Issue: Locus Standi?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners most humbly submit to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right which gives the aggrieved party the
right to move to Supreme Court for the effective remedy for the enforcement of his fundamental
rights if it has been violated. Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move to the Supreme Court by
“appropriate proceeding” for the enforcement of the fundamental right conferred in the part III of
the Constitution. Only those proceedings are appropriate which invoke, by original petition, the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue, according to the nature of the case, writs or orders or
directions of the types described in clause (2).

Any case is maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, only:

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED ALL THE REMEDY

PROVIDED BY LAW AND HAS NOT OBTAINED PROPER REDRESS?

¶When a breach of fundamental right is made in the petition there the provisions of other
remedies do not stand in the way of exercising power under Art.32 of the Constitution of India.
This was held in the case of Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1971,1 .“It is
wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be invoked
the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or otherwise or that he
has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained proper redress, for when
once it is proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that by state action the fundamental
right of a petitioner under Art. 32 has been infringed, it is not only the right but also the duty of
the Supreme Court to afford him by passing appropriate order in that behalf”.2

The mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per se be a good and
sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under Art.32 if the existence of a fundamental right
and breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged prima facie established on the
petition.3 In the present case the “baby Q”’s fundamental rights have been infringed as she has
been denied her basic right of life by Mrs. Fatima Ghansari and the MP’s of the opposition party
and the petition before the high court under Article 139A of the Constitution of Indica.

2. WHETHER THE PETITION IS FILED AGAINST THE “STATE”?

¶It is humbly submitted that the term “state” has been defined under Art. 12 that the state include
the govt. and parliament of India and the govt. and the legislature of each of the states and all
local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of govt. of India. By
and large fundamental rights enforced against the state. In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid

1
AIR 1971 SC 870 at p. 877, ¶ 16
2
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
3
KK Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
Mujib 4 , Supreme Court laid down the following test to adjudge whether a body is an
instrumentality of the govt. or not:

i) If the entire share capital of the body is held by the govt., it along way towards indicating that
the body is an instrumentality of the govt.

ii) Whether the financial assistance given by the govt. is so large as to meet almost entire
expenditure of the body, it may indicate that the body is pregnant with governmental character.

iii) It is a relevant factor if the body enjoys monopoly status which is conferred or protected by
the state.

iv) Existence of the deep and pervasive state control may afford an indication that the body is a
state instrumentality.

v) If the functions performed by the body are the importance and closely related to governmental
functions, it is a relevant factor to treat the body as an instrumentality of the government.

Hence it is inferred from the given case that ruling party i.e. the ‘Rashtriya Janta Party’ which is
running the central government is a “State”. Hence the writ petition is maintainable before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI?

¶It is humbly submitted that Art. 32 do not prescribe the persons or classes of persons who can
invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for redress of their grievances. The matter of “standing”
thus lies within the realm of the Supreme Court. A person whose fundamental right has been
infringed has locus standi to move to Supreme Court under Art.32 for the enforcement of his
right.

In the present case the present law providing for 33% reservation for women in parliament and
Amendment to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of Indica is considered to be anti-religious,
arbitrary and is against the concept of equality and further the law is unconstitutional because it
is disrupting communal harmony of the country and is becoming a tool of communal politics,
further these laws was made just to achieve the hidden agenda of the ruling party and also
serving the ends of the enemy state.

Since the petitioners have complied with all of the requirements which are essential for
maintainability of the writ petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

i) The petitioner has filed the writ petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly, after
exhausting all the alternative redress provided by law.
ii) The petition has filed against the ‘state’ i.e. the ruling party.

4
AIR 1981 SC 487
On the pretext of complying with all of the requisites, the petition does come under the purview
of Article 32. Hence the petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court in prima facie.