Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
…………...…………………………………………………………
(Petitioners)
V.
State of Gujarat
….………………………………………………………………….
(Respondents)
On submission to the
Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………….3
Statutes…………………………………………………………………………….
Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………...4
Synopsis of Facts………………………………………………………………….5
Issues Raised………………………………………………………………………7
Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………….8
Pleadings…………………………………………………………………………..9
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………..
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri and Others v. State Of Gujarat And Ors, 1993 (1)
SCALE 5, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 659.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Quereshi Kasab Zamat AIR 2006 SC 212
State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1963 SC 184
- Statutes -
Government Order (GO) No. 118 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu………
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners approach the Honorable Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, 1950. The respondents respectfully submit to this
jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners.
4
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
The Achtung Company (the Company hereinafter), incorporated under the laws of
Germany has its registered office at Munich. In India, it has its subsidiary business
partner with the name Max Muller Fashions Pvt. Ltd, with its registered office at
New Delhi.
Once upon a time, a half –Hindu half Jain women saw these products at a shop
and was appalled at both products, which she found to be in extremely bad taste.
Being not able to withstand the same, as for her it was a non condonable act against
her religious feelings and an unapologetic act against Indian culture, she choose to
die through Santhara- a practice in which water and food is given up. It followed a
large scale commotion and problems, throughout the country, specially Gujarat.
The World Hindu Parishad condemned the Swastika designs. The Jain
Regulatory Council requested the devout Jain to boycott the goods. The Ulemea-e-
Hindustani, a body of Islamic clerics declared the portrayal of the woman on the T-
5
shirt as obscene and un-Islamic. After such proclamations a large scale law and
order situation broke out that involved rioting in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. All the
outlets were burnt and looted. This all caused a huge dip in the business.
After the order came out, the company moved a writ petition to the Supreme
Court of India citing a violation of fundamental rights.
6
ISSUES RAISED
I. Whether the state of Gujarat has authority to pass any executive order to
regulate the manufacture, sale and consumption of goods?
II. Whether the order passed by state of Gujarat violates fundamental right of the
petitioner?
III. Whether the state of Gujarat can pass an executive order touching upon
religious issues?
IV. Whether the Petitioner is a citizen of India for the purpose of Article 19(1)(g)?
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8
PLEADINGS
In the Constitution of India, the powers to enact the laws on several subjects have been
granted to the Parliament as well as the state legislatures1. These subjects have been
provided in the lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. These lists have been
divided into three parts, namely, the Union List (List –I), the State List (List-II) and
the Concurrent List (List-III). The state legislatures are empowered to enact laws on
the subjects of List-II and List-III.
Public order forms the part of the State List2. Entry 1 of the List mentions in the
explicit terms the authority of the states to enact laws on the subject of public order.
The entry 1 reads as follows:
Public order (but not including _533[the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed
force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or
unit thereof] in aid of the civil power).
1
Articles 246 to 249 of the Constitution.
2
Entry 1 of List II or State List.
3
Examples are: G.O.Ms.No.773 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu,
9
II. ORDER PASSED BY STATE OF GUJARAT DOES NOT VIOLATE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER.
The freedom guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) is not absolute and reasonable restrictions
can be imposed on it under Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. Art. 19(6) reads that:
Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as
it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in
particular, [nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, -
i. The professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
ii. The carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial, of citizens or otherwise].
4
AIR 2006 SC 212.
5
(1986) 2 SCC 20.
10
In the case of Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri and Others v. State Of Gujarat And
Ors6, the state of Gujarat was held justified in controlling the business in intoxicating
liquor by introducing amendment in the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
6
1993 (1) SCALE 5, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 659.
11
III. STATE OF GUJARAT CAN PASS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
TOUCHING UPON RELIGIOUS ISSUES.
It is humbly submitted that the Respondent has authority to pass the executive order to
protect the religious sentiments of the people. The state government has the authority
to pass any order which has force of law under Art.13 of the Constitution.
There are several instances, where in the interest of the religion the state government
has passed the orders. For instance, Government Order (GO) No. 118 issued by the
Tamil Nadu government it declared that "Hindus belonging to all castes possessing
suitable qualifications and training will be appointed as priests to Hindu temples".
There are also several legislations that regulate the religious issues. For example,
section 34 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 deals with the maintenance of order in
religious issues by the police. Further, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act
1995, in its section 19 deals with religious issues in following words:
19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest.—Where [any
authorized officer] , thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, he may, by order,
prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re-transmitting [any programme or channel if, it is not
in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5and advertisement code
referred to in section 6 or if it is] likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is
likely to disturb the public tranquillity.
12
IV. PETITIONER IS NOT A CITIZEN OF INDIA.
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner can not claim protection under Art. 19(1)(g)
as it can be claimed by natural persons only. Juristic persons have not been granted the
status of citizens in India.
There are several cases that deny the citizenship of the corporations. In State Trading
Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer7, the Supreme Court held that a
company or a corporation is not a citizen of India and therefore it can not claim the
fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to citizens.
7
AIR 1963 SC 184.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent, humbly prays before the Honorable Court, to be graciously pleased to:
I. Quash the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the Hon’ble court of
law since there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the accused.
II. Maintain the status quo of the impugned order since there is no
violation of the rights as alleged by the petitioners.
III. Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice
equity and good conscience.
14