Legal Question in Constitutional Law in India

MOOT PROBLEM

In the year 2010, the Bhartiya Prajatantrik Party(BPP) Government consisting of 13 political parties came to power at the Centre with slender margin by winning 276 seats in the Lok Sabha elections. One of its key constituents, the Amal Kali Front (AKF) won 35 out of the 40 Lok Sabha seats from Tamil Nadu. After hectic lobbying, the Prime Minister Mr. NPK Desai agreed to give the AKF three crucial cabinet berths � Surface Transport and Shipping, Civil Aviation and Information Technology. It was also decided by the Prime Minister (of course, in accordance with the diktat of the Chairperson of the BPP), that since the AKF remained unhappy with the number of ministers inducted, they would field a AKF candidate for the Presidential elections due in 2011.

After arriving at a political consensus, the BPP announced in March 2011 that for the May 2011 Presidential elections, its candidate would be the senior AKF leader Mr. P. Iyengar. In the Presidential elections that followed, Mr. Iyengar was elected the President of the Republic of India. Mr. Iyengar was a dynamic President, meeting business leaders, social activists and political leaders on a regular basis, and often openly aired his views on issues of national importance.

In the year 2013, India witnessed its biggest scams unfold. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), Mr. Vipin Sardesai in a press communiqu� dated 25.08.2013 stated that M/s. Kanny Interests Ltd., a company predominantly owned by AKF leaders had illegally benefited from the Union of India�s policies. The CAG estimated that the loss on account of such illegal and corrupt practices was estimated at a mind boggling Rs. 2, 00, 00, 00, INR. Most of this loss, according to the press release, was on account of the allegation that the President of India had used his discretionary powers to grant tax exemptions and other benefits to three major ports developed by M/s. KANNY Interests Ltd. The press release also stated that the Minister of Surface Transport and Shipping, Mr. Murugan was also involved in the multibillion scam. The release made it clear that the detailed report would be ready with all evidence within a few weeks.

In the midst of this mash up�s there were many demonstrations held by various political parties, treated by lathi charge and also the capital of state witnessed a brutal gang rape, alleged to have support of AKF leaders. Whole nation�s eye was on the president of India questioning why not national emergency be declared.

Bhartiya Yuva Morcha(BYM), a political party with 38 members in the Lok Sabha launched a campaign to expose corruption and promote transparency. It started holding consultations with a range of other Opposition parties to enact a law to curb corruption. It also demanded that the President should resign immediately in the wake of the allegations or else it would, along with other political parties, bring an appropriate motion in the Parliament to impeach the President.

Meanwhile, a social activist Mr. Paramveer Azad, who had been on a crusade against corruption, declared that unless his version of the Janpal Bill, 2015 (a law aimed at preventing and punishing corruption at the highest levels) were tabled in the Monsoon session of the Parliament to begin on 10.09.2015, he would begin a fast-unto-death. It may be noted that the BYM had certain reservations about the Janpal Bill proposed by Mr. Azad.

The Group of Empowered Ministers consisting of the five senior most Cabinet Ministers in the Union Cabinet decided that Mr. Azad�s draft Janpal Bill would not be either placed or discussed in the Cabinet Meeting to be held on 27.08.2015. Consequently, in the Cabinet Meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on 27.08.2015 it was decided no draft from any civil society member would be entertained, and that the Government would formulate a law on the subject after holding consultations with all political parties. The press release issued after the Cabinet Meeting stated that the Government had decided to indefinitely defer the next session of the Parliament.

The CAG submitted its report on the Port�s scam to the President on 30.08.2015. However, after being under severe criticism for revealing some of the details of the report earlier through a press communiqu�, the CAG decided not to make the contents of the report public.

By a joint letter addressed to the President of India, Mr. Azad, the BYM and six other opposition political parties demanded that the report of the CAG dated 30.08.2015 be made public and be laid before the Parliament. They also demanded that the President immediately call the Parliament into session. By a separate letter Mr. Azad and his supporters demanded that their draft of the Janpal Bill be considered by the Cabinet, and in the event it is rejected, the same be introduced in the Lok Sabha for consideration and further to account for the alleged relation of the AKF leaders in the gang rape committed in the state capital. By a press release dated 02.09.2015, the President of India rejected all demands made by Mr. Azad and the BYM and also stated that his decision was supported by a number of constitutional experts and senior lawyers of the Supreme Court of India.

Aggrieved by the rejection of their demands, the Young Leaders Collective filed a petition being WP No.2006/2015 before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, praying that a suitable direction be issued to the President to call the Parliament into session urgently and also, table the CAG report before the Parliament and sought an appropriate relief against the President. Mr. Azad also filed a similar petition being WP No.2007/2015 with an additional prayer that a direction is issued to the Union Cabinet to consider his version of the Janpal Bill and in the event it does not accept it, place his draft Bill before the Lok Sabha for consideration and also to take cognizance of the gruesome rape witnessed by the state capital and seek appropriate relief against the President. Both petitions were admitted and the Union of India and the President were asked to file appropriate responses to the same. The Supreme Court listed the aforesaid Petitions for final hearing on September 11, 2015.

The Petitioners would argue on behalf of Young Leaders Collective and Mr. Azad and the Respondents on behalf of the Union of India and the President of India.

pls guys help me

3 Answers from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in India

Looking for something else?