International Relationship Between North Korea and South Korea

T58
UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS, 2012

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF KONIGSBERG
WRIT PETITION U/ART. 32 & REVIEW PETITION U/ART. 137
T! S"#$!%& "' U()$*!* P+$,)%! S#""-. "' K"($/.0!+/ & O+.. 111111P!%$%$"(!+ 1
T! S"#$!%& "' F+!! E*2#)%$"()- I(.%$%2%$"(.111...1111111111P!%$%$"(!+ 2
,

T! U($"( "' K"($/.0!+/111111111111111111111.R!.3"(*!(%

4R!,$!5 P!%$%$"( 4C$,$-6 N". 1778 "' 2012/
W+$% P!%$%$"( 4C$,$-6 N". 19:2 "' 20126
MEMORAN;UM for RESPON;ENT
-Table of Contents-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................i
Index of Authorities..................................................................................................................iii
Books....................................................................................................................................iii
Articles and Treatises............................................................................................................iii
Cases.....................................................................................................................................iii
Statement of Jurisdiction...........................................................................................................vi
Identification f Issues............................................................................................................vii
Statement of !acts...................................................................................................................viii
Summar" of Ar#uments...........................................................................................................xii
Ar#uments Advanced.................................................................................................................$
I. %evie& 'etition (civil) *o. $+85 f ,-$, is not .aintainable and /alid.....................$
A. S%)%2%"+& 3+",$.$"(.....................................................................................................1
B. <2*$#$)- 3+"("2(#!=!(%.............................................................................................1
II. 'ublic Interest 0rit 'etition (civil) *o. $12, of ,-$, Is .aintainable And /alid........,
A. T! 3!%$%$"(!+ *"!. ("% ),! -"#2. .%)(*$ $( $(,">$(/ %! C"2+%?. @2+$.*$#%$"(.. . .2
B. N" F2(*)=!(%)- R$/%. ),! 0!!( $('+$(/!*...........................................................A
C. P+!.!(#! "' 3!+."()- ="%$,! +!(*!+. %! .)$* 3!%$%$"( ("% =)$(%)$()0-!...............7
III. The Su3reme Court has not violated Article $2 of the Constitution of 4oni#sber#
due to the classification created bet&een minorit" and non-minorit" schools......................8
A. C-)..$'$#)%$"( 0!$(/ +!)."()0-!..................................................................................7
B. P+"%!#%$"( "' A+%$#-! 30416...........................................................................................7
-i-
-Table of Contents-
I/. The %T5 Act6 ,--1 is not violative f The !undamental %i#hts 7uaranteed 8nder
Article $1($)(#) and Article $5(5) and ,$A are Constitutionall" /alid and in consonance
&ith The Basic Structure of The Constitution........................................................................1
A.1. O0@!#%. )(* R!)."(. "' %! C"(.%$%2%$"( 4N$(!%&B T$+* A=!(*=!(%6 A#%, 2008
9
B. A+%$#-! 21BA *"!. ("% ,$"-)%! %! B).$# S%+2#%2+! ;"#%+$(!....................................11
C. T! RTE A#%, 2009 $. ("% ,$"-)%$,! "' )+%$#-! 194164/6 "' %! #"(.%$%2%$"(............13
Conclusion and 'ra"er for %elief.............................................................................................$5
-ii-
-Index of Authorities-
2BIN;EC OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS
$. 9 9 Basu6 Commentary on the Constitution of India (2
th
edn.6 S.C. Sarkar : Sons
( 3vt ) ;td6 $1<$) =8> =$,>
,. 9r. ;... Sin#hvi6 Constitution of India (/olume $6 ,
nd
edn.6.odern ;a& 'ublications6
,--<) =$$> =$2>
?. @enr" Cam3bell Black6 Blacks Law Dictionary in Bryan A. arner (ed) (Thomson
0est ,--<). =?>
2. I.'..asse"6 Administrati!e Law (+
th
edn.6 eastern book com3an"6 ,--8) =<>
5. . ' Jain6 Indian Constitutional Law "volume ,6 5
th
edn.6 0adh&a and com3an"
*a#3ur6 ,--?) =$,>
ARTICLES AN; TREATISES
$. 9.C. Jain6 AThe 'hantom of 'ublic Interest ($18<) ? SCC (J) ?- =+>
,. 83endra Baxi6 ATakin# Sufferin# seriousl"B Social Action ;iti#ation in the Su3reme
Court of IndiaC ,1 ICJ %evie&6 ?+-21 (9ecember $18,) =<>
?. Deon# ;. 0atson AEudicial Activism and 'ublic interest liti#ationC Columbia Journal of
Transactional;a& (,--$) ,?. =2>
2. @albur"Cs la&s of India6 (5
th
edn.6 ,--5) /ol. ,,6 585 =5>
5. Constituent Assembly of India /ol $$6 Constituent assembl" debate on ,5
th
9ecemeber6 $121 =$->
CASES
$. Ahmedabad #t. $a!iers Colle%e #ociety ! #tate of u&arat AI% $1+2 SC $?81 =$$>
,. A.'. Antulay ! ' # (ayak AI% $188 SC $5?$ =+>
?. Balco )m*loyees +nion ! +nion of India (,--,) , SCC ??? =?>
2. Chandra ,anta ! #heikh -abib =$1+5> ? SC% 1?5 =$>
5. )shwara Iyer ! 'e%istrar AI% $18- SC 8-8 =,>
<. -anif .uareshi /ohd. ! #tate of Bihar AI% $158 SC +?$ =$2>
+. I ' Coelho ! #tate of Tamil (adu (,--+) , SCC $ =$?>
8. Indian /edical Association ! +nion of India 0 1rs (,-$$) + SCC $+1 =$->
1. Indra andhi ! 'a& (arain AI% $1+5 SC ,,11 =$?>
-iii-
$-. Indra #awhney ! +nion of India AI% $11? SC 2++ =8> =$?>
$$. 2anta Dal ! - # Choudhury ($11,) 2 SCC ?-5 =?> =2> =+>
$,. ,asturi Lal Lakshmi 'eddy !. #tate of 20, AI% $18- SC $11, =$2>
$?. ,esa!ananda Bharti ! #tate of ,erela AI% $1+? SC $2<$ =$?>
$2. ,rishnan ,akkanth ! o!t. of ,erala AI% $11+ SC $,8 =$5>
$5. Lily Thomas ! +nion of India AI% ,--- SC $<5- =$>
$<. /.'.3 Ltd. ! Ins*ector ,erala o!t ($118) 8 SCC ,,+ =$5>
$+. /alik Bros. ! (arendra Dadhich "$111) < SCC 55, =8>
$8. /eera Bhan&a ! (irmala ,umari Choudhury ($115) $ SCC $+- =,>
$1. /iner!a /ills ! +nion of India AI% $18- SC $+81 =$,> =$?>
,-. /ohini 2ain ! #tate of ,arnataka "$11,) ? SCC <<< =$2>
,$. (aresh shridhar /ira&kar ! #tate of /aharashtra 0 Anr AI% $1<+ SC $ =+>
,,. (ilamber /ishra ! +nion of India AI% ,--- 'at $5- =2>
,?. 4.+.D.' ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $2+ =2>
,2. 4atel (arshi Thakersh and 1rs. ! 4radyunman sin%h &i Ar&un sin%h &i AI% $1+- SC
$,+? =$>
,5. 4atricin /ukhim ! state of /e%halaya ($11+) , 7au ;T ,$8 =?>
,<. 4eo*les for Democratic 'i%hts ! /inistry of home Affairs AI% $185 9el ,<8 =?>
,+. 4ost raduate Institute of /edical )ducation 0 'esearch5 Chandi%arh !. ,.L
(arasimhan ($11+) < SCC ,8 =$$>
,8. 4radee* 2ain ! +nion of India AI% $182 SC $1,- =$->
,1. 'a&esh 'athi ! #tate of 'a&asthan %;0 $11+(?) %aE ,-+- =?>
?-. 'am ,rishna Dalmia ! Tendolakar AI% $158 SC 5?8 =$<>
?$. 'auna6 International Ltd ! I.7.'. Construction Ltd ($11$) $ SCC 21, =5>
-iv-
?,. #.4.u*ta ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $21 =2> =5>
??. #atyanarayan Laxminarayan -e%de ! /allikar&un Bha!ana**a Tirumale AI% $1<-
SC $?+ =,>
?2. #ecretary5 -aryana #tate )lectricity Board ! #uresh AI% $111 SC $$<- =$,>
?5. #ociety for +n-aided 4ri!ate #chools of 'a&asthan ! +nion of India "+1I8 and Anr
(,-$,) < SCC $ =1> =$,> =$2> =$5>
?<. #tate of Bombay ! './.D Chamarbau%wala AI% $15+ SC <11 =$?>
?+. #ubhash,umar ! #tate of Bihar AI% $11$ SC0 $,$ =2>
?8. #wadeshi Cotton /ills ! India AI% $18$ SC8$8 =<>
?1. Thun%abhadra Industries Ltd. ! o!t. of A.4 ($1<2) 5 SC% $+2 =,>
2-. T/A 4ai 3oundation ! #tate of ,arnataka (,--,) 8 SCC 28$ =$2> =$5>
2$. +&&ambai ! #tate of +.4 AI% $1<, SC $<,$ =+>
2,. +nion of India ! A&ay 9ahi (,-$-) $$ SCC ,$? =$$>
-v-
-#tatement of 2urisdiction-
3BSTATEMENT OF <URIS;ICTION
The Societ" of 8naided 'rivate Schools of 4oni#sber#6 'rivate 8naided *on-.inorit"
5ducational Institutions and others6 the 'etitioners in the instant case6 have the honour to
submit this .emorial before the Su3reme Court of 4oni#sber#6 in 3ursuance of Article ?,
and Article $?+ of the Constitution of 4oni#sber#.
The *resent memorial sets forth the facts5 contentions and ar%uments in the *resent case.
-vi-
-Identification of Issues-
4BI;ENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
The follo&in# Fuestions have been 3resented before the @onourable Court for its
determinationB
The follo&in# issues have been 3resented before the @onourable Court for its determinationB
$. 0hether the %evie& 'etition (civil) *o. $+85 of ,-$, is maintainable.
,. 0hether the 'ublic Interest 0rit 'etition bein# 0rit 'etition (civil) *o. $12, of ,-$,
is maintainable.
?. 0hether the Su3reme Court has violated Article $2 due to the classification created
bet&een minorit" and non-minorit" schools.
2. 0hether the %T5 Act6 ,--1 is violative of the !undamental %i#ht #uaranteed under
Article $1($)(#) and &hether Article $5(5) and ,$-A are constitutionall" valid and in
consonance &ith the Basic structure of the Constitution.
-vii-
-#tatement of 3acts-
5BSTATEMENT OF FACTS
I
The 8nion of 4oni#sber#6 a Soverei#n 9emocratic %e3ublic6 became inde3endent
from the 8nion of India. But even after the se3aration from the India6 there is continuit" of
3re-inde3endence la&s and the Constitution of 4oni#sber# is closel" modelled on the Indian
Constitution. 4oni#sber# considers itself a common la& Eurisdiction and the Eud#ments of
Indian courts have 3ersuasive value in 4oni#sber#6 es3eciall" on constitutional issues.
II
The 'arliament of 4oni#sber# enacted the %i#ht of Children to !ree and Com3ulsor"
5ducation Act6 ,--1 &hich is identical to the %T5 Act6 ,--1. /ide section $,($)(c) of the
%T5 Act6 ,--1 it &as 3rovided that unaided 3rivate minorit" schools &ould have to admit in
Class I6 to the extent at least ,5 t&ent" five 3ercent of the stren#th of that class6 children
belon#in# to financiall" &eaker sections of the societ" in the nei#hbourhood and 3rovide free
and com3ulsor" education to such children6 till its com3letion.
III
The 3etitioner AThe Societ" of 8naided 'rivate Schools of 4oni#sber#C filed a &rit
3etition bein# 0rit 'etition (Civil) *o. $-<< of ,-$- challen#in# the constitutional validit" of
the %T5 Act6 ,--1 as bein# violative of their fundamental ri#ht to run and administer
educational institutions under the Article $1($)(#) of the Constitution as inter3reted in various
Eud#ments of the SC.
IV
The 3etitioner also challen#ed the constitutional validit" of Article $5(5) and ,$-A of
the Constitution as bein# violative of the basic structure of the Constitution as the" said that
state could im3ose reservation in 3rivate unaided non-minorit" educational institutions &hile
the state could not do so in res3ect of 3rivate unaided minorit" educational institutions. The
?-Eud#e bench &as of the o3inion that since the challen#e involved raised Fuestions as to the
validit" of Articles $5(5) and ,$-A of the Constitution6 the matter needed to be referred to a
Constitution Bench of 5 Eud#es and directed it to be 3laced before a Constitution bench.
V
-viii-
But the matter came u3 before the same ?-Eud#e bench and it o3ined that it &as not in
favour of referrin# the matter to the Constitution Bench as the SC &as alread" hard 3ressed
for &ork. !urthermore6 the counsel conceded that the" &ere &ithdra&in# the challen#e to the
Constitutional validit" of Article $5(5) and ,$-A6 and &ere restrictin# their challen#e to the
constitutional validit" of the %T5 Act6 ,--1 alone. The concession &as acce3ted.
VI
B" its Eud#ments6 the ?-Eud#e bench6 b" a maEorit" of ,-$6 u3held the constitutional
validit" of the %T5 Act6 ,--1 in its entiret"6 and es3eciall" the 3rovisions of Section $,($)(c)
thereof &hich sou#ht to im3ose reservations on financial criteria alone in 3rivate unaided
non-minorit" institutions. The dissentin# Eud#e said that thou#h the %T5 Act &as as such
valid6 but invalid to the extent that it sou#ht to im3ose reservation on an" #round &hatsoever
in 3rivate unaided non-minorit" institutions. @o&ever6 the ?-Eud#e bench unanimousl" held
that the entire %T5 Act &as invalid so far as minorit" unaided 3rivate educational institutions
as it violated their fundamental ri#hts under Article ,1 : ?-.
VII
%evie& 'etitions &ere filed a#ainst the said Eud#ment on various #rounds includin#
that the said Eud#ments are vitiated b" errors a33arent on the face of record and that the said
Eud#ments are 3er incuriam 3ra"in# that the matter be referred to a Constitution bench for
fresh hearin#. The 3etitioners also diso&ned the concession made b" their counsel and sou#ht
to challen#e Articles $5(5) : ,$-A afresh6 alle#in# that the concession &hich #ravel" violated
their !%Cs &as made b" the counsel &ithout consent. The" also claimed that the" &ere
considerin# the brin#in# of an action a#ainst the counsel.
VIII
A number of 3rivate unaided minorit" educational institutions &ho did not Eoin in the
3roceedin#s have also filed a 3ublic interest &rit 3etition alle#in# mala fide and bias a#ainst
the then Chief Justice of 4oni#sber# on the Administrative side of the Su3reme Court as
.aster of the %oster for havin# denied them a hearin# on their !%Cs6 &hich ri#ht to hearin#
--&as itself a !undamental %i#ht. The" also contended that the said CJI as .aster of the
%oster had violated their fundamental ri#hts under Articles $2 : ,$ of the Constitution b"
-ix-
refusin# to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench on s3ecious #round that the court &as too
bus".
The" lastl" claimed that the SC itself had violated their !% to eFualit" and eFual 3rotection of
la&s under Article $2 of the Constitution since the" had been burdened &ith ,5G reservation
&hile minorit" institutions &ere not burdened.
Y!)+ )(* ;)%! K!& F)#%. L)5 $( D2!.%$"(
,--1 $. %i#ht of Children to !ree and Com3ulsor"
5ducation Act enacted.
,. 8naided non-minorit" 3rivate schools &ill
have to admit to the extent of ,5G of the
stren#th of the class6 children belon#in# to
financiall" &eaker sections of the societ".
$,($)(c) of the %T5 Act6
,--1
,-$- $. 0rit 3etition (civil) *o. $-<< of ,-$- &as
filed challen#in# the constitutional validit"
of the %T5 Act6 ,--1.
Article $1($)(#)6 $5(5)
and ,$ A of the
Constitution.
$+-$-,-$$ The issues raised as to the constitutional
validit" of Articles $5(5) and ,$A &ere
&ithdra&n b" the Counsel.
Article $5(5) and ,$A of
the Constitution.
$,-2-,-$, %T5 Act6 ,--1 &as held constitutional b" a
three Eud#e bench.
Section $,($)(c) of the
%T5 Act and Article $1($)
(#)6 ,1 and ?- of the
Constitution.
,-$, %evie& 'etition (Civil) *o. $+85 of ,-$,
&as filed contendin# that the &ithdra&al of
one of the issues &as &ithout the consent of
the ri#inal 'etitioners and &as ne#li#ent
on the 3art of the Counsel.
Article $?+ of the
Constitution.
,-$, 'ublic Interest 0rit 'etition (Civil) *o.
$12, of ,-$, &as filed alle#in# mala fides
a#ainst the Chief Justice and also contendin#
violation of their fundamental %i#hts
Article ?,6 $2 and ,$ of
the Constitution.
-x-
#uaranteed under the Constitution.
$5-1-,-$, All the 'etitions have been listed for hearin#
in the Su3reme Court.
-xi-
-#ummary of Ar%uments-
6BSUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. REVIEW PETITION 4CIVIL6 NO. 1778 OF 2012 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AN; VALI;
Article $?+ confers u3on the Court discretionar" 3o&ers. A revie& 3etition is not an a33eal in
dis#uise. nce the Constitutional validit" of The %T5 Act6 ,--1 has been decided b" the a3ex
authorit"6 it is mere rehearin# in the ex3ectation of a fresh Eud#ment6 to file a revie& 3etition.
.oreover6 the Court has not been under an" error6 since it &as onl" after the Counsel on
behalf of the 'etitioner had himself conceded re#ardin# the constitutional validit" of Articles
$5(5) and ,$-A. An error &hich has to be established b" a lon#-dra&n 3rocess of reasonin#
on 3oints &here there ma" conceivabl" be t&o o3inions can hardl" be said to be an error
a33arent on the face of the record. Therefore6 it can safel" be held that the 3etitioners have
not made out an" case for revie&in# the Eud#ment dated $-2-,-$,. The 3etition is
misconceived and bereft of an" substance.
II. PUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION 4CIVIL6 NO. 19:2 OF 2012 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
AN; VALI;
!or a 3ublic interest liti#ation to be valid6 there must be a 3ublic inEur" and 3ublic &ron#
caused b" a &ron#ful or ultra vires or omission of the state or a 3ublic authorit". In the
3resent case the Chief Justice has not violated the !undamental %i#ht of !air hearin#
#uaranteed under Article $26 ,$ and ?,. !urthermore6 *o remed" is available under Article ?,
&hen a Eudicial order is bein# challen#ed. A 3etitioner &ho comes to the court for relief in
the 3ublic interest must not onl" come &ith clean hands but also &ith a clean mind and a
clean obEective. 9ue to lack of bona fide interest and6 the doctrine of locus standi refuses to
fit in the case renderin# the 'I; not maintainable.
III. THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT VIOLATE; ARTICLE 1: ;UE TO THE CLASSIFICATION
CREATE; BETWEEN MINORITY AN; NONBMINORITY SCHOOLS
The ver" conce3t of eFualit" im3lies recourse to valid classification for 3references in favour
of disadvanta#ed classes of citiHens to im3rove their conditions so as to enable them to raise
themselves to 3ositions of eFualit" &ith some more fortunate classes of citiHens. .oreover6
such classification has been in furtherance of the ri#hts under Article ,1 and ?- of the
Constitution. @ence6 the non-inclusion of .inorit" instituted for im3osition of reservation
does not violate the 3rinci3le of eFualit" under article $2 of the Constitution.
-xii-
-#ummary of Ar%uments-
IV. THE RTE ACT, 2009 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUN;AMENTAL RIGHTS
GUARANTEE; UN;ER ARTICLE 194164G6 AN; ARTICLE 18486 AN; 21A ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALI; AN; IN CONSONANCE WITH THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
It is the constitutional obli#ation of the state to ensure free and com3ulsor" elementar"
education for children of the a#e of six to fourteen "ears and hence6 the state can im3ose
reasonable restrictions under Article $1($)(#) of the Constitution. A restriction bein# in the
interest of the #eneral 3ublic is reasonable. Im3osition of such reservation in unaided 3rivate
schools has a 3roximate connection &ith the fact that children from financiall" &eaker
sections of the societ" are 3revented from 3ursuin# and com3letin# the elementar".
It is necessar" to take into account de facto ineFualities of the societ" and take affirmative
action b" #ivin# 3reference to the sociall" and economicall" disadvanta#ed 3ersons or
inflictin# handica3s on those more advanta#eousl" 3laced in order to brin# about real
eFualit". Article $5(5) stren#thens the social fabric in &hich the Constitutional vision6 #oals
and values could be better achieved and served. SubseFuentl"6 the ri#ht of the minorit"
institution to admit students of its o&n communit" is a necessar" concomitant ri#ht &hich
flo&s from the ri#ht to establish and administer educational institutions under Article ?-($).
It is the dut" of the state to #ive effect to 3rinci3les of 9'S' &hile enactin# la&s. The %T5
Act6 ,--1 has been enacted to #ive effect to Articles 2$6 25 and 2< of the Constitution.
Therefore6 it is evident that Article ,$A and $5(5) are in no &a" violatin# the Basic Structure
of the Constitution.
-xiii-
-Conclusion and 4rayer for 'elief-
7BARGUMENTS A;VANCE;
A. 14B REVIEW PETITION 4CIVIL6 NO. 1778 OF 2012 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AN; VALI;
The Su3reme Court derives the 3o&er and 3rocedure of revie& under article $?+ of the
Constitution of India6 alon# &ith rder 2- %ule $ of the Su3reme Court %ules and rder 2+
%ule $ of the C'C. The 3o&er of revie& is a discretionar" 3o&er. Such discretion is made b"
the Su3reme Court subEect to the follo&in#B
A. S%)%2%"+& 3+",$.$"(.
The above mentioned statutor" 3rovisions la" do&n the follo&in# criteria for the
maintainabilit" of the revie& 3etitionB Some mistake or error a33arent on the face of the
recordI the discover" of ne& and im3ortant matter or evidence &hich6 after the exercise of
due dili#ence6 &as not &ithin his kno&led#e or could not be 3roduced b" him at the time
&hen the decree &as 3assed or order made.
B. <2*$#$)- 3+"("2(#!=!(%.
The 3o&er of revie& is not an inherent 3o&er. The revie& is also not an a33eal in dis#uise.
$
It
is &ell settled that a 3art" is not entitled to seek a revie& of a Eud#ment delivered b" the
Court merel" for the 3ur3ose of a rehearin# and a fresh decision of the case. The finalit" of
the Eud#ment &ill not be reconsidered exce3t &here a #larin# omission or 3atent mistake or
like #rave error has cre3t in earlier b" Eudicial fallibilit".
,
The Counsel on behalf of the
res3ondent &ould like to iterate before the @onorable Court that6 once the Constitutional
validit" of The %T5 Act6 ,--1 has been decided b" the a3ex authorit"6 it is mere rehearin# in
the ex3ectation of a fresh Eud#ment6 to file a revie& 3etition.
5rror contem3lated under the rule must be such &hich is a33arent on the face of the record
and not an error &hich has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence.
?
0here &ithout an" elaborate ar#ument one could 3oint to the error and sa" here is a
substantial 3oint of la& &hich stares one in the face6 and there could reasonabl" be no t&o
o3inions6 entertained about it6 a clear case of error a33arent on the face of the record &ould
be made out.
4
An error a33arent on the face of record must be such an error &hich must
$
4atel (arshi Thakersh and 1rs. !. 4radyunman sin%h &i Ar&un sin%h &i AI% $1+- SC $,+?.
,
Chandra ,anta !. #heikh -abib =$1+5> ? SC% 1?5.
?
Lily Thomas !. +nion of India. Di!ision Bench AI% ,--- SC $<5-.
2
Thun%abhadra Industries Ltd. !. o!t. of A.4 ($1<2) 5 SC% $+2.
-$-
strike one on mere lookin# at the record and &ould not reFuire an" lon#-dra&n 3rocess of
reasonin# on 3oints &here there ma" conceivabl" be t&o o3inions.
5
An error &hich has to be
established b" a lon#-dra&n 3rocess of reasonin# on 3oints &here there ma" conceivabl" be
t&o o3inions can hardl" be said to be an error a33arent on the face of the record.
<
*either a
#larin# or 3atent error on the face of the record can be 3ointed out b" mere lookin# and not
elaboratin# the 3oints of ar#ument6 nor has there been inEustice to the 'etitioners on the
#rounds of infrin#ement of their !undamental %i#hts (as shall be brou#ht to li#ht in the
subseFuent ar#uments). !urthermore6 in no &a" do the facts and circumstances sho& that it
&as the CourtCs mistake to have referred the matter to a Constitutional bench. In fact6 it &as
the Counsel on behalf of the 'etitioners themselves6 &ho se concession had made the .aster
of the %oster to constitute the bench.
A mere re3etition throu#h a different Counsel6 of old and overruled ar#ument6 a second tri3
over intellectuall" covered #round or minor mistakes of inconseFuential im3ort are obviousl"
insufficient. It is neither fairness to the Court nor a&areness of the 3recious 3ublic time lost6
for counsel to issue eas" certificates for entertainment of revie& and fi#ht over a#ain thee
same battle &hich has been fou#ht and lost.
7
Therefore6 it can safel" be held that the 3etitioners have not made out an" case for revie&in#
the Eud#ment dated $-2-,-$,. The 3etition is misconceived and bereft of an" substance.
B. 15BPUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION 4CIVIL6 NO. 19:2 OF 2012 IS MAINTAINABLE
AN; VALI;
The res3ondent humbl" submits that the 3resent 3ublic interest &rit 3etition no. $12, of ,-$,
filed in the @onorable Court for relief under Art. ?, of the Constitution of India &hich
confers u3on it discretionar" 3o&er to deal &ith 3etitions cannot be held maintainable and
valid due to absence of locus standi and vested 3rivate interest.
A. T! 3!%$%$"(!+ *"!. ("% ),! -"#2. .%)(*$ $( $(,">$(/ %! C"2+%?. @2+$.*$#%$"(.
A.1. N" 320-$# $(@2+& ). 0!!( #)2.!*
The 3hrase A3ublic interest liti#ationC is intended to mean liti#ation in the interest of 3ublic.
8
It ma" be defined as somethin# in &hich the 3ublic or the common communit" at lar#e has
5
/eera Bhan&a !. (irmala ,umari Choudhury ($115) $ SCC $+-.
<
#atyanarayan Laxminarayan -e%de !. /allikar&un Bha!ana**a Tirumale AI% $1<- SC $?+.
+
)shwara Iyer !. 'e%istrar5 #u*reme Court AI% $18- SC 8-8.
8
@enr" Cam3bel Black6 Blacks Law Dictionary in Bryan A. arner (ed)(Thomson 0est ,--<).
-,-
some 3ecuniar" interest or some interest b" &hich their le#al ri#hts or liabilities are affected.
1
Therefore6 lexicall"6 the ex3ression 3ublic interest liti#ation means an action initiated in a
court of la& for the enforcement of 3ublic or #eneral interest in &hich the 3ublic or a class of
communit" have 3ecuniar" interest b" &hich their le#al ri#hts or liabilit" are affected.
$-
'ublic
interest ;iti#ation has emer#ed as a result of the Euris3rudence of the Su3reme Court in
broadenin# its 3o&er of Eudicial revie& to accom3lish the social revolution contem3lated b"
the makers of the constitution.
$$
The idea of 3ublic interest liti#ation is to use it as an
innovative strate#" &hich has been evolved b" the Su3reme Court for the 3ur3ose of
3rovidin# eas" access to Eustice to the &eaker sections of Indian humanit".
$,
The %aEasthan
@i#h Court on revie& of maEor case la& on 3ublic interest liti#ation has found the three most
im3ortant conditions to examine &henever a 'I; is filed.
$?
These includeB
($) There must be 3ublic inEur" caused b" &ron#ful or ultra-vires acts or omission of the
State or a 3ublic authorit" and (,) it should be for the enforcement of basic human ri#hts of
&eaker sections of the communit" and (?) it must not be frivolous liti#ation b" 3ersons
havin# vested interest.
Since readin# out from the clear matrix of the statement of facts6 the a##rieved 3art" in the
said case does not belon# to an" &eaker section of the societ" 3erha3s the %T5 Act6 ,--1 is
3avin# the &a" for develo3ment of the &eaker sections of the societ" thus causin# no 3ublic
harm as it is for the u3liftment of the common man.
'er se6 no 3ublic interest can be said to exist in the matter as somethin# &hich is for the
benefit of the 3ublic at lar#e. .oreover6 the credentials of the said 3etitioners remain in dark
and thus have vested 3rivate interest. So the" are nothin# but a disinterested #rou3 of 3eo3le
filin# a 'I; in the #arb of 3ublic interest. Thus6 in the 3resent case it is submitted that no such
3ublic inEur" has resulted.
A.2 T! P!%$%$"(!+ *"!. ("% ),! .2''$#$!(% $(%!+!.% $( %! =)%%!+
0here there is a 3ublic inEur" caused b" an act or omission of the state or 3ublic authorit"
&hich is contrar" to the constitution or la&6 an" member of the 3ublic actin# bona fide and
&ith sufficient 3ublic interest can maintain an action for redressal of such 3ublic &ron# or
1
Balco )m*loyees +nion ! +nion of India (,--,) , SCC ???I 4eo*les for Democratic 'i%hts ! /inistry of
-ome Affairs AI% $185 9el ,<8.
$-
2anta Dal ! - # Choudhury ($11,) 2 SCC ?-5.
$$
4atricin/ukhim ! #tate of /e%halaya ($11+) , 7au ;T ,$8.
$,
-alsburys ;a&s of India (n<) 58<
$?
'a&esh 'athi ! #tate of 'a&asthan %;0 $11+(?) %aE ,-+-

-?-
3ublic inEur".
$2
The 3erson a33roachin# the court must act bona fide and not for 3ersonal #ain
or 3rivate 3rofit or 3olitical motive or an" obliFue consideration.
$5
'etitioner must not be
indul#in# in vexatious liti#ation.
It is submitted that the 3etitioner does not have an" sufficient interest in the matter. The
doctrine of locus standi &as relaxed for 3ublic interest liti#ation for social 3ro-active #rou3s
so as to 3romote and vindicate 3ublic interest &hich demands that violations of constitutional
or le#al ri#hts of lar#e number of 3eo3le &ho are 3oor6 i#norant or in a sociall" or
economicall" disadvanta#ed 3osition should not #o unnoticed and unaddressed.
$<
It re3resents
sustained efforts on the 3art of the Eudiciar" in India to 3rovide access to Eustice for the
de3rived and vulnerable sections of the Indian humanit".
$+
It is &ell-settled that 3ublic interest
liti#ation can be maintained onl" b" a 3erson or #rou3 of 3ersons6 &ho have no 3ersonal
interest in the matter and are &orkin# for the benefit of those under3rivile#ed and hel3less6
&ho cannot come to the Court of la& for redress of their #rievance.
$8
This &as reiterated b"
'andian J in the case of 2anata Dal !. -.#. Chowdhary and 1thers
:;
6 as underB <It is clear
that only a *erson actin% bona fide and ha!in% sufficient interest in the *roceedin% of 4IL
will alone ha!e a locus standi and can a**roach the court to wi*e out the tears of the *oor
and needy5 sufferin% from !iolation of their fundamental ri%hts5 but not a *erson for *ersonal
%ain or *ri!ate *rofit or *olitical moti!e or any obli6ue consideration. #imilarly5 a !exatious
*etition under the colour of 4IL brou%ht before the court for !indicatin% any *ersonal
%rie!ance5 deser!es re&ection at the threshold.=
It is res3ectfull" submitted that the %T5 Act6 ,--1 and the decision of the Court does not
curtail an" ri#hts of those &ho are sociall" or economicall" handica33ed and unable to
a33roach the Court. The act is in the #reater interest of the 3ublic. The 3etitioners in the
3resent case constitute 3rivile#ed sections of our societ" and can a33roach the court on their
o&n in case the" feel that their ri#hts are bein# violated.
,-
5ven &here no 3articular 3erson
has been le#all" inEured but a 3ublic inEur" has been caused b" the violation of the
constitutional 3rinci3le such as the inde3endence of the Eudiciar"6 an" 3erson &ho is likel" to
$2
#.4.u*ta ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $21.
$5
#.4.u*ta ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $21I See also 2anta Dal ! -.# Choudhury $11? SCC (Cri)
?< I#ubhash,umar ! #tate of Bihar AI% $11$ SC0 $,$.
$<
4.+.D.' ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $2+?.
$+
Deon# ;. 0atson A2udicial Acti!ism and 4ublic Interest Liti%ationC Columbia Journal of Transactional ;a&
(,--$) ,?.
$8
(ilamber /ishra !.+nion of India AI% ,--- 'at $5- at $5, (9B).
$1
2anata Dal !. -.#. Chowdhary and 1thers ($11,) 2 SCC ?-.
,-
'roblem !ile6 J1.
-2-
be affected b" such 3ublic inEur" such as a la&"er &ould be allo&ed to com3lain of such
violation.
,$
A 3ublic interest ;iti#ation can be launched onl" &hen the actual a##rieved
3erson cannot a33roach the court for redress o&in# to such 3erson bein# in custod" or &here
such 3erson belon#s to a class or #rou3 of 3ersons &ho are in a disadvanta#ed 3osition on
account of 3overt"6 disabilit" or other social or economic im3ediment and are unable to
enforce their ri#hts.
,,

In the case of #.4.u*ta ! +nion of India
,?
5 it was em*hatically *ointed out that the
relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of 4IL does not %i!e any ri%ht to a busy body
or midlesome interlo*er to a**roach the court under the %uise of *ublic interest liti%ation.
In the case of 'auna6 International Ltd !. I.7.'. Construction Ltd
,2
it &as observed6
<9hen a *etition is filed as *ublic interest liti%ation5 the court must satisfy that *arty which
has brou%ht the liti%ation is liti%atin% bona fide for *ublic %ood. The *ublic interest liti%ation
should not be merely a cloak for attainin% *ri!ate ends of a third *arty. )!en when the *ublic
interest liti%ation is entertained the court must be careful to wei%h conflictin% *ublic interest
before inter!enin%.=
B" 3uttin# forth the above said statements in the 3resent case6 it can be deduced that the
'etition cannot be held maintainable as no ri#hts of those &ho belon# to the under3rivile#ed
societ" are bein# enforced and lack of sufficient interest further reiterates the same.
B. N" F2(*)=!(%)- R$/%. ),! 0!!( $('+$(/!*
B.1 T! =).%!+ "' %! +".%!+ ). ("% ,$"-)%!* )(& '2(*)=!(%)- +$/%
It cannot be more ex3ressl" stated that6 the counsel for the 3etitioner conceded before the
Court that in fact6 the" &ere &ithdra&in# the challen#e to the constitutional validit" of
Articles $5(5) and ,$-A6 and &ere restrictin# their challen#e to the constitutional validit" of
%T5 Act6 ,--1 alone6 and hence it &as no lon#er reFuired to refer a matter to a constitutional
bench.
,5
Acce3tin# this concession6 the .aster of the %oster referred the matter to a three-
Eud#e Bench. In no &a" then6 can the Chief Justice be said to have abused his 3o&ers and
acted arbitraril". It is too far-fetched an ar#ument to #o into the considerations of the Chief
Justice havin# denied the 'etitioners their !undamental %i#hts. It is absolutel" unreasonable
on 3art of the 3etitioners to raise Fuestions on the Chief Justice for this act. The Court6 so far
,$
-alsburys ;a&s of India (n$?).
,,
-alsburys ;a&s of India (n$?).
,?
#.4.u*ta ! +nion of India AI% $18, SC $21.
,2
'auna6 International Ltd !. I.7.'. Construction Ltd ($11$) $ SCC 21,.
,5
'roblem !ile6 J+.
-5-
as the decision re#ardin# the constitution of the Bench is concerned6 has not acted under an"
mistake6 &hatsoever.
China33a redd" J observed in #wadeshi Cotton /ills !. India
,<
6 K(atural 2ustice is a wea*on
which can be wielded to secure &ustice to the citi>en. 9hile it may be used to *rotect certain
fundamental ri%hts and liberties5 it may be used5 as indeed it is used more often than not5 to
*rotect !ested interests and to obstruct the *ath of *ro%ressi!e chan%e.=
ne of the most im3ortant as3ect of audi alteram *artem is KThe 3erson likel" to be affected
must have adeFuate o33ortunit" to 3ut for&ard her sa" as to &h" such an action should not be
taken.L
,+
In the 3resent case6 the 3etitioners &ere #iven adeFuate o33ortunit" in front of the
Court to 3resent the case6 and it &as the Counsel &ho decided to &ithdra& the issue
,8
.
Therefore an" contention of the 'etitioners claimin# that their ri#ht to fair hearin# &as denied
cannot be held valid.
B.2 N" +!=!*& ),)$-)0-! 2(*!+ )+%$#-! 32 "( #)--!(/$(/ ) <2*$#$)- O+*!+
It has been held that no remed" under Article ?, &as available on the #round that a Eudicial
order violated a !undamental %i#ht.
,1
It &as further observed in A.% Antula" v. %.S *a"ak
?-
that the remed" under Article ?, is not available &here the Su3reme Court itself is said to
have violated a !undamental %i#ht. It must be taken as concluded that Eudicial 3roceedin#s in
this Court are not subEect to the &rit Eurisdiction thereof.
?$

Therefore6 it is evident enou#h that the 'etitioners cannot a33roach this court under Article
?, challen#in# a Eudicial decision 3ronounced b" this court further reiteratin# that the said
'I; is not maintainable and valid.
C. P+!.!(#! "' 3!+."()- ="%$,! +!(*!+. %! .)$* 3!%$%$"( ("% =)$(%)$()0-!
The res3ondent humbl" submits that 3resence of 3ersonal motive under the #arb of 3ublic
interest renders the 'I; not maintainable and valid. The Courts have travelled lon# distance
from A3ersonal inEur"C standin# to A3ublic concernC standin# in order to allo& access to 3ublic
s3irited individuals6 #rou3s and or#anisations on behalf of those &ho because of their
3overt"6 illiterac" and i#norance cannot come before the court and thus continue to suffer
,<
#wadeshi Cotton /ills !. +nion of India AI% $18$ SC 8$8
,+
I.'..asse"6 Administrati!e Law (+th edn.6 eastern book com3an"6 ,--8) ,$+.
,8
'roblem !ile6 J5.
,1
+&&ambai !. #tate of +.4. AI% $1<, SC $<,$.
?-
A.' Antulay !. '.# (ayak AI% $188 SC $5?$
?$
(aresh #hridhar /ira&kar !. #tate of /aharashtra 0 Anr AI% $1<+ SC $.
-<-
inEustice and de3rivation.
?,
Thus6 court &ill not allo& that its 3rocess be obstructed or
3olluted b" unscru3ulous liti#ants for obliFue reasons under the #arb of 3ublic interest
liti#ation.
??
The Su3reme Court of India enlar#ed the sco3e of ;ocus standi to include the
ri#htful concern of other citiHens &illin# to es3ouse the cause of their less fortunate
countr"men.
?2
In /alik Bros. !. (arendra Dadhich
?5
6 the A3ex court clarified be"ond doubt that standin# in
'I; is to be Eud#ed kee3in# in vie& the 3ur3ose of the 'etition. 'ur3ose of the 3etition should
be the betterment of the societ" and not individualistic benefit6 so that6 this strate#" is not
allo&ed to de#enerate into 3ersonal6 3ublicit" or 3ersonal interest liti#ation.
The factual matrix clearl" states that the %T5 Act6 ,--1 &as for the betterment of the societ"
and u3liftment of the &eaker sections.
?<
Thus6 an" 3etition for #ainin# 3ersonal benefit cannot
be held maintainable.
!ollo&in# the above mentioned line of ar#uments6 the res3ondent humbl" submits that 'ublic
Interest 0rit 'etition *o. $12, of ,-$, be held not maintainable and invalid.
C. 16BTHE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT VIOLATE; ARTICLE 1: OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
KONIGSBERG ;UE TO THE CLASSIFICATION CREATE; BETWEEN MINORITY AN; NONB
MINORITY SCHOOLS.
It can be established throu#h the follo&in# ar#uments that the im3osition of reservation on
non-minorit" 3rivate unaided institutions and not on minorit"-3rivate unaided institutions
does not violate Article $2 of the ConstitutionB
A. C-)..$'$#)%$"( 0!$(/ +!)."()0-!
Article $2 #uarantees to ever" 3erson the ri#ht to eFualit" before the la& or the eFual
3rotection of the la&s. But the fact remains that all 3ersons are not eFual b" nature6
attainment or circumstances and therefore a mechanical eFualit" before la& ma" result in
inEustice.
37
?,
9.C. Jain6 The 4hantom of 4ublic Interest6 ($18<) ? SCC (J) ?-.
??
2anata Dal !. -.#. Chowdhary ($11,) 2 SCC ?-5I #.4. u*ta !. +nion of India ($18$) su3 SCC 8+.
?2
#.4. u*ta !. +nion of India6 ($18$) Su33 SCC 8+
?5
/alik Bros. !. (arendra Dadhich ($111) < SCC 55,.
?<
'roblem !ile6 J,.
?+
99 Basu5 Constitution of India (8th edn.6/olume $6 S.C. Sarkar : Sons6 ,--+) 188.
-+-
The ver" conce3t of eFualit" im3lies recourse to valid classification for 3references in favour
of disadvanta#ed classes of citiHens to im3rove their conditions so as to enable them to raise
themselves to 3ositions of eFualit" &ith some more fortunate classes of citiHens
38
.
!urthermore6 from the 3oint of vie& of social utilit"6 affirmative action 3romotes maximum
&ell bein# for the societ" as a &hole and stren#thens forces of national inte#ration and
#eneral economic 3ros3erit"
39
.
Therefore6 it can be concluded that the classification is reasonable and the Court has not
violated the fundamental ri#ht of the 'etitioner under Article $2.
B. P+"%!#%$"( "' A+%$#-! 30416
Article ?-($) of the Constitution reads6 AAll minorities6 &hether based on reli#ion or
lan#ua#e6 shall have the ri#ht to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choiceC. In a sense6 the ri#ht under Article ?-($) is absolute as the Constitution framers
thou#ht that it &as the dut" of the 7overnment of the da" to 3rotect the minorities in the
matter of 3reservation of culture6 lan#ua#e and scri3t via establishment of
educational institutions for reli#ious and charitable 3ur3oses.
2-

@ence6 it can be concluded im3osin# the ,5G reservation 3olic" on the minorit" institution
&ould have been in clear violation of their ri#ht to administer educational institutions of their
choice.
;. THE RTE ACT, 2009 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FUN;AMENTAL RIGHTS
GUARANTEE; UN;ER ARTICLE 194164G6 AN; ARTICLE 18486 AN; 21A ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALI; AN; IN CONSONANCE WITH THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
A. A+%$#-! 18486 )(* 21BA )+! ,$"-)%$,! "' %! B).$# S%+2#%2+! "' %! C"(.%$%2%$"(
A.1. O0@!#%. )(* R!)."(. "' %! C"(.%$%2%$"( 4N$(!%&B T$+* A=!(*=!(%6 A#%,
2008
The 3rimar" obEective of Article $5(5) is to 3romote the educational advancement of the
sociall" and educationall" back&ard classes of citiHens6 or the SC and ST in matters of
?8
Indra #awhney !. +nion of India6 AI% $11? SC 2++.
?1
99 Basu6 Constitution of India (8th edn.6/olume $6 S.C. Sarkar : Sons6 ,--+) 18-.
2-
#ociety for +n-aided 4ri!ate #chools of 'a&asthan ! +nion of India "+1I8 and Anr (,-$,) < SCC $.
-8-
admission in educational institutions.
2$
It is evident that the obEective is to adhere to the
'rinci3les of eFualit" in its real sense &hich is not in an" &a" violative of Article $2 of the
Constitution. Those &ho are uneFual6 in fact6 cannot be treated b" identical standards because
that &ill certainl" not be real eFualit". It is therefore necessar" to take into account de facto
ineFualities &hich exist in the societ" and take affirmative action b" &a" of #ivin# 3reference
to the sociall" and economicall" disadvanta#ed 3ersons or inflictin# handica3s on those more
advanta#eousl" 3laced in order to brin# about real eFualit".
2,
Article $5(5) has em3o&ered the State to enact le#islations that ma" have ver" far reachin#
beneficial conseFuences for the nation. It stren#thens the social fabric in &hich the
Constitutional vision6 #oals and values could be better achieved and served.
2?
9r. Ambedkar had stated in the Constituent Assembl"B KThere is com*lete absence of two
thin%s in Indian #ociety. 1ne of these is e6uality. 1n the social *lane5 we ha!e in India a
society based on the *rinci*le of %raded ine6uality which means ele!ation for some and
de%radation for others=.
22
The !oundin# !athers of the Constitution &ere thus a&are of the
ri33les of ineFualit" 3resent in societ". The 3rinci3les of eFualit" *" ("% =!)( that ever" la&
must have universal a33lication for all 3ersons even thou#h the" are not6 b" nature or
attainment or circumstances in the same 3osition6 as the var"in# needs of different classes of
3ersons often reFuire se3arate treatment
.25
It has been held that Article $2 of the Constitution
fro&ns on discrimination but it 3ermits reasonable classification
2<
. The Su3reme Court is not
bound to acce3t an inter3retation &hich retards the 3ro#ress and im3edes social inte#ration6 it
ado3ts such inter3retation &hich &ould brin# about the ideas set do&n in the 'reamble aided
b" 'art III and I/ of the Constitution.
2+
To establish eFualit"6 it &ould reFuire absolute
identical treatment of both the minorit" and maEorit" that &ould result onl" in eFualit" in la&
but ineFualit" in fact.
28
Therefore6 to include the 3rivate unaided minorit" educational
institutions under the 3urvie& of Article $5(5) &ould onl" mean a mere eFualit" in la& but
not eFualit" in fact. It is the humble submission of the Counsel that Article $5(5) solves the
2$
#tatement of 1b&ects and 'easons6 (*inet"-Third) Constitutional Amendment Act6 ,--5.
2,
4radee* 2ain "Dr.8 !. +nion of India AI% $182 SC $2,-.
2?
Indian /edical Association !. +nion of India 0 1rs. (,-$$) + SCC $+1.
22
Constituent Assembly of India- /olume MI6 Constituent Assembl" 9ebate on ,5 9ecember $121.
25
9r. ;... Sin#hvi6 Constitution of India (/olume $6 ,nd edn.6.odern ;a& 'ublications6 ,--<) ??+-??8.
2<
+nion of India !. A&ay 9ahi (,-$-) $$ SCC ,$?.
2+
4ost raduate Institute of /edical )ducation 0 'esearch5 Chandi%arh !. ,.L (arasimhan ($11+) < SCC ,8?
28
Ahmedabad #t. $a!iers Colle%e #ociety !. #tate of u&arat AI% $1+2 SC $?81.
-1-
3ur3ose of social and economic Eustice and is not in violation of Article $2 of the
Constitution.
The Constitution embodies the conce3t of real and substantive eFualit" &hich strikes at the
ineFualities arisin# on account of vast social and economic differentiation and is thus
conseFuentl" an essential in#redient of social and economic Eustice.
21
As a matter of fact6 the
socialistic conce3t of societ" is ver" &ell laid in 'art III and 'art I/ of the Constitution and
the Constitution bein# su3reme6 it is bounden dut" of the Courts to #ive sha3e and offer
realit" to such a conce3t.
5-
To exem3t unaided minorit" institutions from the ambit of Article
$5(5) results in real and substantive eFualit". %ather6 it furthers the obEective of 'rinci3le of
5Fualit" &hich is a 3art of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
A.2. A+%$#-! 30416 #"('!+. )0."-2%! +$/%.
The fundamental freedom under Article ?-($) is *rima facie absolute in nature as it is not
subEect to an" reasonable restrictions. This means that all minorities6 lin#uistic or reli#ious6
have b" Article ?-($) ri#ht to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice
5$
. Article ?-($) of the Constitution reads6 <All minorities5 whether based on reli%ion
or lan%ua%e5 shall ha!e the ri%ht to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.=
It has been held that in a sense the ri#ht under Article ?-($) is absolute as the Constitution
framers thou#ht that it &as the dut" of the 7overnment of the da" to 3rotect the minorities in
the matter of 3reservation of culture6 lan#ua#e and scri3t via establishment of
educational institutions for reli#ious and charitable 3ur3oses.L
5,
The ri#ht of the minorit"
institution to admit students of its o&n communit" is a necessar" concomitant ri#ht &hich
flo&s from the ri#ht to establish and administer educational institutions under Article ?-($)
5?
.
A clear set of distinctions emer#e bet&een educational institutions that are started and
o3erated b" minorities and non-minorities. The level of re#ulation that the State can im3ose
under Clause (<) of Article $1 on the freedoms enEo"ed 3ursuant to Sub-clause (#) of Clause
21
/iner!a /ills !. +nion of India AI% $18- SC $+81.
5-
#ecretary5 -aryana #tate )lectricity Board !. #uresh AI% $111 SC $$<-.
5$
. ' Jain6 Indian Constitutional Law (volume ,6 5th edn.6 0adh&a and com3an" *a#3ur6 ,--?) $2?1.
5,
5?
#t. #te*hens Colle%e ! +ni!ersity of Delhi ($11,) $ SCC 558.
-$--
($) of Article $1 b" non-minorit" educational institutions would be greater than &hat could
be im3osed on minorit" institutions under Article ?-($).
52
B. A+%$#-! 21BA *"!. ("% ,$"-)%! %! B).$# S%+2#%2+! ;"#%+$(!
Article ,$-A of the Constitution of 4oni#sber# reads6 KThe State shall 3rovide free and
com3ulsor" education to )-- #$-*+!( "' %! )/! "' .$E %" '"2+%!!( &!)+. in such manner as
the State ma"6 b" la&6 determine.L 4ee3in# this in mind6 the follo&in# are the submissions of
the Counsel on behalf of the %es3ondentB
$. The 3rovisions contained in this 3art are not enforceable b" an" Court6 but the 3rinci3les
therein laid do&n are nevertheless fundamental in the #overnance of the countr" and it shall
be the *2%& "' %! S%)%! %" )33-& %!.! 3+$(#$3-!. $( =)>$(/ -)5..
55
,. The ver" content of Article ,$A ('art III) comes from readin# of Articles 2$6 25 and 2<
('art I/).
56
!rom the scheme of Article ,$-A6 it is clear that it is the StateCs 3rimar"
obli#ation to 3rovide for free and com3ulsor" education to children bet&een the a#e of < to
$2 "ears and6 3articularl"6 to children belon#in# to financiall" &eaker sections of the societ"
&ho are likel" to be 3revented from 3ursuin# and com3letin# the elementar" education due to
inabilit" to afford fees or char#es.
5+

?. The obEect behind the enactment of The Constitution (5i#ht"-Sixth Amendment) Act6 ,--,
&as to remove all barriers (includin# financial barriers) &hich im3ede access to education.
The Court has also reco#niHed that Article ,$A is based u3on the 3rinci3le of social
inclusiveness.
58
This #oes to sho& that Article ,$A6 in fact6 furthers the 3rinci3le of eFualit"6
&hich is an inte#ral 3art of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
59
$. The @armon" and balance bet&een !undamental %i#hts and 9irective 'rinci3les of State
'olic" is a 3art of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
60
,. The maEorit" Eud#ment in Kesavananda Bharati's case
61
read &ith Indira Gandhi's case
62
6
reFuires the validit" of each ne& constitutional amendment to be Eud#ed on its o&n merits.
The actual effect and im3act of the la& on the ri#hts #uaranteed under 'art III has to be taken
into account for determinin# &hether or not it destro"s basic structure. The im3act test &ould
52
Indian /edical Association ! +nion of India 0 1rs (,-$$) + SCC $+1.
55
Article ?+6 Constitution of 4oni#sber#6 $1+8.
5<
#ociety for +n-aided 4ri!ate #chools of 'a&asthan ! +.1.I. 0 Anr (,-$,) < SCC $ J2<.
5+
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
51
Indra #awhney ! +nion of India AI% $11? SC 2++.
<-
/iner!a /ills ! +nion of India AI% $18- SC $+81.
<$
,esa!ananda Bharti ! #tate of ,erala AI% $1+? SC $2<$.
<,
Indira andhi ! 'a& (arain AI% $1+5 SC ,,11.
-$$-
determine the validit" of the challen#e.
<?
As has been 3ointed out6 Article ,$A furthers the
ri#hts mentioned in 'art III of the Constitution.
!urther6 it &as observed b" the maEorit" bench in the Societ" Case that &here the issue
related to Article ,$A came u3 for consideration that6 K4etitioners in all these cases5 it may
be mentioned5 ha!e wholeheartedly welcomed the introduction of Article ?:A in the
Constitution and acknowled%ed it as a re!olutionary ste* *ro!idin% uni!ersal elementary
education for all the children=
@ence6 it can be lo#icall" deduced that Article ,$A does not violate the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.
C. T! RTE A#%, 2009 $. ("% ,$"-)%$,! "' )+%$#-! 194164/6 "' %! #"(.%$%2%$"(
C.1. P20-$# R!/2-)%$"( $. $=3"+%)(% $( !*2#)%$"()- =)%%!+.
5ducation is *er se re#arded as an activit" that is charitable in nature
<2
. 5ducation has so far
not been re#arded as a trade or business &here 3rofit is the motive. 5ven if there is an" doubt
about &hether education is a 3rofession or not6 it does a33ear that education &ill fall &ithin
the meanin# of the ex3ression Koccu3ationL. Kccu3ationL &ould be an activit" of a 3erson
undertaken as a means of livelihood or a mission in life.
<5
. Indeed6 because an occu3ation is
in essence a social and6 moreover6 3+$(#$3)--& )( !#"("=$# )#%$,$%&6 and b" its nature
somethin# in &hich mutual social relations are #reat6 the demand for regulation by public
authority is stron#
<<
.
C.2. R!)."()0-! R!.%+$#%$"(
The %i#ht to 5ducation has been read into ri#ht to life in Article ,$.
<+
%i#ht to 5ducation Act6
,--1 is anchored in the belief that the values of eFualit"6 social Eustice6 democrac" and the
creation of Eust and humane societ" can be achieved onl" throu#h a 3rovision of inclusive
elementar" education to all the children
<8
. The need is to inter3ret the fundamental ri#hts in
the li#ht of the directive 3rinci3les.
<1
The conce3t of public interest must as far as 3ossible
receive its re-orientation from 9irective 'rinci3les
+-
. It &as furthermore remarked b" the
<?
I ' Coelho ! #tate of Tamil (adu (,--+) , SCC $.
<2
#tate of Bombay ! './.D Chamarbau%wala AI% $15+ SC <11.
<5
T/A 4ai 3oundation ! #tate of ,arnataka (,--,) 8 SCC 28$.
<<
;.. Sin#hvi6 Constitution of India (,nd 5dn /olume $6 .odern ;a& 'ublications6 ,--<).
<+
/ohini 2ain ! #tate of ,arnataka ($11,) ? SCC <<<.
<8
#ociety for 4ri!ate +n-Aided #chools ! +nion of India 0 Anr (,-$,) < SCC $.
<1
Ibid.
+-
,asturi Lal Lakshmi 'eddy !. #tate of 20, AI% $18- SC $11,.
-$,-
Court that6 Kwhat is en&oined by the directi!e *rinci*les "in this case Articles @:5 @A and @B8
must be u*held as a Creasonable restrictionC under Articles :;"?8 to :;"B8. L
+$
The Su3reme
Court6 here6 #ives stren#th to the submission of the Counsel that the !undamental %i#ht of
the 'etitioners under Article $1($)(#) is not violated because it is the constitutional obli#ation
of the state to ensure free and com3ulsor" elementar" education for children of the a#e of six
to fourteen "ears
+,
and hence6 the state can im3ose reasonable restrictions in the enEo"ment of
the !undamental %i#ht under Article $1($)(#) of the Constitution.
The reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an obEective manner and from the
stand3oint of the interests of the #eneral 3ublic and not from the 3oint of vie& of the 3ersons
u3on &hom the restrictions are bein# im3osed or u3on abstract considerations.
+?
A restriction
cannot be said to be 2(+!)."()0-! merel" because in a #iven case6 it o3erates harshl"
+2
. In
this case6 the restrictions can be said to be for the interest of #eneral 3ublic in the follo&in#
t&o &a"sB u3holdin# the fundamental ri#ht of the 3rivate mana#ement to establish an unaided
educational institution of their choice and6 securin# the interests of the children6 in 3articular6
those &ho ma" not be able to 3ursue education due to inabilit" to 3a" fees or char#es of the
3rivate unaided schools.
+5
Also6 Article ,$A bein# result of &hich is the %i#ht to 5ducation
Act6 ,--16 is based on the 3rinci3le of social inclusiveness.
+<
Therefore6 it u3holds the interest
of #eneral 3ublic. @ence6 kee3in# in mind the $(%!+!.% "' %! /!(!+)- 320-$# +!#!$,$(/ $%. +!B
"+$!(%)%$"( '+"= %! ;$+!#%$,! P+$(#$3-!.6 The %i#ht to 5ducation Act6 ,--1 has been
enacted.
It is not in dis3ute that education is a reco#nised head of Ncharit"N.
++
Therefore6 if an
educational institution #oes be"ond Ncharit"N into commercialiHation6 it &ould not be entitled
to 3rotection of Article $1($)(#) and thus6 unaided educational institutions cannot not contend
that the intake of ,5G children &ould constitute violation of Article $1($)(#).
+8
Such a
3rovision6 the Court said6 &ould be saved b" the 3rinci3le of reasonable restriction im3osed
in the interest of the #eneral 3ublic in Article $1(<) of the Constitution.
+$
#ociety for 4ri!ate +n-Aided #chools ! +nion of India 0 Anr (,-$,) < SCC $.
+,
Article ,$A6 The Constitution of 4oni#sber#6 $1+8
+?
-anif .uareshi /ohd. ! #tate of Bihar AI% $158 SC +?$.
+2
,rishnan ,akkanth ! o!t. of ,erala AI% $11+ SC $,8.
+5
+<
Ibid.
++
T/A 4ai 3oundation ! #tate of ,arnataka (,--,) 8 SCC 28$.
+8
-$?-
If there is a direct and 3roximate nexus or reasonable connection bet&een the restrictions
im3osed and the obEect sou#ht to be achieved then6 a stron# 3resum3tion in favour of the
constitutionalit" of the Act &ill naturall" arise.
79
The im3osition of such reservation in
unaided 3rivate schools6 has a direct and 3roximate connection &ith the fact that children
from financiall" &eaker sections of the societ" are 3revented from 3ursuin# and com3letin#
the elementar" education due to inabilit" to afford fees char#ed b" the unaided 3rivate
institutions. Det a#ain6 the %T5 Act6 ,--1 cannot be said to be violative of the !undamental
%i#ht under Article $1($)(#) of the Constitution. It is therefore contended that the said act is
constitutionall" valid.
!urthermore6 The Su3reme Court has laid do&n that mere alle#ation of unreasonableness is
not enou#h to strike do&n an enactment. If an enactment is challen#ed as violative of an" of
the fundamental ri#hts #uaranteed b" Article $16 it can be struck do&n onl" if it is not saved
b" an" of its Clauses (,) to (<).
8-
It must be 3resumed that the ;e#islature understands and
correctl" a33reciates the need of its o&n 3eo3le6 that it la&s are directed to 3roblems made
manifest b" ex3erience and that its discrimination are based on adeFuate #rounds.
8$
As
3roved above6 the %i#ht to 5ducation Act6 ,--1 bein# in the interest of the #eneral 3ublic is a
reasonable restriction in enEo"ment of the ri#ht enshrined under Article $1($)(#) of the
Constitution. @ence6 it can in no &a" be said that The %T5 Act6 ,--1 is unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION AN; PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In the li#ht of the ar#uments advanced and authorities cited6 the %es3ondent humbl"
submits that the @onCble Court be 3leased to adEud#e and declare thatB
$. %evie& 'etition *o.$+85 of ,-$, and 'ublic Interest 0rit 'etition no. $12, of
,-$, be held non-maintainable.
,. The Chief Justice has not acted in a mala fide manner leadin# to an" bias.
?. Also the Court ma" 3rovide for an" other remedies that the @onCble court ma"
deem fit.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted
+1
/.'.3 Ltd. ! Ins*ector ,erala o!t ($118) 8 SCC ,,+.
8-
#tate of A.4 ! /cDowell 0 Co AI% $11< SC $<,+.
8$
'am ,rishna Dalmia ! Tendolakar AI% $158 SC 5?8.
-$2-

International Relationship Between North Korea and South Korea

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

International Relationship Between North Korea and South Korea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T58

UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS, 2012

You might also like