BIM/123

TC-53

RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017

I N T HE H ONORABLE S UPREME C OURT O F

W ESTEROS

W RIT P ETITION (C IVIL ) N O ._____O F 2017

THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF WESTEROS ..PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF LANNISPORT AND ANOTHER...R ESPONDENT

With

W RIT P ETITION (C IVIL ) N O ._____O F 2017

THE HOUSE OF LANNISTERS...PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF WESTEROS.....R ESPONDENT

~Memorial for the Respondents~

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................X

ISSUES RAISED.......................................................................................................................XII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................XIII

BODY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................................1
[1] That the petition is not maintainable..................................................................................................1

[2] That the Notification Issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is Valid.......................3

2.1 That The 2016 Notification is Substantive Intra-Vires The Statute...........................................................3

2.1.1 That the notification is consistent with the objects and reasons of PCA Act......................................4

2.1.2 That the notification does not violate specific provsions of the PCA Act...........................................5

2.1.3 That it is not in contravention to the provisions under the Constitution of Westeros.........................7

2.2 The banning of Oont Dangal violates the Cultural Rights of the Lannisters...........................................8

[3] That the Ordinance promulgated by the Governor is Valid.............................................................9

3.1 That There is Presumption of Constitutionality in Favour of the Impugned Ordinance............................9

3.3 That There is Limited Ground of Judicial Review of Ordinance.............................................................10

3.3 That the Impugned Ordinance has been Promulgated with Legislative Competence..............................11

3.3.1 That there is distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution............................................11

3.3.2 That the impugned ordinance passes the muster of Constitutionality...............................................12

3.4 That the Impugned Ordinance has been Promulgated in Exercise of Legislative Power........................13

3.4.1. That there is no concept of strict doctrine of separation of powers under the Indian Constitution 13

3.4.2 That the ordinance does not usurp the Judicial Power.....................................................................14

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................XV
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& And

Paragraph

Paragraphs

ABW Animal Welfare Board of Westeros

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cal Calcutta

Co. Company

Del. Delhi

ed. Edition

Ors. Others

PCA Act Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Sec. Section

Supp. Supplementary

UOI Union of India

v. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

A. Manjula Bhashini & Ors v. The Managing Director, A.P. Womens Cooperative Finance
Corporation Ltd., (2009) 8 S.C.C. 431-----------------------------------------------------------7, 9
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710---------------------------------------------------9
A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras, (1957) SCR 399--------------------------------------------------12
A.V. Nachane & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (1982) 1 S.C.C. 205----------------------------15
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. GTL Infrastructure Ltd., (2017) 3 S.C.C. 545---------13
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547------------------------------4
Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1899-----------14
Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2004) 2 S.C.C. 553----------------------12
Bhim Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 5 S.C.C 538----------------------------------------14
Bhubaneshwar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 S.C.C. 77--------------------15
Bhuri Nath v. State of J.&K., (1997) 2 S.C.C. 745---------------------------------------------------8
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647----------------------------12
Centre for Environmental Law WWF - India v. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 8 S.C.C. 234
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1987-----------------------14
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41------------------------10
Commr, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
Comorin Match Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 281-------------------15
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 378------------------------------------------------2
D.S. Garewal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 512----------------------------------------------4
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1983) 4 S.C.C. 166-----------------12
Delhi Laws Act, 1912, In re, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 332--------------------------------------------------3
Elel Hotels And Investments Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1664-----------13
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 S.C.C. 715------------1
G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2013) 6 S.C.C. 620---------------------------8
H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, A.I.R.
1971 S.C. 530-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 1960
S.C. 554------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 352----------------------------------1
I.R.Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors., A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 861--------------14
I.T.C. Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors., (2002) 1 SCR 441--------12
Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala & Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1431-----------------------15
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. The Workman of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals
Ltd., (2007) 1 S.C.C. 408----------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299---------------------------------------13
International Ore & Fertilizers (India) (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., (1987) 4 S.C.C. 203------------4
Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 57 15
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 S.C.C. 305--------------------------------------------------1
Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1260--------13
K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 428---------------------15
K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 S.C.C. 414-----------12
Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. State Of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 2 S.C.C. 254------------------------------10
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569----------------------------------------------12
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1031--------------12
Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala & Anr., (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225---------------------------12
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225------------------------------------13
Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 3 S.C.C. 1----------------------10
Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 QB 91 ; Slattery v. Naylor (1888) 13 AC 446------------------------7
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 898------------------------------------------11
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388-------------------------------------------4
Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1978) 2 S.C.C. 50-------------------15
Mahal Chand Sethia v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 UJ 616 SC-------------------------------15
Mahant Moti Das v. S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer in Hindu Religious Trusts, A.I.R. 1959
S.C. 942------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and Higher Secondary Education and
Another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth, (1984) 4 S.C.C. 27----------------------------------4
Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 1----------14
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 731--------------------------10
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. New Shrock Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd,
(1970) 2 S.C.C. 280-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Mylapore Club v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 752-------------------------7, 9
N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Ors., (2002) 8 S.C.C. 106----------------8
P. Kannadasan & Ors. v. State of T.N, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 670---------------------------------------13
P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Anr., (1987) 1 S.C.C. 362----------------------------15
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 399---------------------15
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corpn. of India v. Debyajoti Bose, A.I.R. 2000 Cal 43-------------1
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549--------------14
Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman Patna Administration Committee, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 569--------5
Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1563--------13
Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 560----------------------------------------------5
Regional Executive, Kerala Fisherman's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 S.C.C.
341--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
S.R Bommai v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1918--------------------------------------------10
S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 16----------------------------------------------15
S.T Sadiq v. State of Kerala, (2015) 4 S.C.C. 400--------------------------------------------------15
Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 S.C.C. 506---------------------------------------2
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors., A.I.R. 1970
S.C. 192------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals v. State of Kerala, (1981) 4 S.C.C. 391--------------12
Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745-------------------------------------------14
State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 S.C.C. 709-----------------------------11
State of Bihar & Anr. v. Bal Mukund Sah & Ors., (2000) 4 S.C.C. 640-------------------------13
State Of Bombay & Anr. v. F.N. Balsara, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 318----------------------------------10
State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 244-------------------------------------5
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 S.C.C. 684-------------------------------8
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli & Anr., (2012) 6 S.C.C. 312-------------------------12
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors., (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5--------------------12
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 544--------------------------------------------12
State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2014) 12 S.C.C. 696---------------------------15
State of West Bengal & Ors v. Committee for Protect, Democratic Rights, West Bengal &
Ors., (2010) 3 S.C.C 571-----------------------------------------------------------------------------14
State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 10 S.C.C. 201---------------13
 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441-------------2
Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1990) 1 S.C.C. 109------------13
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., (2012) 3 S.C.C. 277--------------4
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481------------10
Tamil Nadu Couvery NVV NU P Sangam v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1316-----------2
Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 504--------------------------------12
The Non Human Rights Project, Inc., on behalf of KIKO v. Carmen Pristi, 2-14 WL 6802767
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal, (1976) 3 S.C.C. 167---------------------7
UCO Bank & Anr. v. Dipak Debbarma & Ors., (2017) 2 S.C.C. 585----------------------------12
Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, (1989) 3 S.C.C. 488----------------------------------------------15
Union of India v. Aflon Engineering Corporation, (2001) 10 S.C.C. 677-------------------------6
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr., (2004) 10 S.C.C. 1-----------------------------4
Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2072------------11
Virender Singh Hooda & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 588----------------------15
Virendra Nath Gupta v. Delhi Adminsitration, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 307-------------------------------8
Vishal N Kalsaria v. Bank Of India & Ors., (2016) 3 S.C.C. 762---------------------------------12
Welfare Association, A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors., (2003) 9 S.C.C.
358------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 S.C.C. 246
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

BOOKS

1. C.K. THAKKER, M.C. THAKKER & V.G. RAMACHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS, Vol. 1 & 2,
Eastern Book Company (6th ed., 2006).
2. DR. DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Vol. 1 & 2. LexisNexis
(14th ed., 2009).

3. DR. DURGA DAS BASU, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Butterworth Heinemann (8th
ed., 2011).

4. E. MUKASA-MUGERWA, THE CAMEL (CAMELUS DROMEDARIUS): A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW, ILCA (5th ed., 1981).
5. H.M SEERVAI., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, Universal Law Book
Publishing (4th ed., 2015).
6. JUSTICE SUJATA V. MANOHAR, T.K. TOPES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Eastern Book
Company (3rd ed., 2010).
7. L.M SINGHVI & JAGDISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, Jain Book
Agency (2nd ed., 2007).

8. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LexisNexis Buttersworth (7th ed., 2016).

9. M.P. SINGH, ED., V.N. SHUKLAS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Eastern Book Company (13th ed.,
2017).
10. R.W.M. DIAS, JURISPRUDENCE, LexisNexis (5th ed., 2014).
11. RICHARD D. RYDER, SPECIESISM, PAINISM AND HAPPINESS: A MORALITY FOR THE TWENTY-
FIRST CENTURY, Andrews UK Limited (1st ed., 2017).
12. V.D. MAHAJAN, JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY, Eastern Book Company (5th ed.,
2016).

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1949.

2. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960.
3. The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001.
4. The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animal Rules, 1965.

LEXICONS

1. Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary (10th ed., 2014).

2. Margaret Deuter, Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary (9th ed., 2015)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners filed the present petition under Article 32* of the Constitution of India and the
respondents have filed the response countering the same.

*
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

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

(2) 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 maybe appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 I. The Republic of Westeros is a country in South of Essos with a population of
approximately 1.2 billion. It is famous for its more than 1000 years old traditions.
Westeros is a Federation with a parliamentary system government governed by the
constitution of Westeros. Kings Landing is the capital of Westeros.

II. The state of Lannisport in Westeros is composed mainly of wealthy Lannisters who
are in minority compared to the rest of the population of the country. Cersian is the
commonly spoken language. A festival called Harvest Feast is celebrated in March
every year. It involves an event Oont-Dangal, in which the participants try to
embrace the camels that have been specifically bred, usually the Rajwadi Camels.The
tamed weak camels are used for domestic activities and agriculture. Whereas, the
untamable strong camels are used for mating ensuring the inheritance of wild
generation of camels. It is scientifically proven to be one of the best way of breeding
and the calves so born have higher immunity.

III. Oont-Dangal has been known to be practiced during Lannisport classical period
since last 2000 years. There are signs indicating the practice being an ancient one like
a Seal from Westeros Valley Civilization and several cave paintings found in the
Cave of Three eyed Crows. Due to its cultural and historical significance, the fair
conduction of the competition is ensured. The calves are fed a nutritious diet. Both the
camels and the human participants undergo medical tests, including that for alcohol,
before the competition.

IV. There have been protests against the event since 2004, by the Federation of Westeros
Animal Protection Agencies (FWAPA) and PETA Westeros. A case was filed in the
Supreme Court by the Animal Board of Westeros (ABW) seeking an outright ban on
Oont-Dangal because of the cruelty to animals and threat to public safety involved.
It was also claimed that the event exploits camels and forces them to act against their
natural instincts as a prey.

V. In 2010, the Supreme Court permitted the Lannisport government to allow the event
in 2010. It directed the District Collectors to make sure that participating animals are
registered to the ABW. The Board would send its representatives to monitor over the
event.
 VI. In 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests banned the event by issuing a
notification banning the use of camels as performing animals. But the practice of
continued to be held under the Lannisport Regulation of Oont-Dangal Act, Act No 35
of 2009. In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down this law and banned Oont-
Dangal. It also stated that any violations would bring heavy penalties. The Court also
asked the Centre to bring camels within the ambit of the law on cruelty to animals.

VII. The judgement led to large-scale protests by youngsters across the state of Lannisport.
Following the ban. nearly 28000 youths protested in front of the State legislature
building in Kings Landing. A statement by the Famous Lannisport Film super star,
Mr. Tyrion Lannister, in favour of Oont-Dangal resulted in mass protests across the
state. There were some minor casualties and human injuries.

VIII. On January 2016, the Ministry of Environment and Forests ended the ban through its
official notification and permitted the continuation of the tradition under certain
conditions in January 2016. Furthermore, the Governor of Lannisport also
promulgated a special ordinance. Its object was to protect camels, in particular
Rajwadi Camels; to protect the local ways, traditions; providing for effective manner
of breeding and increasing immunity of camels. The state of Laninsport complied
with all the legal formalities regarding the ordinance.

IX. A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the notification and the ordinance
was filed by the ABW in the Supreme Court. The court issued a stay order against the
notification and sought complete ban on Oont-Dangal by issuing notices to both the
Central Government and the Government of Lannisport on 14th January, 2016. A
separate petition was filed on 16th January 2016 by the House of Lannisters, an NGO
working for preservation of cultural rights of Lannisters seeking the immediate lifting
of ban as it prevented them from enjoying their cultural rights.

X. The Supreme Court has clubbed all petitions and agreed to hear the contentions. The
matter is listed for final adjudication.
 ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE?

II.

WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS IN

JANUARY, 2016 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

III.

WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR OF LANNISPORT IS VALID?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1]. THAT THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.

It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable before the Honble Court as there has been
no violation of any Fundamental Right enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of
Westeros, which is an essential for a petition under Art. 32. Furthermore, it is submitted that
the jurisdiction of the Honble Court cannot be invoked as the present case is not an issue of
great constitutional significance.

[2]. THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND

FORESTS IN JANUARY, 2016 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

It is submitted that the 2016 notification is substantive intra-vires the statute as the
notification is consistent with the objects and reasons of PCA Act and it does not violate any
provisions of PCA Act. The notification is not in contravention to the provisions of the
Constitution of Westeros. Furthermore, it is submitted that the banning of Oont Dangal
violates the cultural rights of the Lannisters.
 [3]. THAT THE ORDINANCE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNOR OF LANNISPORT IS VALID.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the impugned ordinance is valid as there
is presumption of constitutionality in favour of the Impugned Ordinance and that there is
limited ground of judicial review of ordinance. It is contended that the impugned ordinance
has been promulgated with Legislative Competence as there is distribution of legislative
powers under the Constitution and the Ordinance passes the muster of constitutionality.
Furthermore, the impugned ordinance has been promulgated in exercise of the legislative
power as there is no concept of strict doctrine of separation of powers under the Indian
Constitution and the ordinance does not usurp the Judicial Power. Arguendo, it is submitted
that even if ordinance is in conflict with the judicial decision, the impugned ordinance is
valid.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] THAT THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the petition filed by the Animal Welfare
Board of Westeros [Hereinafter referred to as the AWB] is not maintainable. The petitioner has
approached the Honble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Westeros.

It is submitted that the purpose for which article 32 can be invoked is to enforce Fundamental
Rights. Violation of a fundamental right is sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by
article 32.1 The person whose Fundamental Right has been infringed has locus standi to move the
Supreme Court under Article 32 for enforcement of his right.2

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the petition is not maintainable because no
fundamental rights were violated due to the notification or the ordinance. The notification and the
ordinance under challenge do not affect any persons right. Article 32 can be invoked only for the
purposes of enforcement of rights mentioned in Part III. Animal do not have fundamental rights
under this part. The Part talks only about the person or citizen. Animals do not come under any
of those categories.

It is contended that even if the duties given in Part IV- ie Article 51A are given Hohfeldian
analysis, it cannot be said that the animals have a corresponding right. Non-performance of a duty
by a person may be punishable if it violates the right of another person. No non-human animal
would satisfy this requirement. In earlier times, courts have allowed cases against beetles for
causing crop failure or exiled a ram to Siberia for wounding a man to death. 3 But, it is injudicious
to expect that in modern legal system. The same was reiterated by the New York Appellate Court
where it held that rights could belong only to persons because they could be held legally
accountable for their actions.4 Hence, it is humbly submitted that animals are incapable of
possessing rights based on jurisprudential analysis. A beast is as incapable of legal rights as it is of

1 Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 S.C.C. 715 ; Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v.
Union of India, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 352.
2 Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corpn. of India v. Debyajoti Bose, A.I.R. 2000 Cal 43 ; Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,
(1992) 4 S.C.C. 305.
3 Cristina Pelayo, Uncommon Law: The Trial of Otiorhynchus Sulcatus, 27:3 ABA Journal 59 (2000).
4 The Non Human Rights Project, Inc., on behalf of KIKO v. Carmen Pristi, 2-14 WL 6802767.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

duties. His interests are not recognised by law. Law is made for men and allows no fellowship or
bonds of obligation between men and lower animals.5

It is humbly contended that even if it is assumed that the animals have been given rights under
statutes like Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [Hereinafter referred to as the PCA Act],
The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001, The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and
Pack Animal Rules, 1965, these rights are purely legal and statutory in nature. They are neither
fundamental nor constitutional rights. It is submitted that the Article 32 under which the petitioner
has approached the Honble Court does not apply in any way or form. Article 32 is reserved only
for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

It is also submitted that although the Honble Court may entertain matters that are not related to
Part III of the Constitution of Westeros within its jurisdiction under Article 32 6, the matter involved
in the present case is not of grave constitutional significance that needs to be decided
authoritatively. In the present case, approaching the High Court of Lannisport would have been
more appropriate, as the powers of the High Courts are wider Article 226. Thus, the present petition
is not maintainable in the Honble Court as there exist no fundamental rights.

5 V.D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory 332 (2016).

6 D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 378 ; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass. v. Union of India,
(1993) 4 S.C.C. 441 ; Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 S.C.C. 506 ; Tamil Nadu Couvery NVV NU P
Sangam v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1316.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[2] THAT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND

FORESTS IS VALID

It is humbly submitted that the January 2016 Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests is valid. According to the Constitution of India, the "Law" includes any Ordinance,
order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the
force of law.7 Notification, a form of delegated legislation, is a law made by an executive authority
under the powers given to them by primary legislation in order to implement and administer the
requirements of that primary legislation.

According to Sir John Salmond, "Subordinate Legislation is that which proceeds from any
authority other than the sovereign power and is, therefore, dependent for its continuous existence
and validity on some superior or supreme authority." 8 The power of delegation is ancillary to the
power of legislation and the limitation upon delegation of power is that the legislature cannot part
with its essential legislative power that has been expressly vested in it by the constitution. 9 So, the
delegation is held to be valid except with repealing and modification of legislative power.10

Thus, in the following submissions it shall be put forth [2.1] that the 2016 notification is
substantive intra-vires the statute and [2.2] that banning of Oont Dangal violates the cultural
rights of the Lannisters.

2.1 THAT THE 2016 NOTIFICATION IS SUBSTANTIVE INTRA-VIRES THE STATUTE

It is humbly submitted that the 2016 Notification is substantive intra vires the statute. In the
following submission it shall be put forth [2.1.1] that the Notification is consistent with the objects
and reasons of PCA Act; [2.1.2] that the notification does not violate specific provisions of PCA
Act and [2.1.3] that it is not in contravention to the provisions under the Constitution of Westeros.

7 INDIA CONST. art.13, cl.3(a).

8 V.D. MAHAJAN, JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY 160 (2016).
9 Delhi Laws Act, 1912, In re, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 332. [Hereinafter referred to as Delhi Laws]
10 V.D. MAHAJAN, JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY 162 (2016).
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.1.1 That the notification is consistent with the objects and reasons of PCA Act.

It is humbly submitted that the notification is consistent with the objects and reasons of the PCA
Act. Legislature and its delegates are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy
should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act for its efficacious implementation. 11 So
long as the body entrusted with the task of framing rules or regulations acts within the scope of the
authority conferred on it, in the sense the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus the
object and purposes of the statute, it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine
whether the purpose of a statue can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has
been laid by the Legislature or its delegate.12

The PCA Act is a welfare legislation, which has been enacted with an object to safeguard the
welfare of the animals13 and evidently to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on
animals14 recognizing the intrinsic value and worth of animals. While constructing a welfare
legislation a liberal construction should be placed on the provisions so that the purpose of the
legislation may be allowed to be achieved rather than frustrated and stultified. 15 It should be
construed broadly and liberally in consonance with the objective of the act.16

There has been a slow but an observable shift from the anthropocentric approach to a more natures
right centric approach in International Environmental Law, Animal Welfare Laws etc. 17
Anthropocentrism is always human interest focussed thinking that non-human has only
instrumental value to humans18 whereas Eco-centrism is nature centred where humans are a part of
nature and non-humans have intrinsic value19. Therefore what emerges is that human interest does
not take automatic precedence20 and every species has an inherent right to live and shall be

11 D.S. Garewal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 512 ; Delhi Laws, Supra note 3.
12 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh
Bhupesh Kumar Seth, (1984) 4 S.C.C. 27 [Hereinafter referred to as Paritosh] ; Union of India v. Azadi Bachao
Andolan & Anr., (2004) 10 S.C.C. 1.
13 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 S.C.C. 547. [Hereinafter referred to as the Nagaraja]
14 Preamble, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
15 International Ore & Fertilizers (India) (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., (1987) 4 S.C.C. 203.
16 Regional Executive, Kerala Fisherman's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 S.C.C. 341.
17 Nagaraja, Supra note 13.
18 T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., (2012) 3 S.C.C. 277.
19 Centre for Environmental Law WWF - India v. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 8 S.C.C. 234.
20 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

protected by law, subject to exception provided out of necessity.21 The dignities of animals have to
respected and protected from unlawful attacks.

In the present case i.e. Oont Dangal, a unique cultural and religious practice, the participants try
to embrace the camel to ensure whether the camel is fit for mating or not. The tamed weak camels
are used for domestic activities and agriculture. 22 Scientific studies have proven that this is one of
the best ways of breeding.23 There is no infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the camel,
hence, it is humbly submitted that the notification is consistent with the provisions of the Act.

2.1.2 That the notification does not violate specific provsions of the PCA Act.

It is humbly submitted that the notification does not violates specific provisions of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Under the Constitution of Westeros, in construing the scope of a
law extended under the enactment qua an existing law, the question is not whether there are
changes or not, the question is only, are they inconsistent with, in conflict with or repugnant to, the
scheme of the existing law.24 Notification would be valid if the law extended is not in conflict with
or repugnant to or does not repeal any existing law.25

The PCA Act casts a duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all
reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon
such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. 26 Nothing contained in this Act shall render unlawful
the performance of experiments (including) experiments involving operations) on animals for the
purpose of advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will
be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease,
whether of human beings, animals or plants.27 Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to the
exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes. 28 Nothing contained in this Act shall
render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.29

21 Nagaraja, Supra note 13.

22 Moot Proposition, 2.
23 Moot Proposition, 2.
24 Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 560.
25 Paritosh, Supra note 12 ; State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 244 ; Raj Narain Singh v.
Chairman Patna Administration Committee, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 569.
26 3, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
27 14, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
28 27(b), The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
29 28, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Furthermore, as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Aflon
Engineering Corporation,30 if an explanation could be inserted when the notification was first
promulgated there is no legal impediment on the government in issuing a notification which has the
affect of amending an earlier notification and thereby restricting the operation of the exemption
notification. Also, Rule 8 deals with the general condition of registration for performing animals.
Rule 8(v) states that the owner shall ensure that any animal is not inflicted unnecessary pain or
suffering before or during or after its training or exhibition. Rule 8(vii) specifically caution that the
owner shall train the animal as a performing animal to perform an act in accordance with the
animals natural instinct. 31

In the present case, Oont Dangal is a traditional event involving camels where the participants try
to embrace the camel to ensure whether the camel is fit for mating or not. 32 The camels are bred
specifically by people of all the villages in Lannisport for the event and attended mainly by the
Rajwadi Camels who are known for their agility and fierceness.33

Scientific studies have proven that it is one of the best ways of breeding. 34 The reproduction of the
herds should be achieved by selection of suitable male camels which should have the following
characteristics: The camel or its father should have had predominately female progeny with good
milk performance; it should be fully grown and strong; it should be a good fighter able to
overcome other males.35

Camelus bactrianus has evolved in a particularly harsh environment that is unfit for the majority of
predators. They have an enormous size and difficulty in killing. 36 The anatomical formation of the
camel's feet aids in their ability to go long distances in harsh desert conditions 37. Thus they are not
prey by nature and the recognition of camels as draught and pack animals 38 is no impediment in
recognition of camels as performing animals. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the notification
does not violate any specific provisions of the PCA Act.

30 Union of India v. Aflon Engineering Corporation, (2001) 10 S.C.C. 677.

31 The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001.
32 Moot Proposition, 2.
33 Moot Proposition, 2.
34 Moot Proposition, 2.
35 I. Mostafa, Egyptian Camels (Reproduction & Production & Distribution), L3 THE 39TH INTERNATIONAL SESSION
OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FACULTY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 189-192 (2010).
36 E. PALMER, FIELDBOOK OF MAMMALS (Dutton Publishing, New York 1957).
37 2 R. NOWAK, WALKER'S MAMMALS OF THE WORLD (6th ed., The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and
London 1999).
38 The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animal Rules, 1965.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.1.3 That it is not in contravention to the provisions under the Constitution of Westeros

It is humbly submitted that the notification is not in contravention to the provisions under the
Constitution of Westeros. The power to legislate is a plenary power vested in the legislature 39 &
unless those who challenge the legislation clearly establish that their fundamental rights under the
Constitution are affected or that the legislature lacked legislative competence, they do not succeed
in their challenge to the enactment brought forward in the wisdom of legislature.40

A regulation or even a bye law cannot be struck down by the court on the ground of reasonableness
merely because the court thinks that it goes further than is necessary or that it does not incorporate
certain provisions which, in the opinion of the court, would have been fair and wholesome. 41
Unless it can be said that a bye law is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable, or partial, in its
operation, it cannot be invalidated by the court on the ground of unreasonableness. The responsible
representative body entrusted with the power to make bye laws must ordinarily be presumed to
know what is necessary, reasonable, just and fair.42 Reasonableness should be judged in realistic
and practical context.43

According to the Constitution, it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living
creatures44 and to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. 45
The objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles
48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen.

In the present case Oont Dangal does not seem to violate the provisions of the reasonableness
under the Constitution, is in consonance with the fundamental duties and aims to promote the
directive principles of the state policy as it effective way of breeding which has been proven
scientifically. Hence it is humbly submitted that the notification does not violate the provisions of
the constitution and is valid.

39 Mylapore Club v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 752.
40 A. Manjula Bhashini & Ors v. The Managing Director, A.P. Womens Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd.,
(2009) 8 S.C.C. 431.
41 Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 QB 91 ; Slattery v. Naylor (1888) 13 AC 446.
42 Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal, (1976) 3 S.C.C. 167.
43 Paritosh, Supra note 12.
44 INDIA CONST. art.51A, cl.(g).
45 INDIA CONST. art.51A, cl.(h).
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.2 THE BANNING OF OONT DANGAL VIOLATES THE CULTURAL RIGHTS OF THE
LANNISTERS.

It is humbly submitted that banning of Oont Dangal violates many cultural rights of the
Lannisters. Any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language,
script or culture of its own has the right to conserve the same. 46 This right cannot be taken away
by any legislative enactment or rules made by executive authorities.47

Human beings who are at the centre of sustainable development concerns have to exercise their
right to healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. 48 Welfare is the ultimate goal of all
laws and state action, and above all the Constitution. 49 Activities that are not to the detriment of the
larger interest of the society and basic requirements of a welfare state shall be permitted as they
represent the cultural rights of the people. Any custom or usage can be struck down as a source of
law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the
specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament 50 because no usage which is
found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of the land or opposed to
public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld by courts in the country.51

In the present case Oont Dangal is a cultural symbol of the state and its pride too. This act has of
valour has been practiced for years whose main is effective breeding of camels. The Calves that are
reared to become camels are fed a nutritious diet so as they develop into strong and sturdy
animals52 and through the competition be determined whether they are fit for mating or not. They
are subjected to medical tests under the govt vets before the competition 53 which shows that the
method is no way in derogation to the law of the land or opposed to public policy or social
decency. Hence it is humbly submitted that the discontinuation of Oont Dangal violates the
cultural rights of the people as the same is not in contravention to the law of the land.

46 INDIA CONST. art.29, cl.(1).

47 Virendra Nath Gupta v. Delhi Adminsitration, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 307.
48 G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2013) 6 S.C.C. 620.
49 State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 S.C.C. 684.
50 N. Adithayan v. Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Ors., (2002) 8 S.C.C. 106.
51 Commr, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282 ; Bhuri Nath v. State
of J.&K., (1997) 2 S.C.C. 745.
52 Moot Proposition, 3.
53 Moot Proposition, 3.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[3] THAT THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNOR IS VALID.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the impugned ordinance is valid. In the
following submissions, it shall be put forth, [3.1] that there is presumption of constitutionality in
favour of the Impugned Ordinance; [3.2] that there is limited ground of judicial review of
ordinance; [3.3] that the Impugned Ordinance has been promulgated with Legislative Competence;
and [3.4] that the Impugned Ordinance has been promulgated in exercise of the Legislative Power.

3.1 THAT THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN FAVOUR OF THE IMPUGNED

ORDINANCE

It is humbly submitted that the ordinances are promulgated by the President of the Union 54 &
Governor of States.55 They have the same force & effect 56 as a law enacted by the Parliament &
State legislatures in terms of its operation & consequence. 57 The Constitution provides that a law
shall be void to the extent of its inconsistency with Part III 58 & the expression law includes an
Ordinance.59 Any reference to Acts or laws of Parliament or state legislature is construed so, as to
include a reference to ordinance promulgated by either President or Governor.60

The power to legislate is a plenary power vested in the legislature 61 & unless those who challenge
the legislation clearly establish that their fundamental rights under the Constitution are affected or
that the legislature lacked legislative competence, they do not succeed in their challenge to the
enactment brought forward in the wisdom of legislature. 62 Therefore, the presumption is in the
favour of the constitutionality of the statute & the onus to prove that it is unconstitutional lies upon
the person challenging it.63
54 INDIA CONST. art.123.
55 INDIA CONST. art.213.
56 A.K. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710. [Hereinafter referred to as Roy]
57 H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 530.
58 INDIA CONST. art.13, cl.2.
59 INDIA CONST. art.13, cl.3(a).
60 INDIA CONST. art.367, cl.2.
61 Mylapore Club v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 752.
62 A. Manjula Bhashini & Ors v. The Managing Director, A.P. Womens Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd.,
(2009) 8 S.C.C. 431.
63 Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. State Of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 2 S.C.C. 254 ; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481 ; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 731 ;
Mahant Moti Das v. S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer in Hindu Religious Trusts, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 942 ; Hamdard
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3.3 THAT THERE IS LIMITED GROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDINANCE

It is humbly submitted that the Constituent Assembly conferred an Ordinance making power on the
heads of the executive in the Union & the States as a necessary evil 64 & the power is to be used to
meet extraordinary situations so, that the balance struck by the founding fathers between the
powers of the government & the liberties of the people not be disturbed or destroyed. 65 The power
to promulgate ordinance is exercisable (a) when both Houses of Parliament are not in session; (b)
the provision intended to be made is within the competence of the Parliament to enact; & (c) the
President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate
action.66

The judicial review is exercisable only where the exercise of power is based on extraneous grounds
& amounts to no satisfaction at all67 as the court will not enquire into the adequacy or sufficiency of
the material & will not interfere if there is some material which is relevant to the satisfaction of the
Governor.68 It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid preconditions are fulfilled having regards to
the facts wherein mass protests were held across the state which resulted in minor casualties &
human injuries resulting in circumstances which necessitated taking immediate action. 69 Further, all
the legal formalities with respect to the ordinance were duly complied by the State of Laninsport, 70
thus, there is no ground of judicial review having regards the satisfaction of the Governor.

3.3 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PROMULGATED WITH LEGISLATIVE
COMPETENCE

3.3.1 That there is distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution.

Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 554 ; State Of Bombay & Anr.
v. F.N. Balsara, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 318 ; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41.
64 Constituent Assembly (Vol. 8, Part V, Chapter III, pp 201 to 217).
65 Id.
66 INDIA CONST. art.123 ; INDIA CONST. art.213.
67 Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 3 S.C.C. 1.
68 Id ; S.R Bommai v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1918.
69 Moot Proposition, 7.
70 Moot Proposition, 8.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

It is humbly submitted that the Parliament has full & exclusive powers to legislate with respect to
matters in List I & has also power to legislate with respect to matters in List III, 71 whereas the State
Legislatures, on the other hand, have exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List II,
minus matters falling in List I & List III & have concurrent power with respect to matters in List
III.72 Thus, both Parliament & the State Legislatures are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the
Entries appearing on the Concurrent List subject to constitutional limitations that have been placed
upon the state legislature.73

In a Federal Constitution, however, even when the Constitution enumerates elaborately the topics
on which the Centre and the States could legislate, some overlapping of the fields of legislation is
inevitable.74 Where a law passed by the State Legislature substantially falls within the four corners
of the State List, any entrenchment upon the other Lists is purely incidental or inconsequential. 75
Thus, if the core area and the subject-matter of the legislation is covered by an entry in the State
List, then any incidental encroachment upon an entry in the other Lists would not make the
legislation ultra vires the Constitution.76

It is humbly submitted that Ordinances are placed on the same basis as law making power& hence,
they can be made by the President in areas which lie within the legislative competence of
Parliament & by the Governors, in areas where the state legislatures are competent to enact law&
thus, the Constitution makes no distinction in principle between a law made by the legislature & an
ordinance issued by the President or Governor as both are products of the exercise of legislative
power.77

3.3.2 That the impugned ordinance passes the muster of Constitutionality.

It is humbly submitted that the constitutional validity of a statute could be challenged only on two
grounds, i.e. the Legislature enacting the law was not competent to enact that particular law or such
a law is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. 78 A Court cannot sit in judgment over
the wisdom of the Legislature79& plea of unreasonableness, arbitrariness or proportionality always

71 INDIA CONST. art.246, cl.1 r/w cl.2 & Schedule VII.

72 INDIA CONST. art.246, cl.3 r/w cl.2 & Schedule VII.
73 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 898.
74 State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 S.C.C. 709. [Hereinafter referred to as McDowell]
75 Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2072.
76 Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 S.C.C. 246.
77 Roy, supra note 56.
78 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli & Anr., (2012) 6 S.C.C. 312 ; Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala &
Anr., (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
79 McDowell, supra note 74.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

raises an element of subjectivity on which a court cannot strike down a statute or a statutory
provision.80 Thus, the ordinance has to be tested keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind.81

It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of 'pith & substance' has to be applied to find out the true
nature of legislation & the entry within which it would fall.82 The true character & nature of the Act
having regard to the purpose of the Act, its object & scope & the effect of its provisions has to be
determined so, that the list is identified to which an impugned law may be ascribed.83

The object & purpose of the Ordinance was to protect camels in particular Rajwadi Camels & to
protect the local ways, traditions providing for effective manner of breeding & increasing immunity
of camels.84 Having regards the objects, scope & the effects, it is humbly submitted that the subject
matter of the Ordinance falls within Entry 14 & 15 of the State List 85 as the ordinance purports to
protect, preserve & improve the stock specifically Rajwadi Camels by protecting the local
traditions& local way of breeding which various scientific studies have proven to be one of the best
ways of breeding as calves born from the mating of Rajwadi Camels & other female camels have
higher immunity & are less prone to diseases.86

Further, the express words employed in an entry would necessarily include incidental and ancillary
matters so as to make the legislation effective87 thus, in interpreting the Legislative Entry, a broad,
liberal and expansive interpretation is to be preferred as the meaning of an Entry is always
inclusive88& the spirit of the Constitution, the constitutional goals & the constitutional philosophy

80 K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 S.C.C. 414.
81 Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647. [Hereinafter referred to as Binoy]
82 UCO Bank & Anr. v. Dipak Debbarma & Ors., (2017) 2 S.C.C. 585 ; Vishal N Kalsaria v. Bank Of India & Ors.,
(2016) 3 S.C.C. 762 ; I.T.C. Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors., (2002) 1 SCR 441 ; Kartar
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569 ; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co., A.I.R. 1976
S.C. 1031.
83 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors., (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5 ; A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras,
(1957) SCR 399 ; Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals v. State of Kerala, (1981) 4 S.C.C. 391 ; State of Rajasthan
v. G. Chawla, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 544 ; Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 504 ; Delhi Cloth &
General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1983) 4 S.C.C. 166 ; Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam,
(2004) 2 S.C.C. 553.
84 Moot Proposition, 8.
85 INDIA CONST. Schedule VII, List II, Entry 14. Agriculture, including agricultural education & research,
protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases ; Entry 15. Preservation, protection & improvement of stock
& prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training & practice.
86 Id.
87 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. GTL Infrastructure Ltd., (2017) 3 S.C.C. 545 ; Welfare Association, A.R.P.,
Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors., (2003) 9 S.C.C. 358 ; Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1563 ; Elel Hotels And Investments Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C.
1664.
88 Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1990) 1 S.C.C. 109, [Hereinafter referred to as
Synthetic & Chemicals].
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

must guide the broad and liberal interpretation of a Legislative Entry. 89 Thus, it is humbly
submitted that the impugned ordinance has been promulgated with legislative competence.

3.4 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PROMULGATED IN EXERCISE OF

LEGISLATIVE POWER

3.4.1. That there is no concept of strict doctrine of separation of powers under the Indian
Constitution.

It is humbly submitted that the Constitution of India is the basic law or grundnorm which ensures
democratic governance in the country90&its governance is controlled by the provisions of the
Constitution which sets parameters within which three wings of the State, namely, Legislature,
Executive & Judiciary have to function.91

The constitutional scheme generally envisages separation of powers which is not synonymous to
the "checks and balances" as prevalent in the United States Constitutional system 92& in
implementation of the scheme, with respect to separation of powers amongst the main wings of the
State, there is overlapping sometimes, even without encroachment as the Constitution is found to
contain interactive provisions.93

In modern governance, a strict separation is neither possible, nor desirable 94& the Indian
Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute
rigidity.95 The functions of the different branches of the Government have been sufficiently

89 State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 10 S.C.C. 201.
90 Binoy, Supra note 81.
91 Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1260.
92 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299 [Hereinafter referred to as Indira Gandhi] ;
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 ; P. Kannadasan & Ors. v. State of T.N, (1996) 5 S.C.C.
670.
93 State of Bihar & Anr. v. Bal Mukund Sah & Ors., (2000) 4 S.C.C. 640.
94 Bhim Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 5 S.C.C 538.
95 State of West Bengal & Ors v. Committee for Protect, Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 S.C.C 571
; Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 1.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

differentiated96 & there is only a broad separation of powers under the Constitution. 97 Thus, the
Indian Constitution does not accept the strict doctrine of separation of powers.98

3.4.2 That the ordinance does not usurp the Judicial Power.

It is humbly submitted that the legislative function consists in making law 99 & declaring what
the law shall be comes within the purview of the Courts. 100 A final judgment of a court rendered in
the context of a legislation, or delegated legislation is binding 101 & thus, restricts the scope of
legislature from enacting law contrary to the judicially binding decision.102

Having regards the aforesaid, it is humbly submit that the ground of declaring Lannisport
Regulation of Oont Dangal Act, 2009 as invalid was its conflict with the existing central law 103 as
the invalidated act and the central law operated in the same field. 104 The impugned Ordinance
however has been promulgated by the Governor of Lannisport on Entry 14 and 15 of the State
List.105 Thus, there exists no question of curing the basis of the judgment 106 as the aforesaid
judgment does not apply having reference to the impugned ordinance. Thus, the impugned
ordinance does not usurp the judicial power and is valid.

Arguendo, even if ordinance is in conflict with the judicial decision, the impugned ordinance is
valid.

It is a settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that a judicial decision can be rendered

ineffective by enacting a valid law by way of amendment or otherwise fundamentally altering the
basis of the judgment either prospectively or retrospectively. 107 Thus, the effect of judicial
96 Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549.
97 Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. The Workman of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 S.C.C.
408 ; I.R.Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors., A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 861 ; Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1899 ; Synthetics & Chemicals, Supra note 88 ; Special Reference No. 1
of 1964, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745.
98 Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1987.
99 INDIA CONST. art.245.
100 INDIA CONST. art.141.
101 Binoy, Supra note 81.
102 Indira Gandhi, Supra note 92.
103 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
104 Clarifications, Question Number 21 ; INDIA CONST. Schedule VII, List II, Entry 17. Prevention of cruelty to
animals.
105 INDIA CONST., Supra note 85.
106 Moot Proposition, 6.
107 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 399 ; Virender Singh Hooda & Ors. v. State
of Haryana, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 588 ; K. Sankaran Nair v. Devaki Amma Malathy Amma, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 428 ; Madan
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

pronouncements of the High Court or the Supreme Court can be wiped out by removing the defect
in the statue.108

The decision of the Honble Court was based on the 2011 notification issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests that banned the use of camels as performing animals. 109 However, in
January 2016, the Ministry of Environment & Forests issued a new notification that permitted the
continuation of the Oont-Dangal under certain conditions 110 superseding the earlier notification111
thereby, effectively ending the ban.

Thus, the notification removed the defect & fundamentally altered the circumstances upon which
the earlier judicial decision was held and hence, the judicial decision is no longer effective and
binding.112 Hence, the impugned ordinance does not usurp the judicial power & it has been
promulgated in exercise of legislative power and thus, is valid.113

Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1978) 2 S.C.C. 50 ; A.V. Nachane & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.,
(1982) 1 S.C.C. 205 ; Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 57 ;
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 192.
108 Bhubaneshwar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 S.C.C. 77 ; Comorin Match Industries Ltd. v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 281.
109 Moot Proposition, 6.
110 Moot Proposition, 10.
111 Clarifications, Question Number 40.
112 S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 16 ; Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, (1989) 3 S.C.C. 488 ; State
of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2014) 12 S.C.C. 696.
113 S.T Sadiq v. State of Kerala, (2015) 4 S.C.C. 400 ; Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. New
Shrock Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 280 ; P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Anr., (1987) 1 S.C.C.
362 ; Mahal Chand Sethia v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 UJ 616 SC ; Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala &
Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1431.
 RGNUL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Honble Court be pleased to dismiss the petition.

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.

Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

15