1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF

MAHABHARATA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W. P. (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MAHABHARATA

THE PEOPLE’S ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF RESERVATION

(PAPR)……………………………………………………………….………..PETITIONER

VS

UNION OF INDIANA AND

ANR.,……………………………………………………...…………….….RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MAHABHARATA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Name – SHUBHAM SAMBHAV

Registration No. – 16040142136
Course - BBA.LLB ‘B’
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover page………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Table of Content………………………………………………………………………… 2

List of Abbreviation……………………………………………………………………. 3

Index of Cases……………………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………. 5

Brief Fact of the Case………………………………………………………………… 6-7

Statement of Issues………………………………………………………....................... 8

Summary of Argument………………………………………………………………… 9

Argument Advance…………………………………………………………………… 10-12

Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………… 13
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PIL Public Interest Litigation

& And
EWS Economic Weaker Section
AIR All India Reporter
ST Schedule Tribes
SC Schedule Castes
OBC Other Backward Classes
App Appeal
Art Article
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. Therefore
ILR Indian Law Report
Ors Other
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
UOI Union of India
V Versus
 4

INDEX OF CASES

Indra Sawhney V Union of India

M Nagraj V Union of India

Ashok Kumar Thakur V Union of India

SV Joshi v State of Karnataka

Kesavananda Bharti v Union of India

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mahabharata has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Mahabharata.
Article 32 of the Constitution: -

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 may
be 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 clause (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
 6

BRIEF FACTS

This case revolves around Republic of Mahabharata i.e. Union of Indiana which is located in the
South Asian Region of Azia. It is a democratic country with a written Constitution and has 29
States and 7 Union Territories. Throughout the Republic of Mahabharata’s history, religion and
caste system have been an important part of the country’s culture. The history of Republic of
Mahabharata has witnessed some prominent instances of religious and caste disharmony
amongst various religious groups.

The Constitution of Republic of Mahabharata, 1950 declares several fundamental rights, for
example, the right to freedom, right to life, the right to education among others. It also recognises
freedom of religion as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court of Republic of Mahabharata in
its few landmark judgments declared that Right to education is fundamental in nature. But
without basic amenities to a decent life, the fundamental rights cannot be enjoyed in themselves.
Resources are still concentrated in the few hands; Industry too is concentrated in the hands of the
top business houses. Social and economic power is still monopolised by small proportion of the
people. Thus, in order to bring the economically weaker section of the society in the front, it was
necessary to bring them under the garb of some economic policy.
Parliament of Republic of Mahabharata passed the 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill to
provide 10 % reservation in government jobs and educational institutions in favour of
economically weaker sections on 09th January 2019 and enacted as Constitution (One Hundred
and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 to enable the State to make reservations based on the
economic criterion alone. The Act received the assent of the Hon’ble President on 12th January
2019 and was published in the Gazette on the same day. Through this Constitution (One Hundred
and Third Amendment) Act, 2019; a new clause (6) was inserted in Article 15 and 16 of the
Constitution.

Clause (6) as inserted in the Article 15 reads as follows:

“(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause
(2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making, -
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker
sections of citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker
sections of citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as
such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions, including
 7

private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the
minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case
of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum
of ten per cent of the total seats in each category.”

Explanation:- For the purpose of this Article and Article 16, “economically weaker
sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family
income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.”

Similarly, Clause (6) was inserted into the Article 16 and it reads as follows

“(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.”

On May 20, 2019, Governor Ramasheesh signed the Maharajya State Reservation (of seats for
admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and
posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (Amendment and
Validation) Ordinance, 2019

There shall now be reservations in favour of the candidates belonging to SEBC classes from the
educational year 2019-20 and also for admissions to other educational courses including
undergraduate courses requiring the passing of the NEET or any other National Entrance Test.”

The People’s Association for Promotion of reservation (PAPR), a registered NGO, is established
for charitable purpose. The People’s Association for Promotion of reservation (PAPR) aggrieved
with this situation filed public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of Republic of
Mahabharata, challenging the validity of the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, which
paved the way for grant of quota to poor belonging to general category. It has sought the
quashing of the Act saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation..
 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: -

Whether Act regarding the upliftment of economic weaker section by giving 10%
reservation is valid or not ?

ISSUE 2: -
Whether quota exceeding the limit of 50% is allowed under the constitution of
Mahabharata?
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Issue 1: -

In order to do justice across all the weaker sections of the society, it was therefore
considered imperative that the Constitution be appropriately amended to enable the State
to extend various benefits, including reservations in educational institutions and public
employment to the economically weaker sections of the society who are not covered by
any of the existing schemes of reservation to enable them equal opportunity to get access
to educationa1l institutions and also in matters of employment. Thus 10% of reservation
will help them in various perspective of promoting them. And it will not disturb the quota
for other classes.

Issue 2: -
Breaching the 50% limit on reservation is no ground for staying the Amendment. Tamil Nadu
reservation law also allows for 69% reservation. applies to about 87 per cent of the population
and even today Rajasthan assembly passed a bill extending reservation ceiling for OBC’s from
21 to 26 % thus increasing total reservation to 54%. The reservation will not disturb the other
given reservation quota to other societies or classes.

1
S.V . Joshi vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 41
 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.) Whether Act regarding the upliftment of economic weaker section by giving reservation
is valid or not ?

That ‘basic structure’ comprises many features like several pillars in a foundation, some
of which were enumerated in the opinions rendered in Kesavananda Bharati, as cited
below. The significance of these pillars is that if one of them is removed the entire edifice
of the Constitution will fall. Hence, in judging a constitutional amendment, the question
to be addressed is whether the said amendment would lead to a collapse of the edifice of
the Constitution.

Merely affecting or impinging upon an article embodying a feature that is part of the
basic structure is not sufficient to declare an amendment unconstitutional. To sustain a
challenge against a constitutional amendment, it must be shown that the very identity of
the constitution has been altered. In understanding what is to be avoided so as to preserve
the basic structure, the words of Prof. Conrad as quoted by Khanna J. in Kesavananda
Bharati are useful :

“ The amending procedure is concerned with the statutory framework of which it

forms part itself. It may effect changes in detail, remould the legal expression of
underlying principles, adapt the system to the needs of changing conditions, be in
the words of Calhoun ‘the medicatrix (Sic) of the system’, but should not touch its
foundations.”

Thus, a mere amendment to an Article of the Constitution, even if embodying a basic

feature, will not necessarily lead to a violation of the basic feature involved.

It is submitted that the newly inserted provisions of Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) are
enabling provisions for advancement of the economically weaker sections and are in fact,
in conformity with the principle of Reservation and Affirmative action, which are the
touchstones of protection of equality of citizens and also the basis under Article 15(1),
Article 15(2), Article 16(1) and 16(2). Therefore the impugned Amendment is in
conformity with the constitutional principles and does not violate the basic structure
doctrine.
 11

2.) Whether quota exceeding the limit of 50% is allowed under the constitution ?

That at the outset, it is submitted that the conclusions drawn in Indra Sawhney (supra)
are inapplicable to the present case as the said judgment was delivered while determining
the constitutional validity of certain Office Memorandums issued by the Government of
India in the year 1990, which provided for reservations for the backward classes of
citizens in services under the State. The present challenge, however, is in relation to the
validity of a constitutional amendment made wherein Article 15(6) and Article 16(6)
have been inserted, which did not exist on the book when Indra Sawhney was delivered.
Indra Sawhney and the findings therein can therefore have no application thereafter.

That in view of the above, this Hon’ble Court in Indra Sawhney did not have the
opportunity to deliberate or hold in relation to the constitutional amendment, whereby the
new criteria of ‘economically weaker sections of the society’ has been introduced. The
decision was therefore purely on the anvil of the yardsticks available under Article 16 (4)
and Article 16 (1), which are distinct from Article 15(6) and Article 16 (6) and will have
to, therefore, be tested independently.

Furthermore, Article 16 (4) and Article 16 (6) are distinct as Article 16 (4) deals with
backwardness whilst Article 16(6) deals with economically weaker sections of the
society.

That in order to provide reservation to Economically Weaker Sections without disturbing

the existing reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs, the Constitutional Amendment has
provided for a maximum of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections in
addition to the existing reservations. The limit of 50% is only applicable to reservation
made under Article 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) and does not apply to Article 15(6).

That, reference must be made to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in S.V . Joshi vs.
State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 41, where the question that arose for deliberation was
whether the quantum of reservation provided for in Tamil Nadu Backward Classes,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions

2
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1]
 12

and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, being over 50%,
was valid or not.

Holding for the bench, Kapadia J. ordered:

“ Subsequent to the filing of the above writ petitions, Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution have been amended vide the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act,
2005, and the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, respectively, which
Amendment Acts have been the subject-matter of subsequent decisions of this Court in M.
Nagaraj v. Union of India and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India in which, inter
alia, it has been laid down that if a State wants to exceed fifty per cent reservation, then
it is required to base its decision on the quantifiable data.

In the present case, this exercise has not been done.

Therefore, keeping in mind the said parameter, we direct the State to place the
quantifiable data before the Tamil Nadu State Backward Classes Commission and, on the
basis of such quantifiable data amongst other things, the Commission will decide the
quantum of reservation. We are informed by the learned Solicitor General that such data
in the form of reports, which are subsequently prepared, is already available.”

That, as has been stated hereinabove, several Committees have been set up wherein
quantifiable data has been collected highlighting the need for having reservation for the
economically weaker sections of the society. Accordingly, the Constitutional
amendments were necessitated for providing opportunities in higher education and
employment to those who have been excluded by virtue of their economic status.

3
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013]
 13

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited above, the respondent
humbly requests the Hon’ble supreme court be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the writ petition.
2. In the alternative adjudge that the respondent had made the amendment for the interest and
welfare of society.
And pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of Justice,

Fairness, & Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, The Respondent shall duty bound for ever pray.