Download Pith means ‘true nature’ or ‘essence of something’ and Substance means ‘the most important and more Thesis Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
INTRA MURAL MOOT 2021
CODE: MC0 20
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATAVARSHA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SUIT NO:…… OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE GOVERNMENT ……………Petitioner
versus
UNION OD BHARATAVARSHA ……………. Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO: …..
SURAKSHA FARMERS ASSOCIATION ……………..petitioner
versus
UNION OD BHARATAVARSHA ……………. Respondent
UPON SUBMISSION TO
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………
1. CASES REFERRED…………………………………………………………
2. BOOKS REFERRED………………………………………………...............
3. ARTICLES & REPORTS…………………………………………………….
4. LEGISLATIONS……………………………………………………...............
5. ONLINESOURCES…………………………………………………..............
III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………..
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………….……………................
V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………….…………..........................
VI. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS………………………………………..................
VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………...............
1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABE BEFORE THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATAVARSHA OR NOT?.........
2. WHETHER THE FARM ACT VIOLATES THE LEGISTATIVE
COMPETENCY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
BHARATAVARSHA CONSITUTION OR NOT?...............................................
3. WHETHER THE 3 FARM ACT 2020 BENEFIT THE FARMER’S
PRODUCE OR NOT?............................................................................................
VIII. PRAYER……………………………………………………………...…………
1.CASES REFERED
SUPREME COURT CASES:
S.NO NAME OF THE CASES CITATION
1 Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports,
AIR 1974 SC 1539
2 Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 3 Hans Muller of Nurenberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors
1955 AIR 367, 1955 SCR (1)
4 Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal.,. A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1044 5 1 V.Annaraja vs The Secretary to The Union of India 8 February, 2019 6 State of Karnataka vs Union of India & Another 8 November, 1977 1978 AIR 68, 1978 SCR (2) 1 7 West Bengal government’s case 2017 8 the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India, (2011) 12 SCC 268 9 State of Bombay v FN Balsara 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682 10 Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Borough Municipality,
1970 AIR 192, 1970 SCR (1) 35
11 I.T.C Ltd. V. Agricultural Produce Market Committee 2002 12 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India 1979 AIR 898, 1979 SCR (3) 254 13 Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1959 AIR 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8 14 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 15 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India., A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 498
16 Mohd. Usman v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1801 17 Kallakurichi Taluk Retd. Officials Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2013) 2 S.C.C. 772, 794.
18 St. Stephen’s College v. Union of India. 6 December, 1991 (1992) 1 SCC 558 19 Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1989 AIR 1988, 1989 SCR (3) 20 Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh
A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1246.
21 Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 128. 22 Kehar Singh v. Union of India A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 653. 23 1 Justice K.S. Putta Swamy (Retd.) v. Union of India ., (2015) 8 S.C. 735, 741 24 Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India,
(2009) 7 SCC 561,
2. BOOKS REFERED
S.NO NAME
1 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (6th ed.)
3. ARTICLES & REPORTS S.NO DETAILS 1 Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill James Monke, Randy Alison Aussenberg, Megan Stubbs Congressional Research Service, 2012 2 Farmers’ Agitation in India Due to Audacious Farm Bill of 2020 Subhendu Bhattacharya, Utsavi Patel International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 4 (1), 35-37, 2021 3 Farm Bills 2020 Shriya Chavan The Arthniti, 52-62, 2021
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONERS HAVE APPROACHED THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT
UNDER ARTICLE 131 AND ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BHARSTVARSHA,1950. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS,
CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.
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: BACKGROUND 1.“Bharatavarsha” is a democratic Country consisting of 28 States and 8 Union Territories. Its total population is 1.36 crores. Bharatavarsha has a written Constitution identical to the Constitution of India. And the same laws are been practised Agriculture is the primary occupation of the people of Bharatavarsha and it contributes to approximately 20% of GDP.
- In 2014, Bharatavarsha People Party (BPP) came to power and formed the government. In their political manifesto, they brought many schemes and policies for the upliftment of farmers through which more than 80 lakhs main and marginal farmers were benefitted.
- The BPP government within two years of assuming power ordered the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare to study and analyse the shortcomings of the current agricultural market environment of the Country.
- the study revealed the prevalence of corruption and monopoly of traders and middlemen in the markets. It brought to light the poor state of infrastructure in these markets and also that they didn’t function in the interest of the farmers.
- Subsequently, there was an outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic which brought the entire world to a standstill. All the governments of the world including “Bharatavarsha” imposed lockdown in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID - 19 virus.
- As a stimulus to the declining economy, different measures were taken by the government. The Government with an aim to transform agriculture and its allied sector introduced three Acts namely, 1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation), Act,
- Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and 3) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. These new legislations are identical to the Indian ones.
- While introducing the Acts, the minister announced that all these measures would give effect to the neoliberal policy shift which is essential for a welfare state. Further, the laws would bring
ISSUES RAISED
- I-
1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABE BEFORE THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATAVARSHA OR NOT?
- II-
2. WHETHER THE FARM ACT VIOLATES THE LEGISTATIVE COMPETENCY
AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE BHARATAVARSHA CONSITUTION OR
NOT?
- III-
3.WHETHER THE 3 FARM ACT 2020 BENEFIT THE FARMER’S PRODUCE OR
NOT?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Issue-I It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that petition filed by the state government and the PIL filed by the Suraksha Farmers Association is not maintainable under this jurisdiction as there has been no violation of fundamental right in the present case. Moreover, a petition can be filed under Art. 32 of the constitution only when the fundamental right is violated. hence, the PIL is not maintainable. And also, that the State government cannot ask for any remedy related to Fundamental rights under the art 131 of the constitution. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. Issue-II It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Union Government has Legislative competency to enact the Farmer’s Acts. Entry 33,34 and 20 of List III and Entry 42 of List I serve as the necessary entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Bharatavarsha Constitution empowering the Union to enact the Farmers’ Act. Article 246(2) of the Constitution makes it clear that the Union power shall prevail in a case of conflict between List II and List III. It is further submitted that, by applying the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, the Farmers’ Act are well within the legislative competence of the Union and not necessarily encroach the subjects in the State List. Issue-III It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the 3 farm Act 2020 ensure the availability of a transparent, easily accessible, and efficient marketing platform is a pre- requisite to ensure remunerative prices for farmers. Most farmers lack access to government procurement facilities and APMC markets. This Act creates a national framework for contract farming through an agreement between a farmer and a buyer before the production or rearing of any farm produces.
piece of legislation under 32. Therefore, it is evident that only a person aggrieved can file a writ Petition under Art. 32. In the present case no person or an individual is be hurt or aggrieved by the farm Act 2020. Therefore, the ordinances do not Violate of basic human rights of the poor. And also, it does not Violate other basic fundamental rights also. In addition to this, a person acquires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or Individual right, which has been violated or threatened to be violated.^4 Since, no right of Petitioner has been infringed, he has no locus standi before the Court. Hence, not only to protect the sanctity of the judiciary, but also for the up keep of the faith of the public in the judiciary, locus standi must not be relaxed in cases where the litigant does not act in the interest of the public as a whole. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present petition is not maintainable as the subject matter does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court and the petitioner does not have sufficient locus standi to approach this court in the present case Normally, there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large in number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action^5. In the present case farm Act 2020 is facing similar kind of allegation regarding the validity of the act where the petition has the presumptuous view on the government action. It was humbly contended that this would not be regarded as public interest litigation and, the petitioners had no locus standi to file the present petitions. We are unable to agree to this submission 1.3.That the States Can Approach the Supreme Court Challenging the Central Law Under Art 131 Only When the Constitutionality of a Statute Is Violated or Not? (^4) Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal., A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1044. (^5) V.Annaraja vs The Secretary to The Union of India on 8 February, 2019
As per Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Under Article 131 of the Constitution of Bharatavarsha the petition is maintainable, But on Emphasising the serious concerns regarding the issues of this case. 6 It is humbly submitted that the Counsel would like to concede, petition filed by state is not maintainable as the allegation put forth, by state regarding the fundamental rights is pointless in the case of West Bengal government’s case in 20177 , the SC proclaimed that the State government cannot ask for any remedy related to Fundamental rights. The case was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the ‘Aadhaar Act’. The Court also held that, “Fundamental rights are available to individuals: citizens or non-citizens against the State (under Article 32 or Article 226) and not to the State entities.” Therefore, it is clear that the farm Act 2020 has not violated the legal right Even in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India, 2011^8 case, supreme court observed the issue dealing with electricity was raised and the Court held that States cannot challenge a central law under Article 131. As in the present case the central has not violated the legality of the constitution Therefore, the state does not have a locus standi to approach the supreme court under the article 131 of the constitution to challenge the farm Act 2020. 1.4.That the court cannot inquire in the proceedings of the parliament. As mentioned in the facts of the case central government has shown an absolute majority in Lok Sabha and almost Rajya Sabha. If the Act was violative the parties would have opposed it and they should walkout decreasing the mark of enactment to article 105 and article 108 of the bhratvarsha constitution to which National Democratic Alliance has the majority in the upper house. Even when the opposition demanded digital voting of the Act but the government has a valid argument that due to covid 19 protocols all MPs were not on their seats and as per rules of the house all members should be on their respective seat to go for digital voting so in this scenario dept chairman did voice vote. (^6) State of Karnataka vs Union of India & Another on 8 November, 1977 (^7) West Bengal government’s case in 2017 (^8) the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India, 2011
regulate “inter-State trade and commerce”. While trade and commerce “within the State” is under entry 26^15 of the State List, it is subject to the provisions of entry 33 of the Concurrent List – under which the Centre can make laws that would prevail over those enacted by the states. Entry 33 of the Concurrent List covers trade and commerce in “foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils, fodder, cotton and jute”. The Centre, in other words, can pass any law that removes all impediments to both inter- and intra-state trade in farm produce, while also overriding the existing state APMC Acts. The FPTC Act does precisely that. However, distinction between agricultural “marketing” and “trade”. Agriculture per se would deal with everything that a farmer does — right from field preparation and cultivation to also the sale of his/her own produce. The act of primary sale at a mandi by the farmer is as much “agriculture” as production in the field. “Trade” begins only after the produce has been “marketed” by the farmer. In the Sarkaria commission it has pointed out the relationship between the centre- state about the centre using the entry 33 in the concurrent list to enact essential commodities Act 1955, where this Act empowers the centre to manage the agriculture sector and now by amending it in 2020, the Act got further increase in power to centre in the agriculture division. And also, in the entry 34 in the concurrent list mentions ‘Price Control’ again where it gives scope for the Centre’s entry into agriculture and invasion into the powers of the states. The government of Tamil Nadu had recognised that Entry 33 and 34 in the concurrent list had a damaging impact on state autonomy in the sphere of agriculture and in its memorandum to the Sarkaria commission had demanded that Entry 33 and 34 be transferred from the concurrent list to the state list. 2.1.1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The Doctrine of Basic Structure signifies the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot be changed/amended, as they form the foundation of the Constitution on which its core principles/existence stands The implementation of the three farm laws 1) Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; (2) Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; (^15) Entry 2 6 - Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III
and (3) Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. Hence, it is federal in nature in which the state government power is not been violated as far as the central is concerned. As the judicial review concerned the Act has come up with dispute settlements in the FPTC under section 13 and 15 and farming agreement under section 18 and 19. 2.1.2. Doctrine of Pith & Substance: Pith means ‘true nature’ or ‘essence of something’ and Substance means ‘the most important or essential part of something’. Doctrine of Pith and Substance says that where the question arises of determining whether a particular law relates to a particular subject (mentioned in one List or another), the Court looks for the substance (i.e., the essential feature) of the matter. Thus, if the substance falls within Union List the incidental encroachment by the Central law on the subject mentioned in the State List does not make it invalid. Accordingly, entry 33 of the concurrent list the Centre is within its rights to frame laws that promote barrier-free trade of farm produce (inter- as well as intra-state) and do not allow stockholding or export restrictions and so on. The ordinances are passed in protection of action taken in a good faith. Therefore, the central have not ultra vires its constitutional powers In the case of State of Bombay v FN Balsara^16 , the Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged on the ground that it accidentally encroaches upon import and export of liquor across custom frontier – a central subject. The court while upholding the impugned legislation declared that the Act was in pith and substance a State subject even though it incidentally encroached upon a central subject. 2.1.3. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation: The doctrine is based on the power separation. Separation of power mandates to strike power of balance between different state components. Colorable Legislation is that under the ‘color’ or ‘appearance’ of the power conferred for one particular purpose, the legislature cannot seek to achieve some other purpose which it is otherwise not competent to legislate on. It comes into play when a Legislature does not possess the power to make laws upon a particular subject but it indirectly makes law on it^17. (^16) State of Bombay v FN Balsara (^17) In the case of Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Borough Municipality,
subject matter replacing the Act of the State legislature, and 3) whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State legislature occupy the same field. 20 According to the present case the, Entry 26 and 27 of the State List are not exclusive and are subject to the provisions in Entry 33 of List III. As per this doctrine, with regards to subject matter in Entry 33 the Union legislation prevails over the State legislation (i.e.). the Farmers’ Act is to prevail over the State APMC Acts as it strives to bring about uniformity in the trade and commerce in agricultural sector throughout the Country. 2.2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the central did not violate fundamental rights od the farmers by introducing the farm Act. Where the Ordinances aim to liberalise trade and increase the number of buyers, to abolish monopoly and prevent farmer abuse from the artificial demand that the trader and the middlemen deem to. A. Conformity with the Part III of the Constitution. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are known as the golden triangle of the Constitution. In Maneka Gandhi Case, the Court held that, “a law depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ under Art 21 must not only stand the test of Art 19 and Art 14 of the Constitution.”^21 As the central also confirms that there are inherent safeguards, in-built in the Farm Laws, for the protection of the land of the farmers and that it will be ensured that no farmer will lose his land. i) The Farmers’ laws are not in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution: Art 14 of the Bhartavarsha Constitution states that “The State shall not deny to any persons equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within its territory.” This right to equality is also recognized as one of the basic structures of the Constitution.^22 The validity of a rule has to be judged by assessing its overall effect and not its exceptional clauses.^23 The test for valid classification states two conditions for a reasonable classification; (^20) Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (^21) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597. (^22). Indra Sawhney v. Union of India., A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 498 (^23) Mohd. Usman v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 18 01
firstly, the intelligible differentia, secondly, the rational nexus between the differentia and object of the Statute.^24 The state must take positive steps to remove inequalities.^25 ii) The Farmers’ laws assure the right to trade and occupation: Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The object of using four analogous and overlapping words in this Article is to make a guaranteed right as comprehensive as possible to include all the avenues and modes through which a man may earn livelihood.^26 The freedom under this Article is however, not uncontrolled. Clause 6 of the Article authorizes legislation which 1) imposes reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public; 2) prescribes necessary professional or technical qualification; 3) enables the State monopoly on any trade or business, wholly or partially. In order to make effective such legislation for the control of market, it would be reasonable for the legislature to control transaction between the traders and also the sale of produce grown outside the market area, if sold in the market area.^27 A Government circular requiring the farmers to buy pump sets out of State grants from authorized dealers only has been upheld as a reasonable restriction.^28 Here, The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 enliven the right available to a farmer under Article 19(1)(g) by granting him freedom of trade (S. 3) and removing the restrictions like market fees placed by the APMC Acts (S. 6). The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 promotes the sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price framework (S. 5) in a fair and transparent manner. These Acts, as given above are well connected with their object to promote economic Justice to the farmers throughout the Country. iii) The Farmers’ Law uphold the right to livelihood. Article 21 of the Constitution states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” This Article is an (^24) Kallakurichi Taluk Retd. Officials Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu., (2013) 2 S.C.C. 772, 794. (^25) St. Stephen’s College v. Union of India., 6 December, 1991 (^26) Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee., (^27). Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1246. (^28) Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 128.
