LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER-COLLEGIATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA

WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MARIDENIA FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF A WRIT WHICH IS NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a)
LUMINESCENT
OF THE HUMANITY
CONSTITUTION COALITION..........................................PETITIONER
OF MARIDENIA.

V.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF MARIDENIA
UNION OF MARIDENIA………………………………..………………RESPONDANT

~ Memorial for the Defendant~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS IX

Page | 1
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
ISSUES RAISED IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1

[1]. The anonymity and privacy of doner is necessary for electoral process 1

[1.1] Petitioner has locus standi in the instant case 1

[1.2] Basic structure of the constitution has been violated 1

[2]. There is no breach of contract or breach of trust between the petitioner and his client 2

[3]. Strike is a constitutional right and in consonance with the fundamental right to freedom of

speech and expression 2

PRAYER 6

Page | 2
LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Page | 3
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATI EXPANSION
ON
& And

¶ Paragraph

¶¶ Paragraphs

AIHC All India High Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

ALL ER All England Reports

Anr. Another

Art. Article

BCI Bar Council Of India

Cal Calcutta

Co. Company

COPA Consumer Protection Act

Del Delhi

ed. Edition

HC High Court

Ibid. Ibidem

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

Assn.
Association
NJ Natural Justice

No. Number

Page | 4
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
Ors. Others

Pat Patna

Pvt. Private

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court

Reports
Sec. Section

Supp. Supplementary

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

WLR Weekly Law Reports

Page | 5
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

1. Common Cause, A Registered (2006) 9 SCC ¶8 p…..3

Society 295
and Ors. v. UOI
2. Dalpat Rai Bhandari v. President of AIR 1993 SC 1 ¶2 p…..1
India
3. Dr. Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar (1994) 5 SCC ¶ 14 p…..5
267
4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC ¶ 10 p…..4
555
5. Gill v. Chief election commissioner AIR 1978 SC ¶ 12 p…..5
851
6. Harish Uppal v. Union of India AIR 2003 SCC ¶8 p…..3
45
7. I.J Rao, Asst. Collector of Customs (1989) 3 SCC ¶ 13 p..1, 5
v. 202
Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh
8. I.R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 7 SCC ¶3 p…..1
550
9. Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. (2006) 11 SCC ¶ 10 p…..4
Kanan 67
10. Indian legal and Economic forum v. (1997) 10 SCC ¶6 p…..1
U.O.I 728
11. Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union (1988) 4 SCC 1 ¶ 12 p…..4
of
India
12. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of (1973) 4 SCC ¶3 p…..1
Kerala 225
13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC ¶ 10 p…..4
597
14. Moni Shankar v Union of India (2008) 3 SCC ¶ 10 p…..4
484
15. Naveen Jindal v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC ¶7 p…..2
510
16. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 ¶7 p…..2
17. R.D Shetty v. The International AIR 1979 SC ¶ 10 p…..4
Airport 1628
18. Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. AIR 1970 SC ¶2 p…..1
Union of India and others 470
19. Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash AIR 2001 SC ¶8 p…..3
Kapoor 207
20. S.A. Kini v. Union of India AIR 1985 SC ¶2 p…..1

Page | 6
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
893
21. S.R Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 2 ¶3 p…..2
22. Satish Chandra v. Union of India AIR 1953 SC ¶2 p…..1
250
23. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj 1975 Supp. SCC ¶3 p…..1
1
Narain
24. State of M.P v. Hazari Lal (2008) 3 SCC ¶ 10 p…..4
273

25. State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC ¶ 14 p….

1269 .5
26. Suresh Chandra Nanhorya v. (2006) 7 SCC 800 ¶ 12 p….
Rajendra .4
Rajak
27. Swadeshi Cotton mills v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 818 ¶ 12 p….
5
28. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 362 ¶3 p….
1

INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES

1. B.L Wadehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2000 Del 266 ¶8 p…..3
2. Bal Kissen Kejriwal v. Collector of AIR 1962 Cal 460 ¶ 12 p…..4
Custom
3. Brig Guardian Singh Uban v. Union 1997 AIHC 886 ¶2 p…..1
of India
(DEL)
4. Madan Sharma v. B.S.E Board AIR 1971 Pat 371 ¶ 12 p…..5
5. Revision v. Employee CRP. No. 682 of ¶ 12 p…..4
Proceeded Against
2009

FOREIGN DECISIONS

1. Green v. Freeman 367 N.C. 136 ¶6 p…..2

2. Liversidge v. Anderson 1942 AC 206 ¶ 10 p…..4
3. R. v. British Broadcasting (2003) 2 All ER ¶ 10 p…..4
Corporation 977
4. R. v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal (1990) 2 AII ER ¶2 p…..1
434
5. R. v. Customs and Excise (1970) 1 All ER ¶2 p…..1
Commissioner ex parte Cooke 1068
and Stevenson
6. Russel v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER ¶ 13 p…..5
109
Page | 7
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
7. Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board (1976) 1 All ER ¶ 13 p…..5
12
8. White v. Consol Planning Inc 166 N.C. App. 283 ¶5 p 2

Page | 8
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
BOOKS AND LEXICON

1. M.K Mallick, Law and Practice (12th ed., 2012) ¶2 p…..1

2. C.k Takwani, Civil procedure with Limitation Act (7th ed., ¶5 p..…2
1963)
3. B.C. Sharma, Fair Hearing and Access to Justice (1st ed., ¶ 14 p..…5
2012)
4. Lewin on Trusts (John Mowbray, Lyton Tucker, Nicholas ¶3 p..…2
Le
Poidevin, Edwin Simpson, James Brightwell, 18th ed., 2008)
5. MP Jain & SN Jain‟s Principles of Administrative Law (7th ¶ 12 p.…4
ed., 2011)
6. D.D Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (9th ¶3 p….1
ed.,
2014)
7. Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus ¶ 10 p….4

NEWSPAPER

1 Rajeev Dhavan, The Right to Strike, The Hindu ¶7 p…..3

. (10/01/2003)

STATUTE AND CONSTITUTION

1. The Advocates Act, 1961 ¶ 13, p……

14 5
2. The Constitution of India, 1950 ¶ 2, p..1, 3,
7, 4
10

WEB RESOURCES

1. www.westlaw.india.com(WEST LAW INDIA)

2. www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA)

3. www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

4. www.jstor.org(JSTOR)

5. www.scconline.com(SCC ONLINE)

6. www.legal.un.org. (UNITED NATIONS)

Page | 9
LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Page | 10
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner herein has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court under article 32 of the
Constitution of India. Article 32 read as-

“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 clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2
), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

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

Page | 11
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
1. In 2012, Maridenia’s ruling party the liberty front implemented sanctions on businesses and
companies that donated to opposition parties and in one such case they sanctioned businessman
Mr. Abani (owner of AGC) who donated 10,000 crore rupees to opposition party.

2. In 2014, the opposition party harmony bloc won the election and introduced a law ensuring the
anonymity of political donations.

3. This scheme allowed individuals and organizations to purchase bonds from authorized bank and
donate them to political parties.

4. The electoral bond as described by union finance minister Mr. Rajesh Sathi is a bearer instrument
in nature of promissory note and an interest-free banking instrument. Citizens and bodies
incorporated in Maridenia are eligible to purchase bonds from the specified branches of state bank
of Maridenia.

5. Purchaser has to fill the all KYC norms and life of the bond is 15 days during which it can be used
for making donations only to the political parties registered under section 29 (a) of representation
of peoples act, 1951.

6. The bill was passed and got the assent from the president. The newly enacted law amended section
31, the reserve bank of India act,1934, section 29(c), representation of people act,1951, section
13a, the income tax act,1961,section 182 of the companies act,2013.

7. On 29 February 2016, the Chief Election Commission of Maridenia (ECM) said in his press
release that electoral bond scheme is compactable with the goal of securing the privacy in political
finance.

Page | 12
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

ISSUE RAISED

I.

IS THE ELECTORAL BOND LAW AND THE SUBSEQUENT REFORNS BROUGHT BY IT

NECESSARY TO ENSURE ANONYMITY AND PRIVACY RIGHT OF THE DONER?

II.

DOES THE ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF

THE CITIZENS?

III.

WHETHER THE ACT OF GOVERNMENT OF PASSING AN ORDINARY BILL AS A MONEY BILL IS

UNCOSTITUTIONAL?

Page | 13
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1]. THE ANONYMITY AND PRIVACY OF DONER IS NECESSARY FOR ELECTORAL PROCESS

The anonymity and privacy of donor is necessary as it protects the right to political affiliations of a person which
can be infringed if the data would be made public.

[2]. THE ANONYMITY AND PRIVACY OF DONER DOES NOT VIOLATES THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUION

Article 19 can be taken away in certain cases with reasonable restrictions. The Electoral Bond Scheme has
sufficiently immune to balance the direct Collision between the rights of the voters and Right to Privacy of
the Individual. Thus, the scheme here does not violates the basic structure doctrine hence is constitutional.

[3]. THE ACT OF GOVERNMENT OF PASSING AN ORDINARY BILL AS MONEY BILL IS

CONSTITUTIONAL

The Act of government passing this bill is not unconstitutional as we have sufficient nexus between the
electoral bond scheme and article 110 which is definition of money bill. Furthermore, the discretion of speaker
in declaring a bill as money bill is final and cannot be taken away. [relied on previous supreme court cases]

Page | 14
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

ARGUEMENT ADVANCED

THE ANONYMITY AND PRIVACY OF DONER IS NECESSARY FOR

ELECTORAL PROCESS
The clause of secrecy and anonymity of electoral bond scheme, which talks about the
ensurement of anonymity of donor, protects the identity of the donor which may reduces the
chances of unnecessary sanctions and allegations by ruling party which may suppress the
financial support of donor as if he donates the money to opposition. As in 2012, Mr.Abani
faced ‘unnecessary sanctions’ by the ruling party of that time which is currently a opposition
party.
Sub-clause 4 of section 7 of Electoral Bond Scheme states-
‘The information furnished by the buyer shall be treated confidential by the authorised bank
and shall not be disclosed to any authority for any purposes, except when demanded by a
competent court or upon registration of criminal case by any law enforcement agency.’
As in this way this clause does not infringes the basic concept of accountability in
republic of Maridenia.

⮚ The clause of secrecy is necessary as the board of directors in a company is a

multi-member body and can have multiple political affiliations. In this instance,
the disclosure of the information of the donor might leads to company’s internal
conflict.
o The state has a positive obligation to safeguard the privacy of its citizens,
which necessarily includes the citizens’ right to political affiliation. The
right of a buyer to purchase electoral bonds without having to disclose their
preference of political party secures the buyer’s right to privacy.

THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME HAVE A

SPECIFIC OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF CURBING BLACK MONEY AND
PROTECTING DONOR PRIVACY

1. Clause 3(3) imposes a pre-condition that only a registered political party which has
secured at least 1 per cent of the votes polled in the last general election would be
eligible to receive bonds. This provision ensures that ghost political parties are
barred from seeking and receiving political funding.

Page | 15
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
2. Clause 4 requires a buyer of electoral bonds to meet the requisite KYC Norms.
This ensures that only KYC compliant persons are entitled to buy electoral bonds.
a. Maintaining anonymity of donations to political parties is a part of the
concept of secret ballot because it enables a person to make political
choices without any fear of victimization or retaliation.
3. The limited validity period of fifteen days ensures that the bond is not used as a
parallel currency.
4. Clause 7(4) mandates the authorized bank to treat the information furnished by a
buyer as confidential which shall not be disclosed to any authority, except when
directed by a competent court or upon registration of criminal case by any law
enforcement agency. This provision protects the privacy and personal details of the
buyer visà-vis the state.
5. Clause 11 mandates that all payments for the purchase of electoral bonds shall be
accepted through banking channels. This provision curbs the circulation of black
money.

THE ANONYMITY AND PRIVACY OF DONER DOES NOT VIOLATES THE

BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUION

1. It is humbly submitted that article 19(1) (a) of constitution of maridenia gives right
to form political belief and opinion which is first stage of political expression. The
freedom of political expression cannot be excercised freely in the absence of
privacy of political affiliation and the lack of privacy of political affiliation would
affect those whose political views do not match with the views of majority.
In ADR vs UOI (2024) Writ petition (C) no.880 of 2017, A five-judge bench presided over
by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said if the right to informational privacy extends
to financial contributions to political party, this court needs to decide if the Electoral Bonds
Scheme adequately balance. The bench said the expression of political beliefs is guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) and forming political beliefs and opinions is the first stage of political
expression.
The freedom of political expression cannot be exercised freely in the absence of privacy of
political affiliation and the lack of privacy of political affiliation would also
disproportionately affect those whose political views do not match the views of the
mainstream, it said.

Page | 16
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

● It is humbly submitted that this scheme allows any person to transfer funds to

political party of their choice through legitimate banking channels instead of other
unregulated ways such as direct transfer through cash.

● The legal framework prior to the enactment of the electoral bond scheme was

mostly in cash based which incentivized infusion of black money into political
parties and consequently into the electoral process of Maridenia. The electoral
bond scheme is an improvement on the prior legal framework.

● A citizen can only seek information when it is possession in state and here the data

is not in the possession of the state .thus, right to information does not apply.

The right to get information in democracy is recognized all throughout and it is a

natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer
to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which is as under:

(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.

Justice Venkatarama Reddi observed in his concurring opinion that there are two
postulates which govern the right to vote : first, the formulation of an opinion about
candidates, and second, the expression of choice based on the opinion formulated by
casting votes in favour of a preferred candidate. A voter must possess relevant and
essential information that would enable them to evaluate a candidate and form an opinion
for the purpose of casting votes. 90 The learned Judge observed that the Constitution
recognises the right of a voter to know the antecedents of a candidate though the right to
vote is a statutory right91 because the action of voting is a form of expression protected by
Article 19(1)(a):
“Though the initial right cannot be placed on the pedestal of a fundamental right, but, at

Page | 17
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
the stage when the voter goes to the polling booth and casts his vote, his freedom to
express arises. The casting of vote in favour of one or the other candidate tantamounts to
expression of his opinion and preference and that final stage in the exercise of voting right
marks the accomplishment of freedom of expression of the voter. That is where Article
19(1)(a) is attracted.”

D.Y. Chandrachud:"Evolving Trends in Locus Standi: Models for Decision-Making",

Journal of the Bar Council of India, Vol. VIII(4), 1981, p. 672, referred to

Hence any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of
some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty
and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for
maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and accelerating the pace of
realisation of the constitutional objectives. (sp gupta vs uoi pg. 117)

Page | 18
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
The act of government of passing an ordinary bill as money bill
is constitutional
It is humbly submitted that according to section 31(3) of RBI act, central government can authorized any bank to release
bank notes or equivalent and central government authorized State bank of Maridenia (SBM) to issue electoral bond which
are promissory notes. Thus, electoral bonds are clearly related with currency and thus can be classified as money bill.

Sub-section (a) of section 2 of the electoral bond scheme states-

“Electoral bond” means a bond issued in the nature of promissory note which shall be a bearer banking
instrument and shall not carry the name of the buyer or payee.

Section 31(3) of RBI act, 1934 states,

Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Central Government may authorise any scheduled
bank to issue electoral bonds.

Section 110(1)(b) of the constitution of Maridenia explains,

The regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or
the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the
Government of India.
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1
“A Bill, to be a Money Bill, must contain only provisions which fall within the ambit of the matters
mentioned in Article 110. Section 7 of the Act allows the Aadhaar number to be made mandatory for
availing of services, benefits and subsidies for which expenditure is incurred from the Consolidated Fund
of India. Under clause (e) of Article 110(1) the Money Bill must deal with the declaring of any
expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (or increasing the amount of
expenditure). Significantly, Section 7 does not declare the expenditure incurred on services, benefits or
subsidies to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India. What Section 7 does is to enact a provision
allowing for Aadhaar to be made mandatory, in the case of services, benefits or subsidies which are
charged to the Consolidated Fund. Section 7 does not declare them to be a charge on the Consolidated
Fund. It provides that in the case of services, benefits or subsidies which are already charged to the
Consolidated Fund, Aadhaar can be made mandatory to avail of them. Section 7, in other words, is a
provision for imposing a requirement of authentication and not declaring any expenditure to be a charge
on the Consolidated Fund of India. Hence, even Section 7 is not within the ambit of Article 110(1)(e).
However, even if Section 7 were to be held to be referable to Article 110, that does not apply to the other
provisions of the Act. The other provisions of the Act do not in any event fall within the ambit of Article
110(1). Introducing one provision - Section 7-does not render the entirety of the Act a Money Bill where
its other provisions travel beyond the parameters set out in Article 110. Section 57 of the Act in particular

Page | 19
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
(which creates a platform for the use of the Aadhaar number by the private entities) can by no stretch of
logic be covered under Article 110(1). The other provisions of the Act do not deal with that which has
been provided under sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). As regards the "incidental" provision under
Article 110(1)(g), the provisions of the Aadhaar Act are not "incidental to any of the matters specified in
sub-clauses (o) to (f)". Even if it is assumed that there is one provision (Section 7) which is relatable to
sub-clause (e) of Article 110(1), the other provisions of the Act are unrelated to Article 110(1).” (Para
1132)

● The electoral bond scheme is a matter of financial proceeding and can be matter of trial and error

experimentation of government and thus cannot struck down on the basis of violation of certain case.

● Since it is classified as money bill and was passed as same hence doesn’t involve the question of arbitration

and hence there is no misuse of overwhelming majority of the government.case.

The main challenge of the writ petitioner was that though the Company was producing molasses, the entire
production was required by the Company itself which was used for captive consumption and even that was not
sufficient. The Company had, therefore, obtained permission from the Government for import of molasses from
other States as also other countries. Since the writ petitioner did not have balance or extra stock of molasses for
being supplied to distilleries for manufacturing country-made liquor, the authorities could not compel the writ
petitioner to supply molasses as directed in various government orders and letters. Such action was improper,
illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as also violative of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The action was also against public policy reflected in Article 47 of the
Constitution. It was contended that since the above directives could not have been issued by the authorities,
issuance of show-cause notices as to why the writ petitioner should not be prosecuted also were not legal and
the prosecution should be quashed. It was also the case of the writ petitioner that the State Government ought to
have constituted “Advisory Committee” under Section 3 of the Act.1

● The decision of speaker is final and has not been regarded as violative in any of the previous case.

2
The office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in Parliamentary traditions. The
evolution of the institution of Parliamentary democracy has as its pivot the institution of the Speaker.
He is said to be the very embodiment of propriety and impartiality. He performs wide ranging
functions including the performance of important functions of a judicial character. It would, indeed
be unfair to the high traditions of that great office to say that the investiture in it of this jurisdiction
would be vitiated for violation of a basic feature . of democracy. It is inappropriate to express distrust
in the high office of the speaker, merely because some of the speakers are alleged, or even found, to

1 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 338: 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1174 at page 342
2 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
Page | 20
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
have discharged their functions not in keeping with the great traditions of that high office. The Robes
of the Speaker do change and elevate the man inside. [770G-H, 771A, 772A, 773A-B] G.V.
Mavalankar ; The Office of Speaker, Journal of Parliamentary Information, April 1956, Vol. 2. No. 1
p.33; HOP, Deb. Vol.IX (1954), CC 3447-48 and Erskine May- Parliamentary Practice -20th edition
p. 234 and M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher in `Practice and Procedure of Parliament' 4th Edition,
referred to.

● It is humbly submitted that there is no judicial review on the decision of speaker describing bill as money bill.

Hence it is violative of article 50 which imparts separation of power. Acticle 50 states,

“The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of
the State.”
There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism. This
Court does not claim to be always right although it does not spare any effort to be right according to the best of
the ability, knowledge and judgment of the Judges. They do not think themselves in possession of all truth or
hold that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. No one is more conscious of his limitations and
fallibility than a Judge but because of his training and the assistance he gets from learned counsel he is apt to
avoid mistakes more than others. Further the supremacy of a legislature under a written Constitution is only
within what is within its power but what is within its power and what is not, when any specific act is
challenged, it is for the courts to say. If that were realised much of the misunderstanding would be avoided and
the organs of Government would function truly in their own spheres. We are constrained to say also that while
fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing
improper motives, or tending to bring Judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or
indirectly with the functioning of courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken. Respect is
expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is
repugnant. Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of courts,
administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they
will act at their own peril. We think this will be enough caution to persons embarking on the path of criticism.
With these words we order the papers to be filed.3
Thus, court must follow judicial restraint in the financial matters.

The court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation
than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved. Every legislation, particularly in economic matters is
essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore it cannot
provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses. There may be crudities and inequities in complicated
experimental economic legislation but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid. 4
3 Rustom Cowasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 298 at page 301
4 Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17
Page | 21
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
“In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-
restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative
responsibility. The courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the
complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the
experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events — self-limitation can be seen to
be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability.”

The Court must always remember that “legislation is directed to practical problems, that the economic
mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, that many problems are singular and contingent, that laws are
not abstract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract
symmetry”; “that exact wisdom and nice adaption of remedy are not always possible” and that “judgment is
largely a prophecy based on meagre and uninterpreted experience”. Every legislation particularly in
economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and
error method and therefore it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses.
There may be crudities and inequities in complicated experimental economic legislation but on that account
alone it cannot be struck down as invalid. The courts cannot, as pointed out by the United States Supreme
Court in Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Company [94 L Ed 381 : 338 US 604 (1950)] be
converted into tribunals for relief from such crudities and inequities. There may even be possibilities of
abuse, but that too cannot of itself be a ground for invalidating the legislation, because it is not possible for
any legislature to anticipate as if by some divine prescience, distortions and abuses of its legislation which
may be made by those subject to its provisions and to provide against such distortions and abuses. Indeed,
howsoever great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive of a legislation which is
not capable of being abused by perverted human ingenuity. The Court must therefore adjudge the
constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities
or by the possibilities of abuse of any of its provisions. If any crudities, inequities or possibilities of abuse
come to light, the legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the
essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in dealing with complex
economic issues.5

5 R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675

Page | 22
 LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY INTER COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

● The electoral bond scheme as constitutional;

● The discretion of speaker on declaring bill as money bill should be final ;

● The data of electoral bond scheme directly not concerns citizens and the voters, hence should

remain anonymous.

AND/OR PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE HONORABLE

COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER, FOR THIS THE PLANTIFF SHALL DUTY BOUND
PRAY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Page | 23