MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TEAM CODE: TC8

7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION, NLUJA, ASSAM

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SWARNADESH

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. /2024
WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWARNADESH

IN THE MATTER OF
MS. JYOTICA DA’ SILVA ............................................................................................ PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF SAMRIDDHNAGAR ...................................................................................... RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SWARNADESH

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 1
List of Cases .................................................................................................................................... .2
List of Statutes................................................................................................................................ ..3
List of Books .................................................................................................................................. .4
Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................... .6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................................. ..7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................................... ...8
Issue I: WHETHER THE SAMRIDDHAGAR PROHIBITION ACT, 2024 IS LEGALLY VALID OR NOT?
Issue II: WHETHER THE ARAKH FOREST FALL UNDER THE STATE LIST OR NOT? OR WILL
PROVISION OF THE ACT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................ 9
Issue I: WHETHER THE SAMRIDDHAGAR PROHIBITION ACT, 2024 IS LEGALLY VALID OR NOT? 9
[1.1] Violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution .......................................................... 9
[1.2] Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution ...................................................................... 9
[1.3] Violates Article 244 5th Schedule of the Constitution ..................................................... 10
Issue II: WHETHER THE ARAKH FOREST FALL UNDER THE STATE LIST OR NOT? OR WILL
PROVISION OF THE ACT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE? ............................................... .12
[2.1] Violative of Article 246 of the Constitution. ................................................................... 12
[2.2] Supporting of Article 254 of the Constitution. .............................................................. ..13
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................................... .15
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL. NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1 ¶ Paragraph

2 ¶¶ Paragraphs

3 & And

4 AIR All India Reporter

5 Anr. Another

6 Etc Et cetera

7 GDP Gross Domestic Product

8 Hon’ble Honourable

9 Ltd. Limited

10 Ors. Others

11 PIL Public Interest Litigation

12 PUDR Peoples Union for Democratic Rights

13 SC Supreme Court

14 SCC Supreme Court Cases

15 SCR Supreme Court Reporter

16 UOI Union of India

17 v. Versus

18 IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF CASES

SL. NO NAME OF CASE

1. Madhya Pradesh v. K.K Verma (2000)

2. Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989)

3. Kashmir Singh v. Union of India (2000)

4. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005)

5. Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969)

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)

6.

7. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

8. Kumar Swamy v. State of Karnataka (2016)

9. Odisha Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forest (2013)

10. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987)

11. M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1986)

Narendra Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (1959)

12.

State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (2009)

13.
Eacharam Ettiathi v. State of Kerala (1969)
14.

15. Arka Vasanth Rao and others v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others (1995)

Gaddam Narsa Reddy v. Collector Adilabad District

16.

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

17. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996)

18. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

19. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gupta (2000)

20. Indian Counsil for Environment Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Wildlife Protection Society of India v. Union of India (2007)

21.

22. State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1959)

23. State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited (2004)

LIST OF STATUTES

Constitution of India, 1950

Constitution of Swarnadesh ...................................................................................................passim

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF BOOKS

SL. NO. NAME OF BOOK

DURGA DAS BASU. COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1.
(8th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2008).
HORMASJI MANECKJI SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA
2.
(4th ed. Universal Law Publishing, 2006).
M.P. JAIN, ET AL., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
3.
(8th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners in the present case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to initiate the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Swarnadesh for
violation of Fundamental Rights enumerated under Part III of the Constitution and thereby
challenge the validity of various activities conducted and constitutionality of the statute passed by
the Respondents in violation of the law in force. The Petitioners most humbly and respectfully
submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present matter.

The present memorandum sets forth the acts, contentions and arguments on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Constitution of Swarnadesh is pari materia to the Constitution of India

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

• Swarnadesh, a developing country with a GDP of $2.9 trillion and a population of 900 million,
became independent in 1948. It has 31 States, with a quasi-federal system. The capital is Saket
City, and the economy is primarily agrarian.

• A landlocked, densely populated State in Swarnadesh, Samriddhnagar is highly dependent on

agriculture, has high poverty rates, and struggles with limited infrastructure and financial
challenges, often relying on Union aid.

• The tribal communities in Samriddhnagar have a deep cultural connection with the endemic
Arakh tree, used to produce Zafiro, a traditional and ceremonial liquor. This practice, central to
their cultural identity, involves uprooting mature Arakh trees for fermentation and distillation.

• Zafiro liquor is popular across Swarnadesh and internationally, contributing $70 million in
annual exports. Its premium status makes it an economic mainstay for Samriddhnagar.

• A 2022 report highlighted social problems from widespread alcohol consumption, such as
addiction, domestic violence, poverty, and alcohol-related crimes, especially among lower-
income rural populations.

• In the 2024 elections, Ms. Ritu Vardhan, leader of the Jantantrik-Democratic Union Party,
promised prohibition of alcohol in Samriddhnagar, gaining support among women. She won
decisively and enacted the Sammridhnagar Prohibition Act, 2024 to ban alcohol, including
Zafiro.

• In response to the dwindling Arakh groves and revenue loss from the liquor ban, the State enacted
a Conservation Act prohibiting the cutting of Arakh trees and the plucking of flowers,
designating the Arakh forests as wildlife sanctuaries. This Act imposes penalties of up to 10
years' imprisonment.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• The Union government challenged the Conservation Act, claiming it conflicted with the Wildlife
Protection Act, 2000, a Union law covering forest protection. The Act provides for a two-year
punishment for illegal extraction from protected areas, arguing it supersedes the State law due
to constitutional provisions.

• Chief Minister Ritu Vardhan argued that land and liquor regulation fall under the State List,
asserting the State’s right to legislate for the protection of Arakh groves and tribal cultural
practices.

• Despite the prohibition, illicit liquor trade and spurious alcohol production rose, leading to
public health risks and hooch tragedies. Tensions peaked on September 20, 2024, when tribal
members defied the Conservation Act, uprooting Arakh trees to prepare for the Honeydukes
festival, leading to arrests and further protests.

• Following widespread arrests, NGOs and activists advocated for the rights of detained
individuals. Ms. Jyotica Da’ Silva, a prominent activist for tribal and fundamental rights, filed a
writ petition in the Supreme Court of Swarnadesh. The petition challenges the constitutionality
of the Sammriddhnagar Prohibition Act, 2024 and the legality of arrests made under the Arakh
Conservation and Sustainable Utilization Act, 2024. The grounds for the challenge include
Violation of the federal structure outlined in the Constitution and the deprivation of employment
for the local tribal communities due to the prohibition.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE SAMRIDDHAGAR PROHIBITION ACT, 2024 IS LEGALLY VALID OR NOT?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ARAKH FOREST FALL UNDER THE STATE LIST OR NOT? OR WILL PROVISION OF
THE ACT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE?

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE SAMRIDDHAGAR PROHIBITION ACT, 2024 IS LEGALLY VALID OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 19, Article 21 of the Constitution
have been violated on account of arbitrary action of State, thus, resulting in the violation of Article
244 as well. Right to trade, right to life & livelihood and right to governance of Scheduled Areas
and the rights of Scheduled Tribes have been violated on account of prohibition of alcohol and
right to Culture has also been violated since, Zafiro liquor consumption is one of the most deeply
rooted customs among the tribal communities.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ARAKH FOREST FALL UNDER THE STATE LIST OR NOT? OR WILL
PROVISION OF THE ACT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, Art.244, Art.254 of the constitution have been
violated on account of arbitrary action of State and the Arakh Conservation and Sustainable
Utilization Act conflicting with the union law which is Wildlife Protection Act,2000. State violates
Article 254 due to overlapping powers in the Concurrent List or ambiguity in how central laws apply
to certain situations.

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE SAMRIDDHAGAR PROHIBITION ACT, 2024 IS LEGALLY VALID OR

NOT?

The people were subjected to deprived economic opportunities and personal choices are curtailed
and the right to culture is violated since Zafiro consumption is a deep-rooted custom.1 Hence, the
fundamental rights as guaranteed under: Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution [1.1], Article 21
[1.2] of the constitution and Art.244(5th schedule) [1.3] have been violated.2

[1.1] VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. The ban on the sale of Zafiro restricts individuals’ rights to engage in legal trade and
profession. This Article guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business. The local population of Samriddhagar is deprived of
employment opportunities due to ban on production, sale of Zafiro because the exquisitely
aged Zafiro liquor commands a premium price and is favored by the elite as their drink of
choice. The popularity of this liquor has led to the establishment of larger-scale production
units, making it a key economic activity in Samriddhnagar. Data from a 2020 thinktank
report shows that the State exported Zafiro worth $70 million annually. which is Stated in
section 22 of the Samriddhagar Prohibition Act,2024,3 this article invoked to argue that
their economic rights were being violated. The prohibition has caused social tensions and
unrest, particularly among those who relied on the liquor trade for their livelihoods and
which created social problems.4

[1.2] VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

2. The petitioner argued that the freedom to make personal choices [including decision to

1
Point no 6 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
2
M.P. JAIN, ET AL., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).
3
Point no 6 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
4
Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 2068.
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

consume alcohol (including the traditional Zafiro liquor) of the people of Samriddhnagar
take place is being violated, as the ban on consumption of Zafiro liquor takes place.5

3. Tribal communities are connected to land/forest as tribal communities heavily rely on the
land, forest and sacred groves (Arakh) that hold significance to their communal identity,
culture and livelihood of the tribal people and tribal population rely on the lands and forests
for their livelihood, cultural practices, and spiritual beliefs, and this has gradually become
indispensable to their way of life. 6

4. Right to Culture has also been violated since, Zafiro liquor consumption is one of the most
deeply rooted customs among the tribal communities and also Zafiro used in various
religious rituals, festivals and social gatherings, symbolizing tribal connection to their land
and heritage.7

5. Thus, the petitioner argued breaching these rights could undermine their very existence &
way of life, which is protected under this article.

[1.3] VIOLATES ARTICLE 244 (5th schedule) OF THE CONSTITUTION

6. Addressing the governance of SC/ST rights. This Article specifically addresses the
administration of Scheduled Areas and the rights of Scheduled Tribes, emphasizing the need
to protect their interests.8 Tribal communities rely on their land for their livelihood. tribal
population rely on the lands and forests for their livelihood, cultural practices, and spiritual
beliefs, and this has gradually become indispensable to their way of life. Violation occurs
when government put a ban on production and sale of liquor through the Samriddhagar
Prohibition Act,2024 and also economic rights curtail of those who rely on Zafiro for their
livelihood and their right to personal choices (including choice to drink Zafiro) are also

5
Section 22 of the Samriddhnagar Prohibiton Act, 2024.
6
Kumar Swamy v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 6 SCC 670.
7
Point no 5 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
8
M.P. JAIN, ET AL., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

being curtailed on the basis of the consumption of Zafiro.9 These actions that undermine
tribal rights and employment could be challenged under this provision.10

7. 5th schedule administration of tribal rights & need to protect rights over land/resources. The
Fifth Schedule provides for the administration of tribal areas and emphasizes the need to
protect their rights over land and resources.11

8. Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Swarnadesh that violation of
Art.19 (1) (g), Art.21, Art.244 (5th schedule) applies to the tribal population and breaching
these rights could undermine their very existence & way of life, which is protected under the
articles

9
Point no 6 and 9 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
10
Odisha Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forest, (2013) 6 SCC 476.
11
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241.
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ARAKH FOREST FALL UNDER THE STATE LIST OR NOT? OR WILL
PROVISION OF THE ACT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE?

The Arakh Conservation and Sustainable Utilization Act which is enacted by the state of
samriddhnagar is conflicting with the Union law i.e. Wildlife Protection Act,2000.12 Hence, Art.246
of constitution and Art.254 of constitution have been violated.

[2.1] VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 246 OF THE CONSTITUTION

9. Article 246 of the Indian Constitution outlines the distribution of legislative powers between
the Union (Central Government) and the State Governments. It deals with the authority to
make laws on various subjects.13 Here’s a clear explanation of Article 246 and what a
"violation" by the State would mean in this context.

10. Understanding Article 246 of the Indian Constitution14

Article 246 is crucial in India’s federal structure, as it assigns specific areas of law-making
authority to the Union and the States. This division of powers is organized into three lists in the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution:

Union List: Contains subjects on which only the Parliament can legislate, such as defence, foreign
affairs, and atomic energy.

State List: Contains subjects on which only State Legislatures can legislate, such as police, public
health, and agriculture.

Concurrent List: Contains subjects on which both the Union and State Governments can legislate,
like education and marriage laws. In case of conflict, the Union law prevails over the State law.

12
Point no 12 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
13
M.P. JAIN, ET AL., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).
14
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/7th-schedule-indian-constitution/
12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

11. Violation of Article 246 by the State: A "violation" of Article 246 take place as State
Government (Samriddhnagar) enacts legislation that fall outside its jurisdiction as defined by
the Seventh Schedule.

12. The State Legislature of Samriddhnagar enacted laws on subjects that are exclusively in the
concurrent list, this would be a violation of Article 246. Samriddhnagar enacted the law Arakh
Conservation and Sustainable Act,2024 which is unconstitutional because of the existence of
Wildlife Protection Act,2000.15 Union law that already governs the protection of forests and
wildlife. The central government alleged that the State’s law conflicted with the Union
legislation and, by doing so, violated the federal structure enshrined in the Swarnadesh
Constitution. They emphasised that the protection of forests falls under the Concurrent List
stipulated in the Constitution.16

13. Arakh Conservation and Sustainable Act,2024 designate the Arakh forests as “Wildlife
Sanctuaries,” and Wildlife Protection Act,2000 already designate wildlife century as
ecological importance.

14. The Plaintiff argued that the Arakh Conservation and Sustainable Act is unconstitutional
because of the existence of the Union Act.

[2.2] SUPPORTING OF ARTICLE 254 OF THE CONSTITUTION

15. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution deals with situations of inconsistency between laws
made by the Parliament (Union) and laws made by State Legislatures on subjects within the
Concurrent List.17

16. Article 254 (1): There is a conflict between a law made by Centre and a law made by a State
Legislature on a Concurrent List subject which is forest (Arakh). The plaintiff

15
Point no 12 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
16
Point no 12 of the Moot Proposition – 7th edition Capacity building moot court competition, Nov 2024.
17
https://indianconstitution.guru/constitution-of-india/part-11/article-254/
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

contended that Wildlife Protection Act,2000 which is already governs the protection of
forests and wildlife and the State’s law which is Arakh Conservation and Sustainable
Utilization Act,2024 conflicted with the Union legislation (Wildlife Protection Act,2000)
and, by doing so, violated the federal structure enshrined in the Swarnadesh Constitution.
They emphasized that the protection of forests falls under the Concurrent List stipulated in
the Constitution.

17. Hence, it is humbly summitted before supreme court of Swarnadesh that Arakh Conservation
and Sustainable Act,2024 is unconstitutional on violative of Art.246, Art.254.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7th ANNUAL CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED, IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THAT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SWARNADESH MAY BE

PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

I. That, The Sammridhnagar Prohibition Act,2024 enacted by the State of Samriddhnagar is

ultra vires of the Constitution.

II. That, The Arakh Conservation and Sustainable Utilization Act,2024 enacted by the State
of Samriddhnagar is in contravention to the Constitution of Swarnadesh.

AND/OR

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS ADDITIONALLY PRAYS THAT THE COURT MAY
MAKE ANY SUCH ORDER AS IT MAY DEEM FIT IN TERMS OF EQUITY, FAIRNESS, JUSTICE AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL AS DUTY BOUND
EVER HUMBLY PRAY.

(RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED)
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER