BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF KRATOS

IN THE JOINT HEARING OF

MR. CROWER SIMHA,
MS. BEEPA,
MS. BEEPIKA,
MS. AMRICH AND
MR. RAJINI
VS.
HON’BLE SPEAKER OF STATE OF LEMURIA (MR. SHRIRAM PAL),
GOVERNMENT OF LEMURIA,
STATE OF LEMURIA,
MR. DHANAPAL SINGH (PRESIDENT OF KRATOSIAN ALTERNATIVE
DEMOCRATIC FRONT ‘KADF’)
W.P.NO._________
AND
KRATOSIAN PEOPLES PARTY (KPP)
VS.
HON’BLE PRO-TEM SPEAKER OF STATE OF LEMURIA (2018),
HON’BLE SPEAKER OF STATE OF LEMURIA (MR. SHRIRAM PAL),
GOVERNMENT OF LEMURIA,
STATE OF LEMURIA
MS. SINGAA RUCHY
W.P. NO. ________

Written submission by Respondent

1
 COVER PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

KRATOSIAN PEOPLES PARTY:

a) Whether Kpp can claim the relief at SC?

b) Whether the speaker’s decision in accepting resignation of Ms.Ruchy is

acceptable?

Crower Simha and 4 others:

a) Whether the petition is valid or not at the SC?

b) Whether Mr.Crower Simha, Ms.Beepa, ms.Beepika, ms.amrich, mr.rajini are

liable to be disqualified under schedule 10 of constitution?

c) Whether the 52nd amendment act of the constitution is constitutional?

PRAYER

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

- &……………..…..”and”
- AIR……….…..…. All India Reporter
- Art……………......Article
- CM.........................Chief Minister
- ECI.........................Election Commission of India
- Govt……………...Government
- HC…………......…High Court
- Hon’ble..............................Honourable
- IUMCC……………...…..Intra University Moot Court Competition
- KADF...............................Kartosian Alternative Democratic Front
- KPP...................................Kratosians People Party
- MLA.................................Member of Legislative Assembly
- MP....................................Member of Parliament
- Mr……………………….Mister
- Ms……………………….Miss
- No……………............….Number
- Page……………..........…Page Number
- Para……………...........…Paragraph
- PIL…………...............….Public Interest Litigation
- SC…………............…….Supreme Court
- SCC………............….….Supreme Court Cases
- SCR…………............….Supreme Court Reports
- Sec……….................…..Section
- TNNLU…...……………Tamil Nadu National Law University
- W.P. No...........................WRIT PETITION Number

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Act:

 The constitutional act of 1950.

 The constitution 52th amendment act 1985.
Case:

 Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillu.

 Santa andolam samits and ors vs UOI
 Devender Pal Singh vs. State of Delhi and Anr.
 Wangalam sawin vs Aranachal Pradesh
 Dr.D.C. Wadwa and ors vs St of Bihar and ors.
 Nazeerthan vs kerala state election commission and ors 2008.
 Rajendra singh rama and ors vs swami prasath manrya and ors.

3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION :

All the laws of Kratos are same as laws of India.

Mr.Simha and others have filed petition under article 32 of constitution at the Supreme Court.

KPP has sought for transfer of petition before Lemurian High Court to the Supreme Court
under Article 139A of the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS :

KPP

In 2018 State Of Lemuria in KADF won During the floor test one of the kpp mla disobeyed
the whip and then resigned and Ms.Ruchy is now a KADF mla in the same assembly. The
speaker of the legislative assembly refused to take action against the mla under schedule 10
of the constitution. Kpp has filed the petition before the High Court.

CS n ors

KADF party president ordered Kadf mlas in Lemuria to vote for Lemurian Freedom of
Religion Bill, 2018. Mr.Crower Simha, Mla of KADF was not able to vote for the bill as he
had some medical issues. The others Ms. Beepa and Beepika voted for the bill as they were
the party mlas and complained against the party to the governor as they expressed discontent
with the bill. Also Ms.amrich and mr.rajini mlas didn’t vote for the bill. They were
disqualified by the speaker of the Lemurian Legisative Assembly. And these five mlas
challenge their disqualification at the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

I.) THE PETITION OF MR.SIMHA & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT AND
THE TRANSFER PETITION BY KRATOSIAN PEOPLES PARTY TO THE
SUPREME COURT ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE.
II.) THE DECISION OF THE SPEAKER TO DISQUALIFY MR. SIMHA & ORS.
IS TENABLE.

4
 III.) THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTY SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT 1985
IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
IV.) THE PRO-TEM SPEAKER WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING MS.
RUCHY’S RESIGNATION AND THE SPEAKER IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
INITIATE DEFECTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

I. The writ petitions are not maintainable.

Mr. Simha has directly petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32. This can only be done
when there is violation of fundamental right. No fundamental right has been violated.
Similarly, KPP;s petition cannot stand because there is no ground to transfer it from High
Court. This requires similar substantial question of law as per article 139A. The two cases are
completely different.

II. The disqualifications are valid.

The MLAs followed publicly an MLA who had abstained from voting and had expressed
alongside him discontent about the party. From this it is clear that they had no qualms about
fraternizing on an official capacity as legislators with defectors.

III. The Anti Defection Law is constitutional.

The anti defection law is constitutional because any infringements in free speech are in the
interests of public order, national integrity and political decency and morality.

IV. The pro tem speaker and speaker are right in not disqualifying Ms. Ruchy.

Ms. Ruchy may have defected as per allegations, but she subsequently resigned. The Law on
defection is silent on whether disqualification can be initiated on subsequent candidatures. It
would not make sense as the aim is to not have members of the assembly be hypocritic and
retain membership in a party while breaking faith. Since her resignation took care of any
offence she may have committed, commencing proceedings now would be a form of Double
Jeopardy that is constitutionally prohibited in Article 20(2).

5
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

I. The writ petitions are not maintainable.

Mr. Simha has directly petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32. This can only be done
when there is violation of fundamental right. No fundamental right has been violated. Any
action taken against the legislators is reasonably classified with an intelligible differentia
pertaining to the rational nexus. Beyond that there is no real meter of rationality in laws and
the speaker has done his due diligence in upholding the venerable nature of the law. Hence
the speaker has not violated the equal protection of laws. At best his acts can be challenged
on the merits of discharge of constitutional functions which is outside of Part III thereby
requiring a petition at High Court under article 226.

Similarly, KPP;s petition cannot stand because there is no ground to transfer it from High
Court. This requires similar substantial question of law as per article 139A. The two cases are
completely different. One case is supporting the defection law whereas the other is against it.
One case asks for defection whereas the other asks for it to be scrapped. They are not even
reasonably similar as one case is about withdrawing support and confidence on the
government and another is about abstention from voting as per party whip.

II. The disqualifications are valid.

The MLAs followed publicly an MLA who had abstained from voting and had expressed
alongside him discontent about the party. From this it is clear that they had no qualms about
fraternizing on an official capacity as legislators with defectors.

Furthermore they all in public said that they had no faith in the leadership of the party. This
makes it clear that they implicitly gave up their party membership or stance in the coalition.
Legislators cannot be allowed to play both sides by retaining membership or affiliation in a
coalition while they also go against the party. This is the reason the anti defection law exists.
As per political morality if one wishes to behave as per one’s conscience they are still subject
to party desires.

III. The Anti Defection Law is constitutional.

The anti defection law is constitutional because any infringements in free speech are in the
interests of public order, national integrity and political decency and morality.

6
Article 19(1) (a) explains the right to freedom of speech and expression. However there are
reasonable restrictions in article 19(2) of the constitution. These include sovereignty and
integrity of the nation, national security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
decency, morality, etc.

Political morality plays an important role here and also affects the integrity of the nation by
ensuring that the constitutional machinery and purpose aren’t frustrated. Thus the defection
law is valid as it falls within the scope of these reasonable restrictions.

IV. The pro tem speaker and speaker are right in not disqualifying Ms. Ruchy.

Ms. Ruchy may have defected as per allegations, but she subsequently resigned. The Law on
defection is silent on whether disqualification can be initiated on subsequent candidatures. It
would not make sense as the aim is to not have members of the assembly be hypocritic and
retain membership in a party while breaking faith. Since her resignation took care of any
offence she may have committed, commencing proceedings now would be a form of Double
Jeopardy that is constitutionally prohibited in Article 20(2).

Further, as per the principles of law a person cannot be prosecuted or sued at any point of
time. There is a time bound nature. The anti defection law mentions that one must apply for
proceedings under it to be commenced. This cannot be done after the nature of the remedy
and the injury of the impugned action are both beyond help. To do so would make the
proceedings more cruel than just. This is a part of the principle of limitations.

7
 PRAYER

It is humbly asked of this honorable court that it:

- keeps the removal of Mr. Simha, Ms. Beepa, Ms.Beepika, Ms. Amrich and
Mr. Rajini.

- Declares the constitutionality of the Constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act.

- Upholds the merit in the decisions of the pro-tem speaker of Lemuria in 2018 and
the Speaker of Lemuria Mr. Shriram Pal in accepting the resignation of Ms. Ruchy
and refusing to commence defection proceedings against her respectively and grants
any other relief it sees fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.