Download Constitutionality Challenge: Manna Pradesh Capital Act 2019 and Livelihood Rights and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
1. Whether the Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act 2019 is
Unconstitutional?
1- It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act 2019 (hereinafter referred as The Act) does not stand itself on the firm ground of constitutionality, and deserves to be declared unconstitutional on the following grounds, firstly , The State Legislature is Incompetent to Pass Such Piece of Legislation, secondly , The Act is Inconsistent to the Union Law, finally, There is a violation of Right to Livelihood. The State Legislature is Incompetent to Pass Such Piece of Legislation 2- The Constitution of India in order to avoid any conflict between state and centre has enumerated subjects on which the respective authorities are competent to legislate.^1 The Constitution distributes legislative powers between the State Legislatures and Parliament, and each has to act within its sphere. The State Legislature is incompetent to pass such piece of legislation and it is urged on the following grounds of, firstly, Constitution and Organisation of High Court is enumerated under Union List, and secondly, The State legislation is Colourable in Nature. Constitution and Organisation of High Court is enumerated under Union List 3- Article 246 of the Indian Constitution states the subject-matter of laws which has been enumerated in different lists^2. Entry-78 of the Union List clearly stipulates the Constitution and Organisation of the Courts.^3 As regards the High Courts, their constitution and organisation is a central subject. Parliament can set up a High Court, constitute and organise it. Thus, uniformity can be maintained among the various High Courts in the matter of their constitution and organisation.^4 4- Parliament has extensive power to re-organise States and to do everything that is consequential thereto. Therefore, while forming a new State, or reorganising the existing States, Parliament has power not only to constitute and organise a new High Court but even to vest it with general jurisdiction^5 5- Where an impugned Act (i.e. an Act whose validity is questioned) passed by a State legislature is invalid on the ground that State legislature did not have legislative competence to deal with the topic covered by it, then even Parliament cannot validate (^1) State of W. B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201. (^2) The Indian Constitution, Art 246. (^3) The Indian Constitution, Sechedule VII. (^4) MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Pg. No 660. (^5) MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Pg. No 665.
such Act, because such validation would give the State legislature power over subjects outside its jurisdiction^6 6- It is to be submitted before this Hon'ble court, that under section 4 and 5 of the Act^7 which provides for the seats of governance clearly includes the constitution of High Court in the state of Jurnool of which the state legislature is clearly incompetent to pass such piece of legislation which is a clear violation of Article 246 and Rule of law and cannot be validated. 7- Therefore, it is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the act deserves to be declared Unconstitutional on above urged grounds. The State legislation is Colourable in Nature. 8- The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation resolves itself into the question of the competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law. The court reiterated this statement,^8 and has emphatically pointed out that for invoking the doctrine of “colourable legislation” the legislature must be shown to have transgressed the limits of its constitutional power patently, manifestly and directly.^9 9- Legislature in passing a statute purported to act within the limits of its powers, yet, in substance and in reality it transgressed these powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears, on proper examination, to be mere pretence or disguise.^10 10- If a legislation, apparently enacted under one Entry in the List, falls in plain truth and fact, within the content, not of that Entry but of one assigned to another legislature, it can be struck down as colourable even if the motives were most commendable.^11 The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing an indirect method^12 11- It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the state legislature of Manna Pradesh under section 4, clause 3, sub-clause III of the Act clearly states about the Judicial Capital and section 5 clause IV of the Act states about the relocation of the Principal Seat of High Court of Manna Pradesh to the above stated Judicial Capital^13. As argued before this court the state legislature is not competent to pass such piece of legislation and making a law on the subject which the legislature cannot do directly, cannot be done indirectly. (^6) R.D. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279. (^7) Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act, Section 4 & 5. (^8) State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46. (^9) STO v. Ajit Mills Ltd., (1977) 4 SCC 98. (^10) K.C. Gajapati Narayana Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375, Gullapalli Negeswara Rao v. A.P. State R.T.C., AIR 1959 SC 308, K. Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723. (^11) R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, AIR 1977 SC 2279 (^12) Jalan Trading Co v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691, Jabalpur Bus Operators’ Ass. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 MP 62 (^13) Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act, Section 5.
according to the accent of the President. The Act has went against the order by the president as it provides the provision for establishment of High court in the city of Jurnool under section 5 (iv) and reallocating the same defeat the provision of the Central law. 20- Therefore , it is submitted that the Provisions of the Act is Repugnant to the provision of the Reorganisation act and hence should be declared as unconstitutional. The Act Violates Article 256 of the Indian Constitution. 21- The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that state.^21 Article 256 imposes a general obligation on the States to so exercise their executive power as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament.^22 A law made by Parliament is a condition precedent which must be satisfied for the issuance of a direction under it.^23 22- It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament of Kailasha in 2014, which was in power when The Act was passed by the State of Manna Pradesh, which do not complied with the provision of Reorganisation Act on the following grounds, firstly, The State Legislature Not Complied with the Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act and secondly, The State Legislature Not Complied with the Section 31 of Reorganisation Act. The State Legislature Not Complied with the Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act 23- The law lays down the general constitutional duty of every State in which the provisions of Art. 256 are mandatory and must be complied with by the States^24. The law enacted by the State Legislature can be struck down as being in violation of Art.
- It is obligatory on the part of the State Government to comply with the directions issued by the Central Government under Arts. 256.^25 24- Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act clearly states that an Expert Committee should be formed by the central Government to study various alternatives regarding the new capital.^26 25- It is Submitted Before this Hon’ble Court that the State Legislature of Manna Pradesh before taking its call on the formation of Capital formed a cabinet committee^27 , as it must have been constituted by the central government to study various alternatives (^21) The Indian Constitution, Art 256. (^22) Muppavarapu Siva Ramakrishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 AP 376. (^23) Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322 (^24). Jay Engineering Works v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1968 Cal 407 (^25) K. Co-op. Building Society Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 AP 242. (^26) Ma-Nadu Reorganisation Act, Section 6. (^27) Moot Proposition, Page no.4.
regarding the new capital. Hence , The Act did not complied with the law establish by the parliament. The State Legislature Not Complied with the Section 31 of Reorganisation Act. 26- It was obligatory under Art. 256, on the part of the State Government to ensure compliance with the law made by Parliament and the directions given by the Central Government for the implementation of the Act.^28 The provisions of Art. 256 are mandatory in nature and must be complied with^29 27- It is already submitted before this court that there is a clear violation of section 31 of the Reorganisation Act, which clearly states its requirement for establishing a High Court. As the State Legislature by enumerating the provisions for relocating the High Court and not complying with the order of the President violates the abovementioned statute, hence, violates Art. 256 of the Indian Constitution There is a Violation of Right to Livelihood 1- Art. 21 of the Constitution of India guarantee the fundamental right to life and liberty^30 , in which the expression ‘life’^31 includes some essentials namely food, shelter, accommodation^32 and livelihood.^33 The right to livelihood includes some basic occupations required to live a quality life, such that, any order or legislation taking away that right would not hold good.^34 2- The Court has identified certain areas e.g. promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation which could be invoked where fairness is a criteria for conferring standing.^35 The Courts now recognize promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations as causes of action for invoking the mandamus jurisdiction.^36 Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation are not only much short of indefeasible right but were evolved to protect a person from unfair or arbitrary exercise of power.^37 3- It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Applicant is a landowner who has various properties in and around the capital city, one of such property is 88 acres.^38 A place where the water retention capacity is high and was bad for any type of (^28) Katya Coop. Building Society Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 AP 242. (^29) Jay Engineering Works v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1968 Cal 407. (^30) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Adm’r Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. (^31) P Rathinam v. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 394. (^32) Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. (^33) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. (^34) M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 1770. (^35) Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & Etio, (2007) 5 SCC 447. (^36) Ramprovesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 294. (^37) Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601. (^38) Moot Proposition, Page no. 3.
Whether the contracts entered into between farmers and other land holders could be rescinded due to allegations of insider trading under Article 226 of the Constitution There has been grave injustice that has been caused to the farmers of Manna Pradesh, while the whole act of the land grabbers were based on their malafide intention and causing injustice to the farmers. It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that, firstly, The Writ Petition filed under Art 226 is maintainable, secondly, There has been Insider Trading of the Confidential Information, and finally, The Contract between the parties should be Rescinded. The Writ Petition filed under Art 226 is maintainable 1- Whenever a question of law of general public importance arises the jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked^39. The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226 on the High Court are corrective one and not a restrictive one^40 The power of a High Court is not confined only to issue of writs; it is broader than that, to issue any directions^41 to enforce any of the Fundamental Rights or “for any other purpose” & issue directions rather than writs. 2- High Court can pass appropriate orders while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226^42 and to reach injustice wherever it is found.^43 Ordinarily a person can approach the High Court under Art. 226 to enforce his legal right, or when he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter.^44 Until the Applicant shows that his legal rights are adversely affected, or that breach is likely to be committed, he is not entitled to file the petition.^45 3- The Supreme Court explained that the words “any person or authority” in Art. 226 are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the state^46 & cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-exhaustion of an alternative remedy of a (^39) The Indian Constitution, Art 226. (^40) Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co., AIR 2008 SC 56. (^41) Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotel, AIR 1983 SC 848, Air India Statutory Corpn. v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645. (^42). Commr. of Endowments v. Vittal Rao, (2005) 4 SCC 120. (^43) ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier, (2005) 5 SCC 245. (^44) Calcutta Gas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044, Maganbhai v. Union of India (The Kutch case), AIR 1969 SC 783. (^45) Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. (^46) Praga Tools Corp. v. C.V. Imanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306, District Cooperative Bank v. Dy. Reg., Coop. Societies, AIR 1973 All 348
civil court, merely because the matter involves question of fact.^47 High Court has to see whether the matter is a purely civil dispute or the matter related to a dispute having a public law element or to any arbitrary and high handed action.^48 4- It is submitted before this hounrable court that there has been grave injustice caused to the farmers of Manna Pradesh, as the land was taken from them with an malicious intent of gaining profit out of the land which provide the livelihood to them and violating their legal rights. 5- It is further submitted that with the help of the insider information from the officials of erstwhile government^49 the land baron/grabber was in the dominating position and has gain profit out of the loss of the farmers. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed before the High Court is maintainable under Art. 226. There has been Insider Trading of the Confidential Information 6- After the location of the new Capital was declared by the erstwhile government, allegation of corruption, misappropriation of government funds/assets/machinery, and most importantly, misuse of confidential information foe illegal and unjust enrichment came to light against officials of erstwhile government.^50 7- The government official misused there their official position to predetermine the location of the new capital and subsequently to illegally benefit their associates, family member and political party member by using illegal and corrupt means and benefiting from the same.^51 8- It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that one of the respondent in the current petition is the wife of the person, who was the minister in the erstwhile government. The SIT report clearly sates the leaking of information by the insider and buying 88 Acres of lands before announcing of the capital in the predetermined area^52 , clearly completes the chain of an unlawful act committed by them. (^47) Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P., (2011) 15 SCC 383, (^48) ABL International Ltd. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India., (2004) 3 SCC 553. (^49) The Special Investigation Report, 2019. Para, 1. (^50) The Special Investigation Report, 2019. Para, 2. (^51) The Special Investigation Report, 2019. Para, 3. (^52) Moot Proposition Page no. 2.
