Westros To Be EDITED RESPONDENT

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2018

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

IN THE MATTER OF
ARYA LANNISTER
(PETITIONER)
V.
STARK COMMUNITY
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………. 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….6
BOOKS………………………………………………………………………..6
JUDICIAL DECISIONS……………………………………………………...6
STATUTES……………………………………………………………………8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….....9
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………10
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………..…13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………..14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………..15
ISSUE 1: THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE IN THIS CASE
1.1. The matter involves question of law of general public importance

1.2. The matter involves substantial question of law and gross injustice has been done
1.2.1 Substantial question of law is involved
1.2.2 Gross injustice has been done
1.2.3 Finding of facts may give rise to substantial question of law
ISSUE 2: THE ORGANISERS OF STARK COMMUNITY ARE VICARIOUSLY

LIABLE AND BOUND TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSSES INCURRED
DUE TO BANDH TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF
KING’S LANDING

Page 2
2.1 The organisation is liable for the actions of its members within the course of protest
started by it
2.2 . The damages done by the protestors were within the course of their protest
2.3 The actions of the respondent affected several rights including livelihood, privacy, liberty
and therefore, liable to pay compensation for them
ISSUE III: THE CIRCULAR ISSUED IN PROHIBITION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY,

COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION DECLARING BANDH IS NOT IN VIOLATION
OF ‘RIGHT TO BANDH’ UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS.
3.1. Right to bandh is held unconstitutional in nature
3.2 The circular issued by the central government works as a protection mechanism and therefore
has binding effect on the citizens
ISSUE 4: GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION LEADS TO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF
CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE
4.1 The rights under article 19 of the constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions
4.2 The citizens are also entitled to the rights under article 19 which has been infringed by the
respondents
4.3 The right of life holds a supreme constitutional importance
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………2

Page 3
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ : Paragraph
& : And
AIR : All India Report
Anr. : Another
Co. : Company
Ed. : Edition
Fact sheet : Statement of Facts, 19th National Moot Court Competition problem
i.e. : That is
Hon'ble : Honorable
Ors. : Others
MNC : Multi National Company
No. : Number
Para : Paragraph
PIL : Public Interest Litigation
Rs. : Rupees
SC : Supreme Court
Page 4
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
SCR : Supreme Court Reports
V. : Versus
Vs. : Versus
Vol. : Volume

Page 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS AND DIGEST
 M.P. Jain Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis.
 Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency.
 Constitutional Law of India, H.M. Seervai, 4th Ed., Silver Jubliee Edition, Vol. 1,
Universal Law Publishing Co
 Constitutional Law of India, H.M. Seervai, 4th Ed., Silver Jubliee Edition, Vol. 2,
Universal Law Publishing Co.
 Jagdish Swarup commentary on the Constitution of India, Dr. L.M. Singhvi. 3rd Edition,
Volume 1, Revised by Justice G.P. Mathur, Thomson Reuters.
 Durga Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Ed. Vol. – 2, Wadhwa
Nagpur.
WEB REFERENCES
 WWW.HEINONLINE.ORG (HEINONLINE)
 WWW.JSTOR.ORG (JSTOR)
 WWW.JUDIS.NIC.IN (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)
 WWW.MANUPATRAFAST.COM (MANUPATRA)
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN (SCC ONLINE).

Page 6
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, 1984 AIR 802
 Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291
 C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298
 Communist Party of India(M) v Bharat Kumar, 1997 (2) KLT 1007 (SC)
 Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 1746
 Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
 James Martin v. State of Kerala, 2004 (1) KLT 513 (SC)
 James Martin vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203
 Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2015 SC 3081.
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3081
 Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1295
 M.C.Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
 M.C.Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
 Mecheneni Krishan Rao v Commissioner of Police,
 Munivel vs. State of T.N. AIR 2006 SC 1761
 N.Saravanapavan vs The Chief Immigration Officer PG 31
 Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K. S. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC)

Page 7
 Nilabati Behera(smt) alias Lalita Behera v state of Orissa , AIR 1993 SC 1960
 Niyamavedi v C.B.I, 1999 1 Ker LT 560
 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241;
 Railway Board v Niranjan, 1969 AIR 966
 Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742.
 Ranchi Bar Association v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 Pat 169
 Ranveer Upadhaya v state of U.P, AIR 1996 All 131
 Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
 Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297
 Sher Singh vs State Of HP
 Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314.
 Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314.
 Sorab v Emp., AIR 1953 (Bom)
 State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi (Smt.), AIR 1952 SC 329
 State of Himachal Pradesh v Raja Mahendra Pal, AIR 1999 SC 1786
 Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.
 T.K. Rangarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (5) SCALE 537
 Vinod Narain v State of U.P, 1996 CrLJ 1309 (1320)
THE STATUTES
 The Constitution of India, 1949

Page 8
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of petitioners. The respondent
submits that according to The Constitution of Westros this court has power under Article 136(1)
to entertain the special leave petition filed by the petitioners.
Article 136(1) of The Constitution of Westros –
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme court 1may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Westros
1
Article 136 of The constitution of India 1949
Page 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Westros is the biggest democracy and most heterogeneous society with a rich heritage
and everyone has right to vocalize their views and grievances as long as not in
contravention with law of land.
2. The constitution aims to the welfare of the nation and is committed to high ideas of
socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation. The country believes in “unity in
diversity.” The constitution of Westros has bestowed certain inalienable fundamental
rights, where they can oppose state’s decision through nonviolent measures which are
subject to reasonable restrictions i.e. protestors do not cause any breach of public peace.
3. The Stark Community has strong political ideologies and religious element in their
nationalist thoughts and propagandas.
4. The Industrial and Agricultural Organization of the State of King’s Landing, President-
Arya Lannister, is a community working for this sectors welfare.
OBSERVATION BY SUPREME COURT
5. The Supreme Court of Westros has unequivocally observed that such “Bandhs” or
complete closures interfere with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of other
citizens and cause grave effects on the fabric of the society, and thus are unconstitutional.

Page 10
OTHER INSTANCES OF BANDHS
6. The stark community leaders instructed protestors to resort to violent and forceful
measures. Eventually, the situation worsened and the protestors started causing road
blockages and damaging public and private property. The road blockage agitations were
held on 31st January 2018 to gather momentum and mount pressure on the state
government. The idea of holding road blockage agitations across the state was criticized.
Similar such bandhs were held on 2nd March 2018, 5th May 2018, 24th July 2018 wherein
the protests turned violent, the protesters attacked the law enforcing agency and caused
damage to public and private property by torching buses, police vehicles and private cars
and vandalizing open shops and markets.
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FILING PIL NO. 100/2018
7. The Stark’s Community declared complete Bandh on 20th August, 2018. Protestors
ransacked the offices of several companies and vandalized their assets and disrupted
functioning of processing units of several MNCs. Protestors hindered produce of farmers
from reaching market closed onion markets, emptied milk trucks on roads and caused the
entire administration of the State to collapse.
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FILING WRIT PETITION NO. 1001/2018
8. The Starks Community issued a notice for citizens regarding the Bandh from 4th
September, 2018 to 5th September, 2018. King’s Landing issued a circular on 3rd
September 2018. No Bandh/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation in any form by any Political Party,
Community or organization will be henceforth observed in the State was declared. All

Page 11
such protestors who would create any disturbances would be restrained and strictly
penalized with criminal offences.
HIGH COURT
9. The Industrial and Agricultural Organization of the State of King’s Landing, through its
President- Arya Lannister, filed a PIL before Hon’ble High Court. They challenged the
Bandhs organized by Starks Community, primarily the violent activities of 20th August,
2018 and claimed compensation from the Stark Community of Rs. 10 Crores. The
Hon’ble High Court rejected the claim of the petitioner. Stark community challenged the
circular dated 3rd September, 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of King’s landing. The
Hon’ble High Court of King’s Landing dismissed the petition filed by the Stark
Community

Page 12
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I: WHETHER THIS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN
THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ORGANISERS OF STARK COMMUNITY ARE
VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AND BOUND TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSSES
INCURRED DUE TO BANDH TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL
ASSOCIATION OF KING’S LANDING?
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE CIRCULAR ISSUED IN PROHIBITION OF ANY
POLITICAL PARTY, COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION DECLARING BANDH IS
IN VIOLATION OF ‘RIGHT TO BANDH’ UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
WESTEROS?
ISSUE IV: WHETHER GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19
TO COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION LEADS TO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF
CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE?

Page 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS
MAINTAINABLE IN THIS CASE
1) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, the Special Leave Petition filed by
the petitioner, Arya Lannister is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question
of law of general public importance. If the SC does not intervene, it will result in gross
injustice and that, miscarriage of justice has already occurred, by the erring judgment of
the HC of King’s Landing, which disposed the PIL of the petitioner and rejected the claim
for the compensation from the respondent,2 with complete disregard for the fundamental
right of life of the people. Therefore, the special leave petition of the petitioner must be
accepted, so that the Hon’ble Court can use its wide jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136, 3
to correct the wrong done by the decision given by the High Court of King’s Landing.
1.1. The matter involves question of law of general public importance
2) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction conferred under Art.
136 on the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive one 4 and can be invoked when a
question of law of general public importance arises,5 by filing Special Leave Petition. It is
well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to
interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated, 6 therefore
a duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
2
Moot Proposition, ¶ 15.
3
Art. 136, The Constitution of India, 1950.
4
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
5
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
Page 14
judgments.
3) Art. 136 provides residuary power to the SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that
injustice has been done.7 Illegality should not be allowed to be perpetrated merely for the
sake of upholding technicalities.
1.2. The matter involves substantial question of law and gross injustice has been done
4) It is humbly submitted by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court that, the matter involves
substantial question of law as it concerns the violation of fundamental right of life of the
people of Westros and gross injustice has already been meted out by the decision of HC of
King’s Landing, which has hastily and arbitrarily declared that the petitioners are not entitled
to any compensation for the damages caused by the respondent.
1.2.1. Substantial question of law is involved
5) It is humbly submitted that where findings are entered without considering relevant
materials and without following proper legal procedure, interference of SC is called for. 8 In
the instant case, the Hon’ble HC has erred in deciding a very substantial question of law,
related to right to life of the people.
6) Whether a matter involves substantial question of law, depends on whether it is of general
6
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1,
832 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010); See also, Halsbury’s Laws of India, Vol. 35, 564 (2 nd ed.,
Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2007).

7
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol.
2, 845 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010).

8
Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
Page 15
public importance, which directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties, or it has
already been decided by the highest Court. 9 It will, therefore, depend on the facts and
circumstance of each case whether a substantial question of law is involved in the case.10
7) It is submitted that, the present case involves a matter of general public importance as it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the petitioner as the order is erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of people and also the HC had erred in dismissing the PIL stating
that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation from the respondent.
1.2.2. Gross injustice has been done
8) The judgment of HC of King’s Landing is bad in the eyes of law as it did not recognize the
right to life of people which is an intrinsic part of right to life as fundamental right rather as
a common law right.11 Grave miscarriage of justice has occurred because of this serious and
flagrant violation of law has been committed by the HC 12 for which interference of the SC
is required.
9) The main essence of Bandh or, complete shutdown is to stop people from moving or
working. This practice literally infringes a lot of rights including right to move, right to
practice trade, right to live in peace etc. Also, the protestors ransacked several offices and
even stopped the produce of the farmers from reaching the market, closed markets. 13 These
constitute grave violation of right to life and personal liberty of the people, and grave
injustice has been meted out by the judgment of the HC by disposing the PIL by the
9
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
10
Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.
11
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2015 SC 3081.
12
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742.
13
Moot proposition, para 11 and 12.
Page 16
petitioner.
1.2.3. Finding of facts may give rise to substantial question of law
10) The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under Art. 136, if it considers
it necessary to do so. Art. 136 uses the words ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives widest
power to this court to deal with any cause or matter. It is plain that when the SC reaches
the conclusion that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or tribunal has not
given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind like the finality of
finding of facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this power.
11) In the instant case, the HC, in haste, reached the conclusion that the respondents are not
liable to pay compensation on the ground of vicarious liability for the damages caused by
the destruction of Bandh and directed the State to come up with a protective mechanism to
deal with it.14 In this case, although the High court is aware of the threat to social security
and damages, failed to understand the huge economic loss occurred to the petitioner and
erred in its judgement. Therefore, the Supreme Court should review upon this fact and the
SLP is maintainable.
14
Moot proposition, para 15.
Page 17
ISSUE II: THE ORGANISERS OF STARK COMMUNITY ARE VICARIOUSLY
LIABLE AND BOUND TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSSES INCURRED
DUE TO BANDH TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF
KING’S LANDING
1) The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the respondent is liable for
compensation on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Further, they are also liable
under section 149 of Westros Penal Code (Pari Materia to IPC) for the damages caused by
their actions by way of vicarious liability. Section- 149 states that if an offence is committed
by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or such
as the members of that assembly knew that the offence to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing that offence was
member would be guilty of the offence committed.15
2.1 The organisation is liable for the actions of its members within the course of protest
started by it
2) The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within the law of torts. It has become
well-established in English law and historically has been called ‘Master and Servant
liability’. Vicarious liability means liability which is incurred for or instead of another. A
person is responsible for his own acts. But there are circumstances where liability attaches to
him for the wrongs committed by others.
3) This dynamic move of the Supreme Court resulted in the emergence of compensatory
jurisprudence for the violation of right to personal liberty through Rudul Shah v. State of
15
Munivel vs. State of T.N. AIR 2006 SC 1761
Page 18
Bihar16, which recognised the principle of monetary compensation for violation of
fundamental rights. In this case, the Petitioner's fundamental right is violated under Right to
life in Art. 21 of constitution, by the actions of the respondent.
4) The legal basis of liability of the respondent comes under Section 149 of the Penal Code. It
provides a platform for the general public to sue the people who are disturbing the balance of
the society, misusing their right to assemble. It is well settled that ambit of section 149
included tortious liability of the persons and its scope is not limited to suit or right to one in
respect of contractual liability only. The doctrine of vicarious liability is a rule of
responsibility by which the defendant will be found liable for the torts of another, without
proof of fault. The whole idea of vicarious liability is based on 2 principles-
 Respondent superior,
 Qui facit per alium facit per se.
5) It has been stated that there is no justification in principle or in public interest that the master
should not be held vicariously liable for tortious act of its servants. The vicarious liability of
an organisation is linked with the negligence of its members. The courts now interpret the
constitutional provisions to recommend either an ex-gratia payment by the respondent or
payment of compensation to the victims suffering harm owing to the unlawful conduct of the
servants of an organisation in discharge of their functions, regardless of the sovereign nature
of those functions. In this case, when the defendant claimed against petitioners, the doctrine
of contributory negligence, to an extent they admit, the negligence of police officials in
taking due care of petitioners. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner is liable for
getting compensation under the principle of vicarious liability.
16
(1983) 4 SCC 141
Page 19
6) It needs to be noted that in the name of hartal or bandh or strike no person has any right to
cause inconvenience to any other person or to cause in any manner a threat or apprehension
of risk to life, liberty and property of any citizen or destruction of life and property, and the
least to any government or public property. It is high time that the authorities concerned take
serious note of this requirement while dealing with those who destroy public property in the
name of strike, hartal or bandh.17
2.2. The damages done by the protestors were within the course of their protest
7) The Bandh was declared by the Respondent itself and in the previous protest, it can be stated
that the leaders of the organisation instructed the protestors to resort to violent and forceful
measures18. Therefore, the respondent cannot deny the fact that all those destructions and
damages to the properties happened in the course of the “Bandh” they called in the first place
and would not have happened if they did not declare such shutdown. Therefore, according to
the principle of Qui facit per alium facit per se, the respondent is liable for the damages done
by the protestors as the respondent, as a whole, was protesting through the actions of the
protestors and is answerable for them.
8) It can be stated that though principle of vicarious liability is a civil concept yet in a recent
scenario it has taken a wide role under criminal jurisprudence too. To a certain extend it is
good also but every case decided under criminal law for vicarious liability should be guided
by basic rationality and clear evidence in order to classify the test of just, fair and equal.
Therefore, in the present case, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner
for the damages done due the Bandh.

17
James Martin vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203
18
Moot Proposition, para 9.
Page 20
2.3. The actions of the respondent affected several rights including livelihood, privacy,
liberty and therefore, liable to pay compensation for them
9) Dignity is an integral part of the Constitution.19 Reflections of dignity are found in the
guarantee against arbitrariness,20 the lamps of freedom21 and in the right to life and personal
liberty22. The right to privacy is an element of human dignity. 23 Privacy ensures that a
human being can lead a life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human
personality from unwanted intrusion.24 The term, ‘life’ in Art. 21 does not mean ‘mere
animal existence’, rather right to live with dignity.25 Therefore, any violation of dignity of
an individual is violation of right to life of the individual. In this case, the dignity of the
petitioner
10) In the present case, the respondents not only caused economic losses to the petitioner, but
also created a fear of violence within them by organising several, disturbing the peace and
harmony of the society which completely infringes their right to life with dignity. Therefore,
the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from the respondents.
19
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 1746.
20
21
22
23
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
24
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3081.
25
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1295; See also, Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi,
AIR 1981 SC 1746

Page 21
ISSUE III: THE CIRCULAR ISSUED IN PROHIBITION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY,
COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION DECLARING BANDH IS NOT IN VIOLATION
OF ‘RIGHT TO BANDH’ UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS.
1) The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the
circular issued by the State in prohibition of any political party, community declaring any
kind of Bandhs or agitation are not unconstitutional and not violating any constitutional
rights.
3.1. Right to bandh is held unconstitutional in nature
2) The counsel on behalf of the petitioner hereby submits that “Right to Bandh” which has been
the major point of the arguments presented on behalf of the respondent, is itself
unconstitutional in nature. The right to Bandh has been held as unconstitutional in plethora of
judgements and observations by various courts. Even in the facts of the case, it is clearly
mentioned that, The Supreme Court of Westros has unequivocally observed that such
‘Bandhs’ or complete closures interfere with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of
other citizens and cause grave effects on the fabric of the society, and thus are
unconstitutional.26
3) In the present case, even after this observation by Supreme Court, there are several instances
where the Stark community called for Bandhs, which later turned into violent ones,
disturbing peace and balance of the Country. These instances not only violate the right of the
public at large, but also disturbs the peaceful environment of the state. In Ranchi Bar
26
Page 22
Association v. State of Bihar27, following the Apex court decision mention above, the Patna
High Court has ruled that no party has a right to organize a “Bandh” causing the people by
force to stop them from exercising their lawful activities. The Government is duty bound to
prevent unlawful activities like bandh which invades the life, liberty and property of the
public at large. The Government is bound to pay compensation to those who suffer loss of
life, liberty or property as a result of a bandh because of the failure of the government to
discharge its public duty to protect them.
4) In appropriate cases, even the organizers of the bandh may be directed to pay compensation.
Any organization interfering with the functioning of the courts commits contempt of court
and can be punished accordingly. A peaceful strike which does not interfere with the rights
and properties of the people is however not illegal. In the instant case, the High Court did
award compensation against the State Government for loss of property and death of a person
during the bandh for failure of the authorities to take appropriate action and provide adequate
protection to the people’s life, liberty and property. The Government failed to discharge its
public duty to protect the people during the bandh.28
5) Supreme Court’s judgment in T.K. Rangarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu29, declaring the right
to strike is illegal, and “bandh” is unlawful. The anti-strike judgment, according to the
author, seeks to distance the state from the goal of socialism, while the anti-bandh verdict
smacks of generalizations, not supported by factual evidence. By defining a bandh, and by
seeking to punish the participants in the bandh, the court has only trespassed into the
legislative function.
27
AIR 1999 Pat 169
28
Ibid
29
2003 (5) SCALE 537
Page 23
6) “Bandh” is illegal and unconstitutional. It violates citizen’s fundamental rights. Chief Justice
Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Arun Chandra Upadhyay in the light of a 1997 Supreme Court
order upholding a Kerala High Court‟s judgment declared bandhs are illegal. 30 Gauhati High
Court gave the Judgment after hearing two separate public interest litigations (PILs) which
were filed by two citizens in 2005, seeking declaration of Bandhs as illegal and
unconstitutional in Assam and Meghalaya. The petitioners told that frequent ‘Bandhs affect
the economy and education.31
7) In a landmark decision in Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v State of Kerala,32 a full bench of the
Kerala High Court has declared “Bandhs” organized by political parties from time to time as
unconstitutional being violative of the fundamental rights of the people. The court refused to
accept it as an exercise of the freedom of speech and expression by the concerned party
calling for the bandh. When a bandh is called, people are expected not to travel, not to carry
on their trade, not to attend to their work. A Threat is held out either expressly or impliedly
that any attempt to go against the call for bandh may result in physical injury. A call for
Bandh is clearly different from a call for general strike or Hartal. There is destruction of
public property during bandh. The High Court has directed that a call for bandh by any
association, organization or political party and enforcing of that call by it, is illegal and
unconstitutional. The High Court has also directed the state and all its law enforcement
agencies to do all that may be necessary to give effect to the court order.
30
Observation by Gauhati High Court
31
32
AIR 1997 Ker 291
Page 24
8) The Supreme Court has accepted the decision of The Kerala High Court in the case of
Communist Party of India(M) v Bharat Kumar 33. The Supreme Court refused to interfere
with the High Court decision. The Court has accepted the distinction drawn by the High
Court between a „bandh‟ and a strike. A bandh interferes with the exercise of the
fundamental freedoms of other citizens, in addition to causing loss in many ways.
9) In the case of James Martin v. State of Kerala34, the Supreme Court held that there is no
right to cause inconvenience in the name of hartal. The court observed that, “In the name of
hartal or bandh or strike, no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person
or to cause in any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to any other person or to cause in
any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty, property of any citizen or
destruction of life and property, and the least any Government or public property.”
10) So, from the above-mentioned cases we come to know that demonstrations like bandh, hartal
etc can be organized if it will be held peacefully. Most of the incidents have caused bodily
harm to the normal public, destruction of private property etc. We find that “Bandh” affects
the normal life of the general people; it disturbs the peaceful environment of a society. It
restricts a person to move freely. It violates the fundamental rights of person. It causes
damages to the individuals and it causes violence and inhuman activities. Political parties call
“Bandh” for their own benefit. They never take the opinion of the public. If they find that
public is not happy with any issue then they call “bandh‟ for their own publicity. At that
time, they want to show the people that they care for general public. We don’t think that
“Bandh” is any solution for any problem. In any problems political parties should discuss
with each other how they can solve the problem, how they can help the public. But they don’t
33
1997 (2) KLT 1007 (SC)
34
2004 (1) KLT 513 (SC)
Page 25
do so and call for ‘Bandh’. This Bandhs has huge impact on economy. “Bandh” is weakening
the Indian Economy. If the political parties would care for us then they could never call
“Bandh” and they would discuss with each other to solve the problem of the general public.
11) The Constitution is “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE” 35. Our
constitution is created for the welfare of all general people but “Bandh” is disturbing the
peaceful, normal life of the people, so, “Bandh” is unconstitutional and side by side it is
illegal and undemocratic also.
3.3 The circular issued by the central government works as a protection mechanism and
therefore has binding effect on the citizens
12) The counsel on behalf of the petitioner hereby submits that the circular was issued by the
Government of King’s Landing and the citizens of King’s Landing are bound by the
provisions of law to act in accordance of that.
13) The circular by the Govt. of King’s Landing directed that no Bandh/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation
in any form by any Political Party, Community or organisation will be henceforth observed
in the State. All schools, colleges, Educational Institutions, Public and Private Offices,
Hospitals, Petrol Pumps, markets, public and private transports, etc. will be working and all
such protestors who would create any disturbances would be restrained and strictly penalised
with criminal offences. From the words of the circular, it is amply clear that the main aim
behind issuance of that circular was to protect the citizens from further violence in name of
35
Preamble, The Constitution of India, 1950
Page 26
Bandhs and protests.
14) The Court, in plethora of its judgements, held that circulars have binding powers if issued by
the government.36 It is clear that a circular of the kind which was issued by the authorities
would be binding on all citizens.
15) The counsel also submits that right to bandh was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
But, still there were so many instances where the respondent had organised Bandhs and
created violence and nuisance even after that judgement of Supreme Court. Also, when the
aggrieved petitioner filed a PIL to High Court, the apex court also directed the Government
to come up with protection mechanism. So, this was just a matter of time, that the
government issues a circular banning these kinds of violent activities as it is not only
infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens but also, affecting the peace and order of the
nation.
36
Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K. S. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC)
Page 27
ISSUE IV: GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO
COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION DOES NOT LEAD TO VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE
1) The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that
granting fundamental rights to a community or organisation leads to violation of article 21 of
the Public at large.
4.1 The rights under article 19 is an essential element of any democratic system
2) The counsel hereby submits that Westros, being the biggest democracy in the world, offers
certain rights including freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully under
Article 19. In the very beginning of the moot proposition, it is mentioned that every citizen of
westros has the right to articulate their views and vocalize their grievances as long as it is not
in contravention with the law of the land. Therefore, the members of the stark community,
enjoy those rights and freedoms under article 19 by virtue of being the citizens of Westros.37
3) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Circular violates the freedom of
speech and expression and freedom of assembly enunciated under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b)
of the Constitution. The ambit of freedom of speech and expression provided under Art.
19(1)(a) of the Constitution is very wide. At the very root of the concept of these rights, lies
the citizens’ right to discuss and share their ideas and problems- religious, political,
economic or social. A demonstration is a visible manifestation of the feelings or sentiments
of an individual or a group. It is a communication of one’s ideas to others to whom it is
intended to be conveyed. It is in effect a form of speech or of expression.
37
Page 28
4) In the case of Viraj Lal Manilal & Co v State of M.P 38, When an enactment is found to
infringe any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1), it must be held to be
invalid unless the those who support it can bring it under the protective provisions of the
various clauses of Article 19(2).
5) The statement was rightly given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of
India v Motion Pictures Association,39 “Free speech is the foundation of a democratic
society. A free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints,
dissemination of knowledge, airing of different viewpoints, debating and forming one’s own
views and expressing them, are the basic ideas of a free society. This freedom alone makes it
possible for people to formulate their own views and opinions on a proper basis and to
exercise their social, economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner.
Restraints on this right have been jealously watched by courts.”
6) Article 19(1)(b) the Supreme Court of India held that the freedom of speech and expression
includes freedom to propagate ideas which is ensured by freedom of circulation of a
publication, as publication is of little value without circulation.,40 It was also observed that-
‘Freedom of Speech and of Press at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for
without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning
of the process of Government, is possible’
7) The Court has, many times, emphasized on the significance of the freedom of speech &
expression in these words: “Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open
discussion, for that is the only corrective of government action in a democratic set up. If
38
AIR 1970 SC 129
39
AIR 1999 SC 2334
40
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
Page 29
democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen
must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to
intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice, free & general discussion of public
matters is absolutely essential.”41
In the case of Chandu Sajan Patil v Nyahalchand,42 the full bench held that a citizen had an
inherent right to conduct a non-religious procession through a public road. In the present case, it
was the citizens who later joined the protest and later had done violent activities in order to
express their rage and disappointment towards the Government for not fulfilling their righteous
demands.
The right to freedom of speech and expression in this aspect, extends to the concept of
citizenship to include socio-political participation of a person is critical in the process of
determining the scope of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, a
citizen if has the Right to Life under Article 21 then under Article 19 he has the right to speech
and expression which means he leads a good life which makes article 19 (1)(a) one of factors to
determine the quality of one's life. Article 21 is not infringed when the Court bestows the right
under Article 19(1)(a) to the associations and organizations then when it takes away their right to
express their views and demands to the Government in respect of any issue, let along it be a
political or an economical or religious issue.
41
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
42
1950 Bom 192
Page 30
4.2 The bandh organized by the respondent witnessed a huge public support and therefore
cannot be held as violating article 21 of public at large
The Bandhs and rallies organised by the respondent, in the beginning, were without any political
leaders, objectionable slogans or mischievous protestors. Millions of people came together to
protest from all parts of King’s Landing, but no harm was done to any public or private property.
Also, the main reason behind organising the Bandh was to pressurize the government for strong
political motives. But, according to the moot proposition, the silent rallies had seen a huge
number of participants joining the cause and this becomes the primary reason why the protest
turned violent.
The Starks Revolutionary March broke record of human crowd in silent protest and continued to
break records. The social media platforms played a key role in the protest; various Facebook
groups and pages were created to make this protest successful. Many college students, graduates
and IT professionals were actively managing the protest and providing information using social
media. These instances are proof of the fact that this Bandhs or protests may have broken the law
but, do not violate the Right to life of the Public at large as the general public was in full support
of these protests.
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.43 But, in the present case, the Bandhs declared by the respondent had
witnessed voluntarily participation by general public and also, the main protest was a silent rally
where no harm to any public or private property had been done. It’s the general public as
43
Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950
Page 31
protestors who started violence and therefore, it cannot be held that the public had been deprived
of their right to life and personal liberty.

Page 32
PRAYER CLAUSE
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. That the SPL by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.
2. Parties, associations and persons calling for bandhs should not be made vicariously liable
and shall be bound to pay compensation for damages caused.
3. Right to Bandh is not unconstitutional.
4. The circular issued by the Govt. of King’s Landing is unconstitutional.
5. Granting fundamental right under Article 19 will not lead to violation of Article 21 of
Constitution of the public at large.
AND TO PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER, DISCRETION & JUDGMENT AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
All of which is respectfully submitted
Sd/- ______________________
Advocates for the Petitioner

Page 33

Westros To Be EDITED RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Westros To Be EDITED RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Westros To Be EDITED RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2018

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 1: THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

1.1. The matter involves question of law of general public importance

ISSUE 2: THE ORGANISERS OF STARK COMMUNITY ARE VICARIOUSLY

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE III: THE CIRCULAR ISSUED IN PROHIBITION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY,

3.1. Right to bandh is held unconstitutional in nature

ISSUE 4: GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

AIR : All India Report

MNC : Multi National Company

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SCR : Supreme Court Reports

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

BOOKS AND DIGEST

 M.P. Jain Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis.

 Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency.

Universal Law Publishing Co

Universal Law Publishing Co.

Volume 1, Revised by Justice G.P. Mathur, Thomson Reuters.

 WWW.JUDIS.NIC.IN (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN (SCC ONLINE).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, 1984 AIR 802

 Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291

 C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298

 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 1746

 James Martin v. State of Kerala, 2004 (1) KLT 513 (SC)

 James Martin vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203

 Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1295

 M.C.Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

 M.C.Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

 Mecheneni Krishan Rao v Commissioner of Police,

 Munivel vs. State of T.N. AIR 2006 SC 1761

 N.Saravanapavan vs The Chief Immigration Officer PG 31

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Niyamavedi v C.B.I, 1999 1 Ker LT 560

 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241;

 Railway Board v Niranjan, 1969 AIR 966

 Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742.

 Ranchi Bar Association v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 Pat 169

 Ranveer Upadhaya v state of U.P, AIR 1996 All 131

 Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141

 Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297

 Sher Singh vs State Of HP

 Sorab v Emp., AIR 1953 (Bom)

 State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi (Smt.), AIR 1952 SC 329

 State of Himachal Pradesh v Raja Mahendra Pal, AIR 1999 SC 1786

 Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.

 Vinod Narain v State of U.P, 1996 CrLJ 1309 (1320)

 The Constitution of India, 1949

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT