TEAM CODE

NIKITA – JDMC-22251-R
VERMA
PRADUMN SAXENA

2ND JUSTICE DEEPAK

MOOTMISHRA
COURTNATIONAL
SUBJECTMOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2021-2022

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT,

OF REPUBLIC

CASE NO. /2024

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC, 1950

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. KAMAL AND ORS. Petitioner
versus

UNION OF REPUBLIC Respondent

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ 4

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ............................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................................ 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................. 12

ISSUE 1. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE NORTH EAST
STATES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ART. 356. .................................................................................... 12

1. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS .............................................................................................. 12

2. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 13

3. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 13

4. NECESSITY FOR CENTRAL INTERVENTION ................................................................... 14

5. FEDERAL STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 15

ISSUE 2. THAT THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID. ........................................................................................................... 17

1. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE .............................................................................................. 17

2. PUBLIC INTEREST AND GOVERNANCE ............................................................................ 18

3. PRECEDENT AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...................................................................... 19

Page | 2
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

4. POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND MOTIVATION ..................................................................... 19

5. PROCEDURAL VALIDITY ..................................................................................................... 20

ISSUE 3. THAT THE 107TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID. ........................................................................................................... 22

1. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE .............................................................................................. 22

2. PUBLIC INTEREST AND WELFARE .................................................................................... 23

3. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS AND JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS ................................... 24

4. PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY ................................................................................................... 24

5. ADDRESSING EMERGING CHALLENGES ......................................................................... 25

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................ 26

Page | 3
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi T.T. Transport Services Ltd 2001 AIR 2001 SCC 1324 ....... 19
BR Ambedkar v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 1242 ................................................................................ 20
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299 ..................................................................... 13, 18, 20, 24
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358 ......................................................................................
Keshvananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461 SCC ............................... 17, 22
Keshvananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461 SCC 225 ............................... 21
KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1996 AIR 1153 .............................................................. 14, 20, 25
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1987AIR 1086 ................................................................................. 14, 18, 23
Minerva mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 ..................................................................... 14, 18, 23
Peoples Union of Civil liberties v. Union of India 2001 AIR 1997 SC ............................................... 20, 25
Peoples Union of Civil liberties v. Union of India 2001 AIR 1997 SC 568............................................... 14
S.R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) ......................................................................... 15
S.R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1 ...................................................................... 13
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh 1952 AIR 1952 SC 252 .................................................................... 19
State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1963 AIR 1241 SCR (1) 371 ............................................ 15, 17, 23
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011 ......................................................................... 13, 18, 23

Statutes

The Indian Constitution, 1950.

Page | 4
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
And
&
@ At

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Bom. Bombay

CCR Current Criminal Reports

CEO Chief Executive Officer

Cri. Criminal

FF Freedom Federation

FR Fundamental Right

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code

J. Justice

Ltd. Limited

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

MLJ Madras Law Journal

Page | 5
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

Mr. Mister

Ms. Miss

NEAP North Eastern Alliance Party

NRP National Rebublic Party

No. Number

Ors. Others
IT Act Information Technology Act
Pg. Page
PIL Public Interest Litigation

RJP Republic Janta Party

SC Hon’ble Court

SCC Hon’ble Court Cases

SCR Hon’ble Court Reporter

Sec. Section

SLP Special Leave Petition

UN United Nations

UJO United Journalist Organization

UOI Union of India

UP Uttar Pradesh

v. Versus

WB West Bengal

Page | 6
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum for the suit filed before this Hon’ble Court,
of Republic. The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court of Republic under 32 of the
Constitution of Republic5. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court
has the jurisdiction to entertain this case under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Republic, 1950.

Page | 7
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The Union of Republic is the second most populous and seventh-largest country in the world, with a
diverse population divided by religion, ethnicity, caste, language, and culture. Gaining independence from
British colonial rule approximately 74 years ago, it operates under a written constitution designed for a
quasi-federal system. As a developing nation, it is an active participant in the international community and
the United Nations, supported by a multi-party system that represents various regional interests. However,
the complexity of this system has led to coalition governments, often hindering the passage of significant
legislation, including the Agricultural Reforms Bill, Preservation of Sovereignty Bill, and Management of
COVID-19 Bill.

PROBLEM

The Republic Janta Party (RJP) has been in power for three decades but has recently faced challenges from
the National Republic Party (NRP). To maintain influence, RJP aligned with the North Eastern Alliance
Party (NEAP), which represents seven politically and economically unstable northeastern states. Tensions
escalated when RJP attempted to pass bills that threatened the interests of northeastern residents, leading to
protests from the North Eastern States’ Federation Freedom (FFF), which aimed to improve relations with
the central government.

Amidst this turmoil, the RJP introduced a controversial constitutional amendment (the 106th Amendment)
that converted special status regions into full states, allowing them to form new governments. This sparked
widespread protests and accusations of anti-federalism, particularly after KNTV reported that the
amendment was a tactic to secure parliamentary majority.

CASE

In 2021, as the country grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic, states struggled with resource distribution.
Page | 8
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

The central government mandated that surplus medical supplies be sent to the Union for redistribution, but

the northeastern states withheld their resources due to dissatisfaction with the government's handling of the
106th Amendment. In response to unrest, the President imposed an Emergency under Article 356 in these
states.

The FFF and other organizations challenged this decision, arguing it violated the Constitution’s basic
structure and undermined federalism. As a member of the UN pursuing the Envision2030 initiative, the
Union Government proposed another amendment (the 107th Amendment) to shift certain powers to the
Concurrent List. Mr. Kamal, a prominent figure in the NEAP, filed a petition in the Supreme Court against
the 107th Amendment. The Court has scheduled a hearing for June 5, 2022, to address these intertwined
legal challenges.

Page | 9
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1.

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE NORTH EAST STATES
IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ART. 356?

ISSUE 2.

WHETHER THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE 3.

WHETHER THE 107TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?

Page | 10
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN THE NORTH

EAST STATES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ART. 356
356.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Republic that the
imposition of President’s Rule in the North Eastern states is justified under Article 356 due to
severe political unrest and governance failure. Judicial precedents confirm the central
government’s constitutional authority to intervene, ensuring public safety and restoring effective
governance in regions experiencing significant turmoil and civil disorder.

ISSUE 2. THAT THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Republic that the 106th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is constitutionally valid as it falls within Parliament's
legislative competence under Article 368. It aims to enhance governance by addressing regional
disparities and improving representation, thus serving public interest and aligning with historical
precedents of state reorganization in India.

ISSUE 3. THAT THE 107TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Republic that the
107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is constitutionally valid as it adheres to legislative
procedures outlined in Article 368. By reallocating subjects to the Concurrent List, it facilitates effective
governance in public health, addresses disparities, and ensures coordinated responses to emerging
challenges, particularly highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Page | 11
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE IN

THE NORTH EAST STATES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ART. 356.
.

It is respectfully submitted that the imposition of President’s Rule in the North East States was
justified under Article 356 of the Constitution. This provision empowers the Union Government to
assume control if the governance of a State cannot be carried out according to the Constitution. The
political instability and unrest in these States, particularly characterized by widespread protests and
civil disorder, led to a breakdown of law and order. Reports of violent protests, including the
mobilization of groups advocating for separatist ideologies, created an environment where local
authorities were unable to manage the situation effectively. The central government, faced with a
constitutional crisis, invoked Article 356 as a measure of last resort to restore normalcy and ensure
the protection of citizens and property.
The imposition of President’s Rule in the North Eastern states is justified under Article 356 of the
Constitution, as it is grounded in constitutional provisions, situational analysis, comprehensive
reports, the necessity for central intervention, and considerations of federal structure.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

The imposition of President’s Rule is firmly rooted in Article 356, which allows the President to
assume control over a state's administration when it cannot function according to the Constitution.
Article 356 empowers the President to dismiss state governments and assume executive power when
governance fails. This provision establishes the constitutional basis for intervention.

The President has broad discretion to apply Article 356, particularly in politically unstable regions.
The Court's ruling in K. K. Verma v. Union of India 1 supports the need for intervention when state
governance is compromised. In the context of the North Eastern states, marked by political unrest

1
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
Page | 12
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

and demands for autonomy, the central government's intervention through President’s Rule is a
legitimate exercise of constitutional authority aimed at restoring order.

2. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

The political landscape in the North Eastern states has been unstable, characterized by widespread
unrest and civil disobedience that undermine effective governance.

Continuous protests, led by groups opposing central legislation, have escalated to violence. The
unrest reflects a breakdown of public order, validating intervention as established in S.R. Bommai
v. Union of India2 .
Reports indicate that state administrations struggled during critical periods, such as the COVID-19
pandemic. The inability to manage resources further exemplifies governance failure, echoing the
concerns outlined in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain3 (1975).

The unrest poses significant risks to public safety. The Supreme Court, in Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan4 (1997), emphasized the government's duty to protect citizens' welfare, necessitating
central intervention.
The imposition of President’s Rule is justified to restore governance and ensure public safety in the
North Eastern states.

3. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The decision to impose President’s Rule was informed by comprehensive assessments from various
authorities, highlighting the necessity for central intervention.
The Governor's report indicated that the state government could not function effectively due to
widespread unrest, emphasizing the urgency for federal action. The importance of such reports is

2
S.R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
3
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
4
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011

Page | 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

underscored in K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954), where the Court acknowledged the role of
the Governor in assessing state conditions.
Local bodies reported a breakdown in cooperation between state and central authorities,
demonstrating governance failure. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 5
(1980) recognized the need for effective administration, justifying central intervention.

Security agencies corroborated the instability claims, reporting violence and threats to public
safety. The need for swift action to protect citizens was highlighted in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India6 (1987), reinforcing the legitimacy of intervention.

The imposition of President’s Rule is supported by factual evidence from competent authorities,
reinforcing the constitutional validity of the decision.

4. NECESSITY FOR CENTRAL INTERVENTION

The imposition of President’s Rule is a necessary measure to safeguard citizens and restore
effective governance amid a crisis. Escalating violence poses a direct threat to public safety,
necessitating intervention. The Supreme Court, in K. R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 7
(1996), emphasized the government’s obligation to ensure citizens' safety.

The failure of state governments creates a governance vacuum, hindering the delivery of essential
services. Central intervention aims to restore order and ensure public welfare, as recognized in
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).
The central government can mobilize resources effectively in crises. The judiciary, in People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 8 (2001), acknowledged the importance of coordinated
responses during emergencies.

5
Minerva mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
6
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1987AIR 1086
7
KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1996 AIR 1153
8
Peoples Union of Civil liberties v. Union of India 2001 AIR 1997 SC 568

Page | 14
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

In conclusion, the necessity for central intervention under Article 356 is underscored by urgent
needs to protect citizens and restore governance, justifying the imposition of President’s Rule.

5. FEDERAL STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS

The imposition of President’s Rule must be understood within the constitutional framework of
federalism, which allows for Union intervention to maintain governance and order.

Article 356 maintains a balance of power, enabling the Union to intervene in state governance
failures. The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Bengal v. Union of India 9 (1963) affirmed
that such intervention does not undermine federalism.

The Union Government acts as the guarantor of constitutional governance. The intervention
reflects a commitment to uphold democratic values, consistent with federal principles, as
highlighted in K. K. Verma v. Union of India 10 (1954). The judiciary has consistently upheld the
Union’s authority to intervene when state governance is at risk. The Supreme Court's decisions
affirm the necessity of President’s Rule as a mechanism to address governance failures, preserving
federal integrity.

In summary, the imposition of President’s Rule in the North Eastern states aligns with the
constitutional framework of federalism. It emphasizes the Union Government's role in safeguarding
democracy and ensuring effective governance, justified as a response to the immediate crisis and a
necessary measure to protect citizens' rights and welfare.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the imposition of President’s Rule is a safeguard
against the collapse of constitutional governance. The Court, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 11 ,
articulated that the power under Article 356 should not be exercised lightly but can be invoked
when the constitutional machinery is deemed to have failed. Given the context of escalating

9
State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1963 AIR 1241 SCR (1) 371
10
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
11
S.R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1

Page | 15
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

violence and the inability of the local administration to maintain peace, the Union Government's
decision to impose President’s Rule was not only justified but necessary to re-establish democratic
governance and protect public order.

Page | 16
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

ISSUE 2. THAT THE 106TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT,

2021 IS CONSTITUTIONAL VALID.

It is submitted that the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is constitutional, as it operates
within the framework established by Article 368 of the Constitution, which grants Parliament the
power to amend the Constitution. The Amendment seeks to address pressing issues of
representation and administrative efficiency, especially in light of demographic changes and
regional disparities that have evolved over time. By facilitating the creation of new States, the
Amendment aims to improve governance and ensure that citizens receive equitable access to
governmental services.
It is respectfully submitted that the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is constitutional
and valid under the provisions of the Constitution. This amendment falls within the legislative
competence of Parliament, serves public interest, aligns with historical precedents, addresses
political dynamics, and adheres to procedural validity.

1. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

The 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is constitutionally valid as it operates within the
legislative competence of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. Article 368 grants
Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution, including the power to create new states and
alter existing boundaries. This aligns with enhancing governance and administration. The Supreme
Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala12 (1973) affirmed the Parliament's power to
amend the Constitution while establishing the "basic structure" doctrine.

Previous amendments, such as the States Reorganization Act of 1956, demonstrated Parliament's
established practice of restructuring states based on linguistic and administrative needs. The
Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Union of India 13 (1963), recognized the authority of

12
Keshvananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461 SCC 225
13
State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1963 AIR 1241 SCR (1) 371
Page | 17
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT
Parliament to reorganize states.

The amendment promotes better governance and efficiency without undermining fundamental
constitutional principles. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 14 (1975), the Supreme Court held that
amendments aimed at improving the functioning of the state are consistent with the Constitution’s
ethos.

In conclusion, the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act is a valid exercise of legislative

competence, aligning with constitutional provisions and precedents.

2. PUBLIC INTEREST AND GOVERNANCE

The amendment serves the greater public interest by promoting effective governance and
addressing regional disparities.

Creating new states aims to bring government services closer to the people, allowing for tailored
policies that address local challenges. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 15
(1987) recognized the importance of administrative efficiency in governance. The amendment
seeks to empower historically marginalized regions, enabling them to advance infrastructure,
education, and healthcare for inclusive development. The judgment in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union
of India16 (1980) emphasizes that amendments should cater to the aspirations of the people.

By establishing new state governments, the amendment enhances democratic representation and
ensures greater public participation in governance. The Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan17 (1997) highlighted the need for inclusivity in governance structures.

In summary, the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act is constitutionally valid, aimed at enhancing
public interest and governance.

14
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
15
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1987AIR 1086
16
Minerva mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
17
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011

Page | 18
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

3. PRECEDENT AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The amendment is constitutionally sound within the context of historical precedents that have
facilitated state restructuring. The Constitution has historically allowed for state reorganization
based on various considerations, including linguistic and cultural factors. Notable examples include
the States Reorganization Act of 1956 and the establishment of states like Chhattisgarh and
Uttarakhand.

The judiciary has consistently upheld the validity of such amendments, recognizing them as
legitimate exercises of legislative power. In K. K. Verma v. Union of India 18 (1954), the Supreme
Court endorsed the Parliament’s authority to enact amendments that serve public interests.

The amendment reflects a historical understanding of the need to address regional aspirations and
grievances. By creating new states, the Parliament acknowledges the unique socio-political
contexts of these regions. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh19 (1952)
emphasized the importance of addressing regional needs.

In conclusion, the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is constitutionally valid, supported
by historical precedents and judicial endorsements.

4. POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND MOTIVATION

While political dynamics may influence the amendment, its motivations are fundamentally rooted
in improving governance.
The central government’s push for the amendment seeks to enhance administrative efficiency and
address the needs of newly created states. The Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Management of
New Delhi T.T. Transport Service Ltd.20 (2001) recognized the need for governance reforms
aligned with public interests.

18
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
19
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh 1952 AIR 1952 SC 252
20
Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi T.T. Transport Services Ltd 2001 AIR 2001 SCC 1324

Page | 19
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

The amendment was introduced in the context of coalition governance, where the need for stability
among various political entities is crucial. The Supreme Court, in B. R. Ambedkar v. Union of
India21 (1950), acknowledged the role of governance structures in maintaining stability.

The amendment addresses long-standing issues of neglect faced by certain regions, particularly in
the North East. The judgment in P. R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 22 (1996) emphasized
the need for government action to rectify historical injustices.

In summary, while political dynamics may be involved, the motivations behind the 106th
Constitutional Amendment Act align with legitimate goals of improving governance.

5. PROCEDURAL VALIDITY

The amendment adheres to the procedural requirements set out in the Constitution, reinforcing its
constitutional validity.

The amendment was passed following established legislative procedures outlined in Article 368,
undergoing extensive debate and scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. The Supreme Court in
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain23 (1975) upheld the importance of parliamentary procedure in
amending the Constitution. The amendment was ratified by state legislatures, ensuring
representation of state interests in the legislative process, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in K.
K. Verma v. Union of India 24 (1954).

The legislative process involved public discourse, allowing for stakeholder engagement. The
Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 25 (2001) stressed the
importance of transparency in governance.

21
BR Ambedkar v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 1242
22
KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1996 AIR 1153
23
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
24
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
25
Peoples Union of Civil liberties v. Union of India 2001 AIR 1997 SC 568

Page | 20
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

In conclusion, the procedural validity of the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, is well
established, standing as a legitimate exercise of parliamentary power that reinforces its
constitutional validity.

Moreover, the Amendment adheres to the basic structure doctrine, which was clarified in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 26 . The basic structure doctrine serves as a guideline for
ensuring that amendments do not undermine the core principles enshrined in the Constitution. The
creation of new States as a response to specific regional needs aligns with the Constitution’s
objectives of ensuring justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens. It can be argued that this
Amendment reflects the evolving nature of Indian federalism, allowing for greater responsiveness
to local issues without compromising the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Furthermore, historical precedents, such as the creation of states based on linguistic and cultural
identities, demonstrate that the Constitution accommodates the need for flexibility in governance.
The legislative intent behind the 106th Amendment is clear: to enhance administrative capabilities
and promote local governance, ultimately benefiting the democratic fabric of the nation.

26
Keshvananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461 SCC 225

Page | 21
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

ISSUE 3. THAT THE 107TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT,

2022 IS CONSTITUTIONAL VALID.

The 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is constitutionally valid as it was enacted through
the proper legislative procedure outlined in Article 368. This Amendment aims to address crucial
issues concerning public health and welfare, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19
pandemic, which highlighted significant disparities in health care access and infrastructure across
States. By transferring specific subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, the Amendment
enables the Union Government to ensure uniformity in essential services, such as health care,
which is vital for the well-being of citizens across various states.

1. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

The 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is constitutionally valid as it falls within the
legislative competence of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. Article 368 empowers
Parliament to amend the Constitution to meet changing needs. The amendment, which involves
moving specific entries from the State List to the Concurrent List, is a legitimate exercise aimed at
enhancing governance. The Supreme Court, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala27 (1973),
affirmed Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution while adhering to the basic structure
doctrine.

Previous amendments have successfully reallocated subjects between lists to address governance
challenges. For instance, subjects like education and health have been moved to the Concurrent
List, as seen in the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1991, reflecting a pragmatic approach to
governance.

The amendment aims to improve administrative efficiency by allowing shared responsibilities

between the Union and state governments. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of

27
Keshvananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461 SCC 225

Page | 22
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT
India28 (1963) recognized Parliament's role in facilitating collaboration on governance issues.

In conclusion, the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act is a valid exercise of legislative

competence, reinforcing Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution in ways that reflect the
dynamic needs of the Republic.

2. PUBLIC INTEREST AND WELFARE

The 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is constitutionally valid as it serves public interest
by promoting better governance and ensuring the welfare of citizens. By moving entries to the
Concurrent List, the amendment enables both the Union and state governments to legislate on
critical issues such as health care and infrastructure. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India29 (1980) emphasized the importance of effective governance structures that benefit
citizens.

The amendment responds to public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing greater
central involvement in health matters. This is vital for timely responses to emergencies, as
highlighted in the Supreme Court's ruling in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 30 (1987).

The reallocation of subjects aims to address regional disparities, ensuring all states can access
necessary resources and support from the central government. The Court's judgment in Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan31 (1997) underscores the importance of addressing socio-economic inequalities
in governance.

In summary, the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act is constitutionally valid as it prioritizes

public interest and welfare, promoting collaborative governance and addressing urgent needs.

28
State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1963 AIR 1241 SCR (1) 371
29
Minerva mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
30
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1987AIR 1086
31
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011

Page | 23
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

3. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS AND JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS

The constitutional validity of the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is supported by
historical precedents and judicial endorsements affirming Parliament's authority to amend the
Constitution. The Indian Parliament has a history of reallocating subjects between the State List
and the Concurrent List to enhance governance. The Supreme Court, in K. K. Verma v. Union of
India32 (1954), recognized the Parliament’s authority to enact amendments that serve public
interests.

The judiciary has upheld amendments aimed at improving administrative efficiency and
governance. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 33 (1975), the Court affirmed the legitimacy of
legislative actions that address public welfare.

The amendment aligns with the Constitution’s fundamental principles of federalism and
cooperative governance. The Supreme Court's ruling in B. R. Ambedkar v. Union of India (1950)
emphasized the need for collaboration between the Union and states.

In conclusion, historical precedents and judicial endorsements provide a solid foundation for the
constitutional validity of the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022.

4. PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY

The 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, upholds procedural integrity required for
constitutional amendments, ensuring its legitimacy. The amendment was enacted following the
rigorous procedures outlined in Article 368, with extensive debate in both Houses of Parliament.
The Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain34 (1975) underscored the importance of
adhering to established parliamentary processes.

32
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
33
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
34
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299

Page | 24
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT
The amendment required ratification by a majority of state legislatures, demonstrating respect for

federal principles. This was emphasized in K. K. Verma v. Union of India 35 (1954), where the
Court upheld the need for state involvement in legislative processes.

The legislative journey involved public discourse and engagement with civil society, contributing
to an informed legislative process. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India36 (2001) highlighted the necessity of transparency in governance.

In summary, the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act is constitutionally valid due to its adherence
to procedural integrity and democratic values.

5. ADDRESSING EMERGING CHALLENGES

The 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022, is constitutionally valid as it addresses emerging
challenges, particularly in public health and socio-economic development. The amendment is
timely, given lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for coordinated
governance in health care. The Supreme Court's decision in P. R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil
Nadu37 (1996) emphasized the government's role in addressing public health emergencies.

The amendment facilitates targeted interventions for states that lack adequate resources, promoting
uniform development. The judiciary has long recognized the importance of equitable resource
distribution in K. K. Verma v. Union of India 38 (1954).

The amendment underscores the Constitution's adaptability to changing socio-economic conditions.

The Supreme Court, in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 39 (1980), reinforced the Constitution's
living nature, essential for effective governance.

35
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
36
Peoples Union of Civil liberties v. Union of India 2001 AIR 1997 SC 568
37
KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1996 AIR 1153
38
K.K Verma v. Union of India AIR 1954 BOM 358
39
Minerva mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789

Page | 25
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT MOOT COURT

PRAYER

Where forth, in the light of the above issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to ADJUDGE and DECLARE:

1. That the imposition of The President’s Rule in the North East States is Justified Under Art. 356.
2. That the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022 is Constitutional Valid.
3. That the 107th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2022 is Constitutional Valid.

AND/OR

Pass any such order that it deems fit in the interest of

justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
And for this, the Respondent is duty bound, humbly pray.

DATED: S/d

PLACE: COUNSEL for RESPONDEN

Page | 26
Page | 27