Moot Proposition - State of Kerala
Moot Proposition - State of Kerala
Mr. GEET.................................................................................................................PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF INDIAN.............................................................................................RESPONDENT
1
2
LIST OF ABBREVEATIONS
SCC….................................................................SUPREME COURTCASES
SC…....................................................................SUPREME COURT
HC…...................................................................HIGH COURT
Ors.......................................................................OTHERS
Anr…..................................................................ANOTHER
TC…...................................................................TRIAL COURT
PARA..................................................................PARAGRAPH
Vs.…..................................................................VERSUS
Ed…...................................................................EDITION
Govt....................................................................GOVERNMENT
Hon’ble..............................................................HONOURABLE
U.O.I…................................................................UNION OF INDIANA
u/s........................................................................UNDER SECTION
Vol......................................................................VOLUME
Yrs......................................................................YEARS
&........................................................................AND
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A : CASES CITED
S.NO. WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.indiankanoon.com
STATUTES
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel for Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana,1950. The Said statute states 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.
Having stated the abovementioned averment, the counsel for petitioner avers that the present
memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
Date: 24.09.2022
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Mr. Geet, a veteran legislator, made a speech on the floor of the Lower House in Indiana pitching for
reform on women’s participation and representation in elections in tune with the constitutional
objectives and the need for its balance with traditions and customs. While making the speech, his
smartphone got activated and unintentionally the speech became ‘Live’ through the social media
platform Facebook.
Based on a complaint from the Leader of Opposition, the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House got
this incident examined by the Ethics Committee of the House. Acting upon its recommendations, the
Hon’ble Speaker suspended him for six weeks.
Mr. Geet claimed that firstly, he had no knowledge of the speech getting telecast and secondly, this
unintentional act of his was within the ambit of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ as laid down in
the Constitution and furthermore, enhances open and responsive democracy.
In the light of the aforementioned causes, Mr. Geet sought a review of the decision of suspension.
The Hon’ble Speaker disposed of the review petition and upheld his previous decision.
Mr. Geet challenged the decision as violative of Fundamental Rights and Constitutional norms
through a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of Indiana.
6
ISSUES RAISED
II. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE LOWER HOUSE
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER , ALONG WITH
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
This present case presents a scenario of violation of the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed by the
Constitution viz-a-viz Article 19(1)(a)and Article 21 .The impugned order is arbitrary and
violates the principles of freedom of expression and speech of the petitioner and hence is liable
to be quashed.The Contitution Prescribes rule of law and exclusion of arbitrary legislation. Rule of law
is enshrined as a basic Principle of Natural Justice forming part of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.Since rule of law puts on a bar on the exercise of unfettered power by the Organs of
Democracy , the regulation of the same is important through the means of an Independent Judiciary 1.
Thus the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court for reinstatement of his Fundamental
Rights . Since this present case reports a violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution2 , by virtue
of being violative of the Fundamental Rights , the Supreme Court Automatically acquires jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate this writ petition
The petitioner contends that the actions of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lower House stands
in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner, also with the principle of
Natural Justice.The Principle have a jurisprudential approach and don’t not find exhaustive
mention in the codified laws, however are majorly found in the onion of Jursist and Legal
Experts3. The Speaker completely overlooked the principle of Natural Justice which states
that every decision/order of the Authority should be Just, Fair and Reasonable and free from
any kind of bias or prejudice. As enumerated under Article 21 ands 19(1)(a). Fundamental
Rights forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution , which cannot be altered or
violated in any situation .
1
Bacchan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325
2
Keshvanand Bharti vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973)
3
A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC)
PRAYER
In the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:
2. The decision of the speaker to reprimand Mr. Geet violates the principles of fair play
and natural justice
3. The suspension of Geet violates the provisions of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court may also be please to pass any other order, which this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of
kindness, the counsel for the respondents shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Sd/