You are on page 1of 24

TEAM CODE: 110

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. M.S. Govinda …Petitioner

v.

Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha …Respondent

5th JUSTICE P.B. SAWANT NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2018

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................... VI

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................... VII

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................... IX

IV. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ...................................................................... X

V. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................... 1

1. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS THE


JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT PETITITON? ............ 1

2. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER UNDER


THE 10TH SCHEDULE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF
INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY? ................................ 4

A. That the speaker while deciding the matter does satisfy the condition of an
independent adjudicatory machinery.......................................................... 4

B. That the speaker while giving decision under the 10th schedule has acted
within the scope of his power granted to him by the virtue of his
office……… ............................................................................................... 5

3. WHETHER THE 10TH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION


PROHIBITING HONEST AND GENUINE DISSENT DESERVES TO BE
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. .................................................................. 7

4. WHETHER SECTION 2 (B) OF 10TH SCHEDULE VIOLATES


PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILLEGES PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 105
OF CONSTITUTION? ................................................................................ 10

VI. PRAYER ........................................................................................................ 13

II
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Amrit Banaspati Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1340, at 1343 ............................ 9

Charanjeet Lal Choudhary v. Union of India; AIR 1951 SC 41 .................................... 6

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Csrriers; AIR 2002 SC 3491ss .... 11

GV Malvankar, “The office of speaker”, Journal of parliamentary information, April


1956, Vol.2, No.1, P33 ............................................................................................... 4

Hardwari Lal v Election commission of India, ILR (1977) 2 P&H 269........................ 1

Kihito hollohan vs Zachillhu and others (1992 Supp (2) supreme court cases 651) ..... 4

Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu Pg 687 para 53............................................................... 9

Mahachandra Prasad Singh v, Chairman, Bihar Legislative council, (2004) 9 SCC 747
.................................................................................................................................... 3

MN Kaul and Shakdhar in “Practice and procedure of parliament” 4th edition P104 ... 4

Mylapore Club v. State of Tamil Nadu; (2005) 12 SCC 752 ........................................ 7

Parkash Singh Badal vs, Union of India; 1987 AIR (P&H) 263 ................................. 10

Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270. ............................ 6

Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math & Ors, AIR 2016 SC 564
.................................................................................................................................... 2

Other Authorities

170th law commission report 1999 ................................................................................. 9

Constituent assembly debates, 19th May 1949, (article 85 of draft constitution) ........ 10

III
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Statement of objects and reasons of THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND


AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985; www.indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend52.htm..
.................................................................................................................................... 9

IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

V
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that this Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana as the
impugned piece of legislation has allegedly violated the fundamental rights of the
petitioner. Article 32 reads as:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-


The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.

VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indiana is the largest democratic country in South Asia having imported the
concept of Parliamentary democracy from the United Kingdom. National
Indiana Congress (NIC) and Independent Party of Indiana (IPI) are two major
political parties in Indiana. In the general election of 2015, IPI got simple
majority in Lok Sabha which enabled it to establish government in centre.
2. The ruling party always felt the potential threat to its stability considering the
simple majority and also from some unambitious and unhappy leaders from the
party itself. Few party leaders especially Dr. Govinda, a member of Lok sabha
and senior leader from IPI was feeling ignored and was not happy with way in
which he was being treated by the top party leaders. He wanted ministership
and it was not given to him.
3. On 9th December, 2017, Central Government had proposed The National
Highway Bill, 2017. Dr. Govinda was very upset by the proposed bill. He said
that he would lead the farmers of his constituencies to strongly oppose the
proposed project.
4. 27th December 2017 was decided to be the date of voting on the bill. Due to
strong opposition from the opponents, for compelling attendance of its party
members, the party leader in Lok Sabha, Mr. Anand Singh issued the whip.
5. The bill was passed with a narrow majority. While analysing the results the
ruling party found out that Dr. Govinda was absent for the voting. Dr. Govinda
gave medical reasons for his absence but could not give proof for the same.
6. Mr. Anand Singh forwaded a petition to the speaker of Lok Sabha, the
respondent, Mr. A.V. Prasad and requested him to take action against Dr.
Govinda. 5 days were given to present his side. He prayed for adjournment and
it was rejected.
7. On the basis of the evidence, the respondent held Dr. Govinda liable for
disobeying the whip issued by the party leader and by relying paragraph 2(b) of
the 10th schedule, he cancelled Dr. Govinda’s Lok Sabha membership. While
justifying his decision he said, people vote for the agenda of the party and not
for the party candidate.

VII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

8. Dr. Govinda felt aggrieved and approached the Supreme Court and asked for
the 10th schedule to be declared as unconstitutional.

VIII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition?

2. Whether the speaker while deciding the matter under the 10th schedule satisfies
the requirement of independent adjudicatory machinery?

3. Whether the 10th schedule of the constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared as unconstitutional?

4. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th schedule violates Parliamentary Privileges


provided under Article 105 of the constitution?

IX
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition?

The speaker while giving the decision disqualifying Mr Govinda for not following the
party whip has acted within the four corners of law and not passed the order by virtue
of any mala fide or considering any irrelevant facts or violating the principles of natural
justice. Thus due to the virtue of the finality clause in the 10th schedule the supreme
court doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Also since the principle
of Stare Decisis is applicable due to the presence of other similar cases, the case should
not be entertained.

2. Whether the speaker while deciding the matter under the 10th schedule satisfies
the requirement of independent adjudicatory machinery?

While acting as a judge and deciding the case of disqualification of the member, the
speaker has acted within his powers. He has followed the rules laid down in the 10th
schedule and disqualified the member. The office of speaker is held in very high regard
and it’s considered to be the speaker’s role to be unbiased in such dealings. Thus the
speaker has satisfied the requirements of an independent adjudicatory machinery.

3. Whether the 10th schedule of the constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared as unconstitutional?

The 10th schedule was introduced to curb evil political defections and give government
stability. It does not prohibit members dissent. The disqualifications take place on
disobeyance of party whips, which are issued only on matters of utmost importance or

X
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

when the fate of the government hangs in balance. Thus the 10th schedule doesn’t
deserve to be declared as unconstitutional.

4. Whether section 2 (b) of the 10th schedule violates Parliamentary Privileges


provided under Article 105 of the constitution?

The intent of creating the 10th schedule in 1985 and the insertion of Article 105 in the
constitution can be seemingly similar but actually are very different and thus the two
provisions run parallel to each other. Also the two at no point cross over as one talks
about defying party whips in crucial time whereas the other gives the members of
parliament privileges to speak freely in the legislature. Thus they are not violative and
should not be struck down.

XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS THE


JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT PETITITON?

A. That the speaker, while deciding the matter under the 10th schedule has
not acted beyond the four corners of law.

“102(2) Provides for decision making mechanism for disqualification of


members under this section

6: Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection.—(1) If


any question arises as to whether a member of a House has become subject to
disqualification under this Schedule, the question shall be referred for the
decision of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House
and his decision shall be final”

The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suite and the very reason for this,
is because the speaker while giving the decision disqualifying Mr Govinda has acted
within the four corners of law.
A house has power to punish a person, whether it’s member or outsider, for its contempt
or breach of privileges. A house can impose the punishment of admonition, reprimand
or suspension, from the service of the house for the session, fine and imprisonment.1

b) That the speaker has the finality of decision making in petitons of disqualification

Para 6 of Schedule X specifically mentions the speaker’s decision is final when any
question arises as to whether a member of parliament has become subject to
disqualification. In the present case, the speaker has acted within the powers granted to
him under Part 6 of the 10th schedule.

c) That the petitioner has acted against the feature of unity and shared belief of the
political party leading to his disqualification.

The petitioner was disqualified on the grounds of abstention from voting knowing the
fact that whip was issued by petitioner’s party. In today’s democratic scenario a
political party functions on strength of shared belief and loyalty to party is the norm
being based on shared belief. The divided party is looked on with suspicion, by the
electorate. To vote against the political party is disloyalty,

1
Hardwari Lal v Election commission of India, ILR (1977) 2 P&H 269

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

d) The procedure followed by the speaker was sound

Also, attention needs to be paid to the fact that in spite of giving a show cause notice to
the petitioner and another member, who remained absent on the said day of voting for
which the whip was issued to justify the reason for their absence. The other member,
namely, Mr Ramlal justified his absence by producing the needed documents, but Mr
Govinda did not do the same.

The Leader of the majority party, Mr. Anand Singh forwarded a petition for the removal
of Mr. Govind and after considering all the facts in the case, the Speaker decided to
dismiss Mr Govinda’s membership of the house.

According to Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and ors, this hono’ble court has held that the
decision of the speaker with regard to disqualification can be challenged in court of law
only when

Thus the speaker has not acted in any of these capacities which enable the petitioner to
challenge the speaker’s decision in court.

e) That the speaker’s decision is valid and this court doesn’t have jurisdiction to
entertain the petition

Considering the facts that the speaker has followed all the procedural nuances and has
acted within the four corners of law and that he has also not violated any provisions laid
down in the Kihoto Hollohan case, the petitioner cannot bring the speaker’s judgement
into question and thus the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

f) That the ‘STARE DECISIS” is a Latin phrase which means "to stand by decided
cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudication". This principle is
expressed in the maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movers" which means to stand
by decisions and not to disturb what is settled and as stated in Article 141 of the Indian
Constitution “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India”2. The following matter of jurisdiction has already been
settled in the case of Kihoto Hollohan, so in the instant case revisiting the matter may

2
Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math & Ors, AIR 2016 SC 564

2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

be a waste of the precious time of the honourable Supreme Court and it is contended
by the respondent that the present matter should not be entertained.

3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER UNDER


THE 10TH SCHEDULE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF
INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY?

A That the speaker while deciding the matter does satisfy the condition of an
independent adjudicatory machinery.

The speaker by virtue of the 10th schedule, is enabled to decide the matter of
disqualification of members under the provisions of article 102 (2)

Disqualifications for membership


A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he
is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule

The speaker while deciding the current matter under the 10th schedule, has acted in
accordance with the rules of schedule 10.

Under para 6, the final authority to take a decision on the question of disqualififcation
of a member of the house rests with the speaker or chairman of the house. Their role is
only in the domain of ascertaining the relevant facts. Once the facts gathered or placed
show that a member of the house has done any such act which comes within the purview
of para 2 (1) (2) or (3) of the schedule, the disqualification will apply and the chairman
or the speaker of the house will have to make a decision to that effect.3

Furthermore, the speaker is held in very high esteem and respect due to inherent and
historical reasons in the concept of parliamentary democracy. Once a person is elected
as a speaker, the expectation is that he is above the nuances of parties and politics.
While deciding the matter of such a disqualification at hand he holds the scale of justice
evenly irrespective of the two parties in front of him. Everybody knows that in spite of
his drawbacks and shortcomings he will intentionally do no justice or show partiality,
such a person is naturally held in respect by all.4

In addition to this, within the walls of the house the speaker’s authority is supreme, and
such supremacy is based on the speaker’s unwavering and absolute impartiality-the
main feature of his office, the law of its life. This obligation of impartiality is reflected

3
Mahachandra Prasad Singh v, Chairman, Bihar Legislative council, (2004) 9 SCC 747.
4
GV Malvankar, “The office of speaker”, Journal of parliamentary information, April 1956, Vol.2,
No.1, P33

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

in the provisions which ordains that the speaker is entitled to vote only in the case of
equality of votes. 5

It would indeed, be unfair to the high traditions of that great office to say that the
investiture in it of this jurisdiction would be vitiated for violation of a basic feature of
democracy. It is inappropriate to express distrust in the high office of the speaker merely
because some of the speakers are alleged or even found, to have discharged their
functions not in keeping with the great traditions of the high office the robes of the
speakers do change and elevate the man inside.6

It is held in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and ors, that,

“The contention that the vesting of adjudicatory functions in the speakers/chairmen


would by itself vitiate the provision on the ground of likelihood of political bias is
unsound and is rejected. The speakers/chairmen hold a pivotal position in the scheme
of parliamentary democracy and are guardians of rights and privileges of the house.
They are expected to and do take far-reaching decisions in the functioning of
parliamentary democracy. Vestiture of power to adjudicate questions under the tenth
schedule in such constitutional functionaries should not be considered exceptionable.”

B. That the speaker while giving decision under the 10th schedule has acted
within the scope of his power granted to him by the virtue of his office.

By the virtue of the 10th schedule, the speaker has been granted the power to decide the
matters of disqualification of members on the basis of defection.

In the current case, a whip was issued by the majority party leader Mr. Anand Singh.
The whip pertained to compulsory attendance and ipso facto for voting in favour of the
national highway bill 2017.

Mr. Govinda, abstained from voting by choosing to remain absent and not giving any
valid medical justification. In view of this Mr. Anand Singh forwarded a petition for
Mr. Govinda’s Disqualification from the Lok sabha.

The respondent considered the above petition and took into account all the above
mentioned facts, and gave his complete unbiased judgement.

5
MN Kaul and Shakdhar in “Practice and procedure of parliament” 4th edition P104
6
Kihito hollohan vs Zachillhu and others (1992 Supp (2) supreme court cases 651)

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

He cancelled the lok sabha memberships of Mr. Govinda and gave suitable justification
for the same.

He has completely acted within the ambit of his authority and jurisdiction and has given
a suitable judgement.

Inferring from the above two arguments, the speaker has acted in the scope of the
powers granted to him by the constitution and has given his judgement in accordance
with that.

The respondent, as stated above, holds an office of high importance and one which is
traditionally known to be unbiased and impartial.

Thus it can be reasonably construed that he has indeed satisfied the conditions required
to be an independent adjudicatory machinery and has also acted within the scope given
by it.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3. WHETHER THE 10TH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION


PROHIBITING HONEST AND GENUINE DISSENT DESERVES TO BE
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of the statute and the onus to prove
that it is unconstitutional is on the person who is challenging it.7

The statement of object and reasons appended to the bill which was adopted as
the Constitution (52nd amendment) Act, 1985 says “the evil of political
defection has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated it is likely
to undermine the very foundation of the democracy and the principle which
sustain it. With this object an assurance was given in the address by the
President to Parliament that government intended to introduce in the current
session of Parliament an Anti-defection bill. This bill is meant for outlawing
defection and fulfilling the above assurance”8

The object is to curb the evil of political defection motivated by lure of office or other
similar considerations which endanger the foundation of our democracy. Grounds of
disqualifications are specified in paragraph 2 of 10th schedule. In terms of para 2 of the
tenth schedule the act of disqualification occurs on a member voluntarily giving up his
membership of a political party or at the point of defiance of the whip issued to him.9

Supporting the constitutionality 10th schedule creates a non-justiciable constitutional


area dealing with certain complex political issues which have no strict adjudicatory
deposition. By introduction of this schedule new rights and obligations are created for
the first time uno-flatu by constitution and constitution itself has envisaged a distinct
constitutional machinery for resolution of those disputes. These rights, obligations and
remedies, it is urged, which is in their very nature and innate complexities are in
political thickets and are not amenable to judicial processes.

It has been held in the case Kihoto Hollohan that paragraph of 10th schedule of the
constitution are valid and its provisions do not suffer from the vice of subverting
democratic rights of elected members of parliament also it does not violate their
freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience.

7
Charanjeet Lal Choudhary v. Union of India; AIR 1951 SC 41
8
Legislative intent of 10th schedule as stated in the 52nd amendment.
9
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270.

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Also the contention that the provision of 10th schedule even with exclusion of para 7
violates the basic structure of the constitution and that it affects the democratic rights
of elected members. Therefore the principle of parliamentary democracy is unsound, is
rejected.

Also the contention that powers conferred on the speaker/chairman is vitiated by mala
fide or is colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant
considerations. In the present case, speakers’ decision is neither vitiated by any of the
above mentioned factors. The speakers act was in accordance of law and acted within
its scope of authority. By due process of law the petitioner was given an ample of
opportunity to produce documentary proof, failing which he suffered disqualification.

Keeping in view the consequences of disqualifications i.e. the termination of


membership of the house it would be inappropriate that direction or whip which results
in such disqualifications under para 2(1)(b) so worded as to clearly indicate that voting
or abstaining from voting contrary to the said direction would result in incurring
disqualification under 2(1)(b) of the 10th schedule so that the member concerned has
fair knowledge of the consequence flowing from his conduct in voting or abstaining
from voting contrary to such a decision.

Taking into consideration the intent of disqualification of 10th schedule and vesting of
authority on speaker to decide the disputes and clear language of 2(1)(b) and its
consequences. The 10th schedule is functioning as expected by drafters. Thus 10th
schedule must be held constitutional.

Also the majority view in Kihoto Hollohan is that in absence of ratification by state
legislature, it is para 7 alone of 10th schedule which is unconstitutional and it is
severable from remaining part of 10th schedule. Para 7 alone is liable to be struck down
rendering the speakers’ decision under para 6 that a judicial tribunal amenable to
judicial review by Supreme Court and High Court under Art. 126, 226, 227.

Also, a statute cannot be struck down merely because the court thinks it to be arbitrary
or unreasonable. Any such ground of invalidity must be related to a constitutional
provision such as Articles 14, 19 or 21. Challenge on ground of wisdom of legislation
is not permissible as it is for the legislature to balance various interests.10

10
Mylapore Club v. State of Tamil Nadu; (2005) 12 SCC 752

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Keeping in view, all the aforementioned contentions of the respondents, the 10th
schedule of the constitution prohibiting honest and genuine dissent does not deserve to
be declared unconstitutional.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4. WHETHER SECTION 2 (B) OF 10TH SCHEDULE VIOLATES


PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILLEGES PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 105
OF CONSTITUTION?

The allegations regarding the violation of a constitution provision should be specific,


clear and unambigious and it is for the person who impeaches the law as violative of
the constitutional guarentee to show that the particular provision is infirm for the reason
stated by him.11

Article 105 of the Indian constitution provides for the parliamentary privileges to the
members of the Lok sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

“105 conferring parliamentary privileges under this part-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing
orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of
speech in Parliament.

(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in


respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the
publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any
report, paper, votes or proceedings

Section 2(b) of schedule 10 of the constitution provides for the disqualification of the
members of the houses of the parliament for voting or abstaining from voting against
the party guidelines.

The paragraph 2 of the 10th schedule to the constitution is valid. Its provisions do not
suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights of elected members of the
parliament and legislators of the state. It does not violate their freedom of speech,
freedom of vote and conscience. The provisions of paragraph 2 do not violate any right
or freedoms under article 105 of the constitution.12

11
Amrit Banaspati Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1340, at 1343
12
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu Pg 687 para 53.

10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The reasoning for the honourable Supreme Court pronouncing such a decision can be
seen through the various facets of the legislation and the constitution itself.

The anti-defection law had the main objective of outlawing the political evil of
defection which had become a matter of national concern when it was introduced. The
drafters of the bill contented that if this political evil was not combated it was likely to
undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it.13

It is an observation that the political parties issue whips only when the government is
in danger.14 This substantiates the above stated legislative intent which sought to
introduce this bill to curb the evil of political defections.

This legislation does not seek to curb the freedom of speech of the members of the
parliament but only seeks to give the government a reasonable stability to carry out the
functions it has promised to the electorate.

So far as the right of a member under article 105 is concerned, it is not an absolute one
and has been made subject to the provisions of the constitution and the rules and
standing orders regulating the procedure of parliament. The framers of the constitution,
therefore never intended to confer any absolute right of freedom of speech on a member
of parliament and the same can be regulated or curtailed by making any constitutional
provision, such as the 52nd amendment. The provisions of para 2(b) cannot, therefore
be termed as violative of the provisions of Article 105 of the constitution.15

As already mentioned here above, the intent and objective of the 52nd amendment was
to curb the evil of political defections, outlawing the same and providing a stable and
healthy government which is an essential part of democracy.

Antithetically, the intent of the drafters of the constitution while embedding article 105
in the constitution was mainly to protect the members from innumerable cases of
defamation and sedition by virtue of words said by them in the parliament with a view
of fairly representing their constituents.16

13
Statement of objects and reasons of THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1985;
www.indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend52.htm
14
170th law commission report 1999
15
Parkash Singh Badal vs, Union of India; 1987 AIR (P&H) 263
16
Constituent assembly debates, 19th May 1949, (article 85 of draft constitution)

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Thus, it can be construed that the two provisions of the constitution run parallel to each
other, while not crossing over/Violating at any point.

The court must follow the rules of harmonious construction which is the thumb rule to
interpretation of any statute. An interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent
whole, should be the aim of the court and a construction which avoids inconsistency
between the various sections should be adopted.

The provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in
another unless the court despite all its efforts is unable to find a way to reconcile their
differences. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in seemingly
contradictory provisions the court must interpret them in such a way so that effect is
given to both the provisions as much as possible.

Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or dead is not harmonious construction17

17
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Csrriers; AIR 2002 SC 3491ss

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced,
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to, by appropriate writ, order
and/or direction,

a) Hold and declare this petition to be rejected.


b) Hold the speaker to be an independent adjudicatory machinery.
c) Hold the 10th schedule to be constitutional.
d) Hold that section 2 (b) of the 10th schedule does not violate parliamentary
privileges under Article 105.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: Indiana S/d

Date: February 03, 2018 Counsel,Respondent

13

You might also like