of
the people.

WAS ARTICLE 19 PRESEVES A ABSOLUTE RIGHT OR ON WHAT GROUNDS THEY

CAN BE RESTRICTED IN THIS CASE

No,Article 19 doesn’t preseves a absolute right.Although it is

necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so also
it is necessary to place some restrictions on this freedom for the maintenance of socialorder,
because no freedom can be absolute or completely unrestricted Article 19 is subject certain
reasonable restrictions under the law2.

The phrase “Reasonable restrictions” connotes that the limitation

imposed on the person in enjoyment of right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature,beyond what is required in the intersts of the public3.From the above said judgement it
is clear that law or Act should favor the public but in this present case it serves paves a way
only for the politicians and it also act as a tool for communal politics.

An order made under Section 9(1) of Madras Maintainance of

Public Order Act (XXIII of 1949) was unconstitutional and void in that could not be justified
as a measure connected with security of a state.while dealing with the expression “Public
Order” is an expression which signifies a state of tranquility which prevails amongst the
members of a political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the
government which they have established4and also public order is a synonmous of public
tranquility and safety5

2
S.Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr 2010,5 SCC 600
3
Chintaman Rao v. The state of M.P 1950,S.C.R. 759
4
Romesh Thappar v.State of Madras 1950,S.C.R 594
5
Superintendent,central prison, Fatehgarg v. Ram Manohar Lohila 1960,S.C.R 821

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 13 of 15
PETITIONER TC-000

PRAYER

Type here.

UU-LCD-NMCC-2018 Page 14 of 15