International Relationship between North Korea and South Korea

8/11/2019 International Relationship between North Korea and South Korea

1/29

T58

UNIVERSITYMOOTCOURTSELECTIONS, 2012

BEFORETHEHONOURABLESUPREMECOURTOFKONIGSBERG

WRITPETITIONU/ART. 32 & REVIEWPETITIONU/ART. 137

T! S"#$!% "' U()$*!* P+$)%! S#""- "' K"($!+ & O+. P!%$%$"(!+ 1

T! S"#$!% "' F+!! E*#)%$"()- I(%$%%$"(...P!%$%$"(!+ 2

T! U($"( "' K"($!+.R!"(*!(%

4R!$!5 P!%$%$"( 4C$$-6 N". 178 "' 2012/

W+$% P!%$%$"( 4C$$-6 N". 19:2 "' 20126

MEMORAN;UMforRESPON;ENT


2/29


3/29

-Table of Contents-

TABLEOFCONTENTS

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%)%%"+ +"$$"(....................................................................................................1

B.


4/29

-Table of Contents-

I/. The %T Act6 ,1 is not violative f The !undamental %i#hts 7uaranteed nder

Article $1($)(#) and Article $5(5) and ,$A are Constitutionall" /alid and in consonance

&ith The Basic Structure of The Constitution........................................................................1

A.1. O@!#% )(* R!)"( "' %! C"(%$%%$"( 4N$(!% T$+* A=!(*=!(%6 A#%, 2008

9

B. A+%$#-! 21A *"! ("% $"-)%! %! B)$# S%+#%+! ;"#%+$(!....................................11

C. T! RTE A#%, 2009 $ ("% $"-)%$! "' )+%$#-! 1941646 "' %! #"(%$%%$"(....... .... .13

Conclusion and 'ra"er for %elief.............................................................................................$5


-ii-


5/29

-Index of Authorities-

2BIN;EOFAUTHORITIES

BOOKS

$. 9 9 Basu6 Commentary on the Constitution of India (2th

edn.6 S.C. Sarkar : Sons( 3vt ) ;td6 $1 =$,>

,. 9r. ;.. Sin#hvi6 Constitution of India (/olume $6 ,ndedn.6odern ;a& 'ublications6

, =$2>

?. @enr" Cam3bell Black6 Blacks Law Dictionary in Bryan A. arner (ed) (Thomson

0est ,

2. I.'.asse"6Administrati!e Law (+thedn.6 eastern book com3an"6 ,8) =

5. ' Jain6 Indian Constitutional Law "volume ,6 5th edn.6 0adh&a and com3an"

*a#3ur6 ,?) =$,>

ARTICLESAN;TREATISES

$. 9.C. Jain6 The 'hantom of 'ublic Interest($18

,. 3endra Baxi6 Takin# Sufferin# seriousl" Social Action ;iti#ation in the Su3reme

Court of India ,1 ICJ %evie&6 ?+-21 (9ecember $18,) =?. Deon# ;. 0atson Eudicial Activism and 'ublic interest liti#ation Columbia Journal of

Transactional;a& (,$) ,?. =2>

2. @albur"s la&s of India6 (5thedn.6 ,5) /ol. ,,6 585 =5>

5. Constituent Assembly of India /ol $$6 Constituent assembl" debate on ,5th

9ecemeber6 $121 =$>

CASES

$. Ahmedabad #t. $a!iers Colle%e #ociety ! #tate of u&aratAI% $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%istrarAI% $18 SC 88 =,>

+. 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-


6/29


$.Indra #awhney ! +nion of IndiaAI% $11? SC 2++ =8> =$?>

$$.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 IndiaAI% , SC $

$

,?.4.+.D.' ! +nion of IndiaAI% $18, SC $2+ =2>

,2.4atel (arshi Thakersh and 1rs. ! 4radyunman sin%h &i Ar&un sin%h &iAI% $1+ SC

$,+? =$>

,5.4atricin /ukhim ! state of /e%halaya($11+) , 7au ;T ,$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-


7/29


?,. #.4.u*ta ! +nion of IndiaAI% $18, SC $21 =2> =5>

??. #atyanarayan Laxminarayan e%de ! /allikar&un Bha!ana**a TirumaleAI% $1

?2. #ecretary5 aryana #tate )lectricity Board ! #ureshAI% $111 SC $$

?5. #ociety for +n-aided 4ri!ate #chools of 'a&asthan ! +nion of India "+1I8 and Anr

(,$,) < SCC $ =1> =$,> =$2> =$5>

?


8/29

-#tatement of 2urisdiction-

3BSTATEMENTOF


9/29

-Identification of Issues-

4BI;ENTIFICATIONOFISSUES

The follo&in# Fuestions have been 3resented before the @onourable Court for its

determination

The follo&in# issues have been 3resented before the @onourable Court for its determination

$. 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 %T 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-


10/29

-#tatement of 3acts-

5BSTATEMENTOFFACTS

I

The nion of 4oni#sber#6 a Soverei#n 9emocratic %e3ublic6 became inde3endentfrom the nion 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"

ducation Act6 ,1 &hich is identical to the %T Act6 ,1. /ide section $,($)(c) of the

%T 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 The Societ" of naided 'rivate Schools of 4oni#sber# filed a &rit

3etition bein# 0rit 'etition (Civil) *o. $


11/29


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 %T 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 %T 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 %T 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 %T 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 !%s &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 !%s6 &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-


12/29


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 $( D!%$"(

,1 $. %i#ht of Children to !ree and Com3ulsor"

ducation Act enacted.

,. naided 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 %T Act6

,1

,$ $. 0rit 3etition (civil) *o. $


13/29


#uaranteed under the Constitution.

$5-1-,$, All the 'etitions have been listed for hearin#

in the Su3reme Court.


-xi-


14/29

-#ummary of Ar%uments-

6BSUMMARYOFARGUMENTS

I. REVIEWPETITION4CIVIL6 NO. 178 OF2012 ISNOTMAINTAINABLEAN;VALI;

Article $?+ confers u3on the Court discretionar" 3o&ers. A revie& 3etition is not an a33eal indis#uise. nce the Constitutional validit" of The %T 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. PUBLICINTERESTWRITPETITION4CIVIL6 NO. 19:2 OF2012 ISNOTMAINTAINABLE

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 standirefuses to

fit in the case renderin# the 'I; not maintainable.

III. THE

SUPREME

COURT

HAS

NOT

VIOLATE;

ARTICLE

1:;UE

TO

THE

CLASSIFICATION

CREATE;BETWEENMINORITYAN;NONMINORITYSCHOOLS

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-


15/29

-#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

CONSTITUTIONALLYVALI;AN; INCONSONANCEWITHTHEBASICSTRUCTUREOFTHE

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 factoineFualities 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 %T

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-


16/29

-Conclusion and 4rayer for 'elief-

7BARGUMENTSA;VANCE;

A. 14BREVIEWPETITION4CIVIL6 NO. 178 OF2012 ISNOTMAINTAINABLEAN;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#

A. S%)%%"+ +"$$"(

The above mentioned statutor" 3rovisions la" do&n the follo&in# criteria for the

maintainabilit" of the revie& 3etition Some mistake or error a33arent on the face of therecord 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. ? SC% 1?5.?Lily Thomas !. +nion of India. Di!ision BenchAI% , SC $


17/29


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.5An 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.


18/29


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 include

($) 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 %T 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!%$%$"(!+ *"! ("% )! ''$#$!(% $(%!+!% $( %! =)%%!+

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

1Balco )m*loyees +nion ! +nion of India(,,) , SCC ???4eo*les for Democratic 'i%hts ! /inistry ofome AffairsAI% $185 9el ,


19/29


3ublic inEur".$2The 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.$


20/29


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,2it &as observed6


21/29


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,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 *artemis 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" +!=!* ))$-)-! (*!+ )+%$#-! 32 "( #)--!($( )


22/29


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?56the 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 %T Act6 ,1 &as for the betterment of the societ"

and u3liftment of the &eaker sections.?

Documents

International Relationship between North Korea and South Korea