KES’ SHRI. JAYANTILAL H.

PATEL LAW COLLEGE

INTRA-COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023-24

TEAM CODE: T-27

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA BEFORE THE

CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE COURT

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTTA

WRIT PETITION NO. _________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

JAN JAGRUKT & Ors.

…………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF ARYAVARTTA

…………..RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

I List of abbreviations 2
II Index of authorities 3-4
III Statement of jurisdiction 5
IV Statement of facts 6
V Statement of issues 7
VI Summary of arguments 8-10
VII Arguments advanced 11-22
1. Whether the petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble 11-12
Supreme Court of Aryavartta under Article 32 of the
Aryavarttan constitution?
2. Whether the abrogation of Article 370 is valid with special 13-15
reference to articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Aryavarttan
Constitution?
3. Whether the method followed to abrogate Article 370 is 16-18
violative of Articles 356, 367 and 368 of the Aryavarttan
Constitution?
4. Does the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019 violate 19-20
Article 3 and Part III of Aryavarttan Constitution?
5. Whether Article 35A is discriminatory in nature as it gives 21-22
special rights only to the permanent residence of Jaish and
Kaish?
VIII Prayer for relief 23

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Art. Article
Cl. Clause
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supp Supplementary
Supra Earlier in text
UOI Union of India
v. / vs. Versus
Vol. Volume
C.O. Constitution Order

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUTE REFERRED:
 The Constitution of Aryavartta, 1950
 The Constitution of Jaish and Kaish, 1954
 The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019

B. BOOKS REFERRED:
a. Basu D. D., Shorter Constitution of India, (Fourteenth Edition, Wadhwa and
Company, Nagpur 2009).
b. Basu D.D., Commentary on the Constitution of India (Eighth Edition, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths 2007) Vol. 1.
c. Basu D.D., Commentary on the Constitution of India (Eighth Edition, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths 2007) Vol. 2.
d. Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Tenth Edition, Allahabad Law
Agency 2018)
e. Dr.J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Forty fourth Edition, Central
Law Agency 2007)
f. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
Nagpur 2012).
g. Black’s Law Dictionary, (Eighth Edition, Garner)
h. M.P. Jain, Constitutional Law of India

C. DYNAMIC LINKS REFERRED:

 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com

D. CASES REFERRED

SR. CASE CITATION

NO.
1 Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal AIR 75 1952 SCR 284
2 Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and 1972 AIR 963, 1972 SCR (2)
Kashmir 1014
3 H. H. Maharajadhiraja M. R. Scindia v. 1971 AIR 530 1971 SCR (3)

3
 Union of India 9 1971 SCC (1) 85
4 Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India 1993 AIR 1267, 1993 SCR
(1) 480

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavartta, 1950. The Respondent humbly submits to
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. The Union of Aryavartta was previously under British Rule and gained
independence in 1947. When Aryavartta gained independence from British rule in
1947 the princely states were given a choice to join either the Dominion of
Aryavartta or Rakistan.
II. Jaish and Kaish was a princely state located in the northernmost part of
Aryavartta. The then ruler of Jaish and Kaish Maharaja Ravi Singh accede to the
Union of Aryavartta in October 1947 signing by “Instrument of Accession”.
III. When the Constitution was adopted in the year 1950, article 370 was incorporated
in the Constitution that granted special autonomous status to Jaish and Kaish.
Further Article 35A was inserted into the Constitution through a Presidential
Order in 1954, that granted special rights and privileges to the permanent residents
of Jaish and Kaish.
IV. Aggrieved by the special provisions provided to the residents of Jaish and Kaish,
citizens of Aryavartta had been retaliating for many years and they contended that
the separate set of laws for the people of Jaish and Kaish is affecting the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation. There was a sense of civil unrest for a long
time in the State of Jaish and Kaish.
V. In June 2018, Governor’s rule was imposed in the State of Jaish and Kaish due to
failure of state machinery. After the lapse of six months of Governor’s Rule, under
Article 356 of the Aryavarttan Constitution President’s Rule was imposed in
December 2018.
VI. Considering the public appeal at large in 2019 the President of Aryavartta passed
order stating that all the laws of Aryavartta shall apply to Jaish and Kaish.
Following the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A, Jaish and Kaish were
fully integrated into Aryavartta.
VII. The petitioners including Jan Jagrukt, a non-governmental organisation have filed
petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders of 2019.
The Apex Court clubbed all the petitions with the petition of Jan Jagrukt.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta
under Article 32 of the Aryavarttan constitution?

2. Whether the abrogation of Article 370 is valid with special reference to articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Aryavarttan Constitution?

3. Whether the method followed to abrogate Article 370 is violative of Articles 356, 367
and 368 of the Aryavarttan Constitution?

4. Does the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019 violate Article 3 and Part III of
Aryavarttan Constitution?

5. Whether Article 35A is discriminatory in nature as it gives special rights only to the
permanent residence of Jaish and Kaish?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?

The respondent disputes the admissibility of the petition, asserting that no

fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated during the Article 370 abrogation
process, which adhered to legal procedures and the President's constitutional powers.
They argue that Article 370 was temporary, meant to integrate Jaish and Kaish, and its
abrogation, including changes in Article 367 was justified. The respondent further
contends that the abrogation aligns with Articles 14, 19, and 21, promoting
constitutional uniformity, socio-economic development, and security. Consequently,
they assert that the petition, challenging the abrogation, serves no purpose as it was
intended to enhance public interest and security.

2. WHETHER THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 IS VALID WITH

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE
ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?
The respondents assert that the abrogation of Article 370 in Jaish and Kaish is valid
under Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21. They argue that it promotes constitutional
uniformity, socio-economic development, and security. Article 14 is upheld as the
abrogation eliminates differentiation among citizens, ensuring uniform application of
the Aryavarttan Constitution. Article 19 discrepancies arising from Article 35A
restrictions are resolved through this action, aligning with broader freedoms.
Furthermore, the abrogation aims to enhance security, safeguarding the right to life
under Article 21. The respondents contend that it addresses economic challenges,
potentially improving living standards without disturbing the essence of Article 21.

8
3. WHETHER THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO ABROGATE ARTICLE 370 IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 356, 367 AND 368 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?

The Respondent asserts that Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta was a
temporary provision inserted to ensure Jaish and Kaish’s integration into Aryavartta
and its abrogation was done following the due process of law. That amendments in
clause 4 of Article 367 vide C.O. 272 was not violative of the Constitutional
principles of interpretation for two reasons: firstly, historically the terms “Constituent
Assembly” and “Legislative Assembly” have been used interchangeably in the context
of Jaish and Kaish; secondly the dissolution of Jaish and Kaish’s Constituent
Assembly in 1957 rendered it impossible to get its recommendation however this
could not limit the President’s plenary power to abrogate the provision and thus it was
constitutional to change article 367 vide C.O. 272 in order to modify article 370. The
Respondent thus asserts that the method followed to abrogate article 370 was intra
vires the provisions contained under article 356, 367 and 368 of the Aryavarttan
Constitution.

4. DOES THE JAISH AND KAISH (REORGANIZATION) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE

ARTICLE 3 AND PART III OF ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?
The Respondent asserts that the Union of Aryavartta has the power to recognise states
under Article 3 of its constitution and the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019
is intra vires the powers of said Article 3. It is asserted that the makers of the
Constitution of Aryavartta empowered parliament to reorganise the States by simple
procedure and the affected state or states may express their views but cannot resists
the will of Parliament. Since Jaish and Kaish completely surrendered its sovereignty
to Aryavartta through Instrument of Accession in 1947, it cannot resist the will of the
Parliament of Aryavartta. Furthermore it is asserted that as the reorganisation of Jaish
and Kaish its autonomy in self-governance the Act does not violate Part III of the
Constitution of Aryavartta.

9
5. WHETHER ARTICLE 35A IS DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE AS IT GIVES
SPECIAL RIGHTS ONLY TO THE PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF JAISH
AND KAISH?
Article 35A is discriminatory, curbing the fundamental rights of non-resident
Aryavarttan citizens, particularly affecting Article 16(1), 19(1)(e), 19(1)(f), and 31.
The respondents argue that Article 35A effectively nullifies these rights by providing
immunity against legal challenges. The abrogation of Article 370 and the nullification
of Article 35A aimed to rectify these disparities. Furthermore, the absence of
Aryavarttan Parliament ratification through Article 368 during the introduction of
Article 35A raises concerns about its constitutional validity. The respondents maintain
that Article 35A lacks intelligible differentia and rational classification, refuting
discrimination claims.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?

a) The Respondent contents the maintainability of the petition, stating that NO the
petition stands inadmissible as NO fundamental rights of the petitioners were infringed in the
process of abrogation of Article 370. Also, the method followed for the said abrogation was
in accordance to the procedure determined by the law of the land. Furthermore, the powers
executed by the President of Aryavartta are well within the scope of Capacity of the President
vested upon him by the constitution itself.

b) Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta was a temporary provision inserted to

ensure Jaish and Kaish’s integration into Aryavartta and its abrogation was done following
the due process of law. That amendments in clause 4 of Article 367 vide C.O. 272 was not
violative of the Constitutional principles of interpretation for two reasons: firstly, historically
the terms “Constituent Assembly” and “Legislative Assembly” have been used
interchangeably in the context of Jaish and Kaish; secondly the dissolution of Jaish and
Kaish’s Constituent Assembly in 1957 rendered it impossible to get its recommendation
however this could not limit the President’s plenary power to abrogate the provision and thus
it was constitutional to change article 367 vide C.O. 272 in order to modify article 370. The
Respondent thus asserts that the method followed to abrogate article 370 was intra vires the
provisions of the Aryavarttan Constitution.

c) Most importantly abrogation of Article 370 is valid under Article 14, Article 19, and
Article 21 as it promotes constitutional uniformity, socio-economic development, and
security. Article 14 is upheld as the abrogation eliminates differentiation among citizens,
ensuring uniform application of the Aryavarttan Constitution. Article 19 discrepancies arising
from Article 35A restrictions are resolved through this action, aligning with broader
freedoms. Furthermore, the abrogation aims to enhance security, safeguarding the right to life
under Article 21.

11
d) Furthermore, as the core motive of Abrogation of Article 370 was to foster and
stimulate social justice and economic empowerment. The abrogation was justified by the
government as a measure to enhance security and public safety in the region and therefore
this Public Interest Litigation serves no purpose as the abrogation was solely done for the
enhancement of public interest and security.

12
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 IS VALID WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?

The Respondents submit that

YES the abrogation of Article 370 is in absolute sense valid with reference to Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21 as the abrogation has aimed at achieving constitutional uniformity
and promoting socio-economic development by fostering investment and job opportunities
along with advancing security in the region.

2.1 Abrogation of Article 14 is in concurrence with the provisions of Article 14

a) The repudiation of Article 370 is valid with reference to article 14 as it is by no means

discriminatory towards the citizens of Jaish and Kaish. The abrogation in fact makes the
Constitution of Aryavartta which was previously applicable to all the citizens residing in
various states of Aryavartta, except to the Residents of Jaish and Kaish applicable to all the
citizens along with the once residing in Jaish and Kaish uniformly.

b) Fundamentally taking cognizance of the fact that Aryavartta is a nation that upholds the
rule of law through its democratic and constitutional framework, it can be interpreted that the
Constitution serves as a supreme legal authority thereby adhering to legal principles, rights
and an impartial legal system. Thereby as the ‘Rule of Law’ that is the ‘Rule of Constitution’
prevails in the nation, an integral part of the nation not being subject to it and compelled to
abide by a separate laws makes its discriminatory towards them.

c) Furthermore in the case Anwar Ali Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal 1 the Supreme court
had stated as to only in which circumstances a distinguished class could be provided
exclusive rights as under,

“Article 14 does not insist that every piece of legislation must have universal application and
it does not take away from the State the power to classify persons for the purposes of
legislation, but the classification must be rational, and in order to satisfy this test (i) the
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished those that
are grouped together from others, and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification
and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a
1
AIR 75 1952 SCR 284

13
nexus between them. But the mere fact that the inequality has not been made with the special
intention of prejudicing a particular person or persons but in the general interest of
administration will not validate a law if in fact it results in inequality of treatment. Nor can
the constitutionality of a statute depend on the degree of the inequality brought about by the
law.”

d) The Respondents however state that in the present case the residents of Jaish and Kaish are
Citizens of Aryavartta just as the residents of other 28 states and 8 union territories are and
therefore the first requirement for Intellectual differentia being that those grouped together
shall be distinguished from others stands unfulfilled. Also the second requirement of there
existing a nexus that is a rational relation between the grouping and the object of the act too
stands breached as there exists no special class in the first place.

2.2 Rights guaranteed under Article 19 not affected by the abrogation of Article 370.

a) Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta limited the powers of the Parliament to make
laws for the state of Jaish and Kaish only in matters given under 370 (1) (b) only. Thus, this
article in toto grants special autonomy to the state of Jaish and Kaish to have its own
Constitution, Flag and thereby a significant autonomy under internal matters. These exclusive
rights were further strengthened by the introduction of Article 35A through a Presidential
Order in 1954.

b) Under Article 35A it has been clearly stated imposed restriction on the other citizens of
Aryavartta who were not residents of Jaish and Kaish such as, Settlement in the state which
was in absolute sense violative of Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution of Aryavartta. Another
restriction imposed through Article 35A is restricting on acquiring immovable property in the
state which also defies the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of Property which was prior
to its omission vide 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978 a fundamental right under Article
19 (1) (f).

c) The Respondents thereby submit that in order to eliminate the above-mentioned dissonance
the introduction or Article 35A had created on the Freedoms Guaranteed under article 19 of
the Constitution it was necessary to abrogate Article 370 which ultimately resulted in the
nullification of Article 35A.

14
2.3 The essence of Article 21 not disturbed through the Abrogation of Article 370.

a) One of the core objectives of Abrogation of Article 370 was to foster and stimulate social
justice and economic empowerment. The abrogation was justified by the government as a
measure to enhance security and public safety in the region. By bringing Jaish and Kaish
under direct Aryavarttan governance, the government aimed to better address security
challenges and maintain law and order. This, it argued, was essential for protecting the right
to life and personal liberty of the residents, as unrest and violence had often threatened these
rights in the past.

b) The abrogation was framed as a step towards ensuring the rule of law in the region. It
sought to establish a more uniform and consistent legal framework, eliminating certain
special privileges and laws that had existed under Article 370. This was seen as a means to
protect individual rights and liberties under Article 21 by providing a more predictable and
transparent legal environment.

c) Also as discussed earlier in lieu of granting exclusive right and inability to own property
and various other restrictions imposed had created difficulties for incorporations of
Companies and business thereby creating hinderances in the economic development of the
state. This issue also results in lack of employment opportunities thereby restricting social
development and improvement in the standard of living.

15
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO ABROGATE ARTICLE 370
IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 356, 367 AND 368 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN
CONSTITUTION?

The Respondent humbly submits that,

Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta was a temporary provision and its’ abrogation
was done following the due process of law and that it did not violate any constitutional
provisions.

The Respondent asserts that Article 370 was benevolent exercise in restoring rights to the
people of Jaish and Kaish. The Presidential Order of 1954 diluted many critical provisions of
the Constitution of Aryavartta, including fundamental rights, before making it applicable to
Jaish and Kaish. Part IV, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part X and the 5th and 6th Schedules
were made entirely inapplicable. The words “socialist”, “secular”, and “integrity” from the
Preamble of the Constitution were not made applicable to the state. Key provisions of PART
III, were made to apply partially, taking away crucial rights from the people. It was
“unthinkable” in a democracy to not have these rights specially with reference to the Article
21. Furthermore, Article 370 had deprived the people of Jaish and Kiash of the Union’s
welfare schemes and its’ abrogation conferred them with rights on par with citizens in the rest
of the country. The Respondent thus submit that Article 370 had come to become a bad law.

3.1 Historically, the terms “Constituent Assembly” and “Legislative Assembly” have
been used interchangeably.

a) In 1951, when Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a Proclamation to create a Constituent Assembly
to draft a Constitution for the State, Jaish and Kaish were already a part of Aryavartta under
Article 1. Therefore, the Constituent Assembly could never have created a “Constitution”
when it was already bound by another. The Jaish and Kaish Constituent Assembly made a
“legislative enactment”, much like a legislative assembly would do. When Jaish and Kaish
did not have a Legislative Assembly, its Constituent Assembly assumed that role.

b) In Maqbool Damnoo v State of Jammu and Kashmir (1972),2

This Hon’ble Apex Court upheld a Presidential Order which changed the phrase ‘Sadar-i-
riyaasat’ to mean ‘Governor’. The Court upheld this Order only because it viewed the

2
1972 AIR 963, 1972 SCR (2) 1014

16
amendment as a mere clarification to a change in nomenclature, as the office of the ‘Sadar-i-
Riyasat’ no longer existed. There was no alteration of the constitutional framework.

The ‘Sadr-i-Riyasat’ was changed to the ‘Governor’ when the ‘Sadr-i-Riyasat’ was made
obsolete.

c) The Respondents thus assert that now as Jaish and Kaish does not have a Constituent
Assembly, the Legislative Assembly may take on that role. Therefore, the Presidential Order
C.O. 272 that interpreted “Constituent Assembly” to be read as “Legislative Assembly” under
article 367 of the Aryavarttan Constitution as read in relation to the state of Jaish and Kaish is
not violative of the constitutional principles of interpretation.

3.2 Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta was a “temporary” provision.

a) The Respondent asserts that Article 370 was a “temporary” provision inserted to ensure
Jaish and Kaish’s integration into Aryavartta. After the dissolution of the Jaish and Kaish
Constituent Assembly, the provision became invalid leaving the power of abrogation with the
President. The powers accorded to the President as well as the State Government under
Article 370 were expansive and extremely wide. They can alter any part of the Constitution
and apply it to one Part. They can delete any constitutional provision, and can create a
provision. Therefore, given this expanse, the framers would surely, never have contemplated
this provision to remain forever.

b) In H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Scindia v UOI (1970),3

The issue pertained to the rights of erstwhile rulers of princely states. They were bestowed
with special rights and privileges such as “privy purse”—a payment made to them as part of
their integration into India under Articles 291 and 362. When a resolution at the Rajya Sabha
failed to remove these rights due to lack of majority, a Presidential Order was issued to
remove “princely states” from the definition clause under Article 366(22) and thereby remove
the system of privy purse. The Supreme Court ruled against this Order reasoning that princely
states could not be removed from the definition clause of the Constitution as long as Articles
291 and 362 were present. They also held that a Presidential Order could not override a
constitutional provision. Subsequently, after this judgement, Parliament passed the 26th
Constitutional Amendment which “omitted” Articles 291 and 362 from the Constitution.

3
1971 AIR 530 1971 SCR (3) 9 1971 SCC (1) 85

17
This amendment was challenged in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. UOI (1993)4,

The Court upheld the Amendment on the ground that it removed preferential treatment to one
class of people and upheld “fraternity” or brotherhood—a basic feature of the Constitution, as
enshrined under the preamble of the Constitution. The top Court validated the removal of a
provision that undid inequality and brought the citizens of the country to the same level for
the sake of brotherhood. “Dr. Ambedkar for the word ‘fraternity’ explaining that ‘fraternity
means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.’ In a country like ours with so many
disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to emphasise
and re-emphasise that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of
brotherhood.”

Aryavartta has one common citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Aryavarttan
first irrespective of other basis.” the judgement said. Article 370 should be read in this light.

c) As the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957 rendered it impossible to get its
recommendation. This could not limit the President’s plenary power to abrogate the
provision. Article 370(1)(d) equipped the President to make “other provisions” (other than
Article 1 and 370) of the Aryavarttan Constitution applicable to Jaish & Kaish through an
Order. Article 367, was one such “other provision” and so, it was constitutional to change 367
in order to modify 370. The Supreme Court had also upheld the Article 367 route to modify
Article 370 in Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v State Of Jaish & Kaish (1972) when the word
“Sadar-i-Riyasaat” was replaced with “governor” in the Constitution.

d) The Respondents thus assert that the method followed to abrogate Article 370 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution vide C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 was not violative of Articles 356, 367,
368.

ISSUE 4: DOES THE JAISH AND KAISH (REORGANIZATION) ACT, 2019

VIOLATE ARTICLE 3 AND PART III OF ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION?

4
1993 AIR 1267, 1993 SCR (1) 480

18
The Respondent humbly submits that,

The Union of Aryavartta has the power to reorganise States under Article 3 of its’
Constitution and that The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 is intra vires the powers
of said Article 3.

4.1 Parliament is empowered to reorganise the States by a Simple procedure, the

affected State or States may express their views but cannot resist the will of Parliament.

a) “The Indian federation differs from traditional federal system insofar as it empowers
Parliament to alter the territory or integrity of its units, namely, the States, without their
consent or concurrence. Where the federal system is the result of a compact or agreement
between independent states, it is obvious that the agreement cannot be altered without the
consent of the parties to it. Since federation of India was not the result of any compact
between independent States, there was no particular urge to maintain the initial organisation
of the States as outlined in the Constitution even though interests of the nation as a whole
demanded a change in this respect. The makers of our Constitution, therefore, empowered
Parliament to reorganise the States by a Simple procedure, the essence of which is that the
affected State or States may express their views but cannot resist the will of Parliament.”- D.
D. Basu, Introduction to The Constitution of India, 25th Edition, LexisNexis.

b) The provisions relating to the above subjects are contained in Article 3-4 of the
Aryavarttan Constitution. These Articles demonstrate the flexibility of our constitution. By a
simple majority and by the ordinary legislative process Parliament may form new states or
alter the boundaries, etc., of existing States and thereby change the political map of
Aryavartta. The only conditions laid down for the making of such a law are-

i) No Bill for the purpose can be introduced except of the recommendation of the
President.
ii) The President shall, before giving his recommendation, refer the Bill to the
Legislature of the State which is going to be affected by the changes proposed in
the Bill, for expressing its views on changes within the period specified by the
President. The President is not however bound by the view of the State
Legislature, so ascertained.

c) The respondent asserts that the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 was thus
constitutional and with the powers of the Union of Aryavartta as enumerated under Article 3.

19
4.2 The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 does not hinder the autonomy of the
state of Jaish and Kaish.

a) The Respondents submit that Sovereignty and autonomy are distinct. Jaish and Kaish
retained autonomy to govern itself. However, its sovereignty was completely surrendered to
Aryavartta after Maharaja Ravi Singh signed the instrument of accession in 1947. Jaish and
Kaish’s political sovereignty was completely vested with Aryavarttan. The proof of this lies
in the preambles of both constitutions. While the Aryavarttan constitution’s preamble uses the
word “sovereign”, Jaish & Kaish’s preamble used the words “in pursuance of accession of
this State to Aryavartta which took place on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1947, to further
define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of Aryavartta as an integral part
thereof”.

b) Because the right to autonomous self-government and the right to an identity within the
federal framework are fundamental rights flowing from the right to life and other provisions
contained in Part III of the Constitution, it is asserted by the respondents that the Jaish and
Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019 does not violate Part III of the Constitution of Aryavartta as
the Act does retain the autonomy of the State of Jaish and Kaish.

20
ISSUE 5: WHETHER ARTICLE 35A IS DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE AS IT
GIVES SPECIAL RIGHTS ONLY TO THE PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF JAISH
AND KAISH?

Yes, Article 35A is discriminatory in nature as it restricts the remaining citizens of Aryavartta
other than the residents of Jaish and Kaish in exercising the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution of Aryavartta.

a) The Respondents prima facie strongly content to the abstraction of Intellegible

differentia being applicable for the Residents of Jaish and Kaish, the claim draws
from the Supreme Court's stance in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case5, which permits
distinguished classes provided the classification is rational and related to the act's
objective. The respondents argue that Jaish and Kaish residents are Aryavarttan
citizens and do not meet the criteria for an intelligible differentia, nor does the
abrogation serve a rational purpose, negating discrimination allegations.

b) Furthermore, on detailed analysis of Article 35A we come across the discrepancies it

creates. Article 35A reads as,
35A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in
the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of
the State,—
(a) defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir; or
(b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or
imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects—
(i) employment under the State Government;
(ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State;
(iii) settlement in the State; or
(iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may
provide,
shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any
rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part.”
Thereby it can inferred that the application of Article 35A diminishes the essence of a
few fundamental rights such as Article 16 (1), 19 (1) (e) and 19 (1) (f) along with
Article 31.

5
Supra 1

21
c) The respondents thereby state that employment under State government is specifically
provided under Art 16(1) so while on the one hand, Art 16(1) have been preserved
under Fundamental Rights, but Article 35A directly took away that fundamental right
& granted immunity to any challenge on the ground that it would deprive you of a
fundamental right under Article 16 (1). Second right to acquire immovable property
which was previously a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) along with Article
31. Further settlement in the state which was a fundamental right under 19(1)(e) too
stands infringed. Thus with the core objective to eliminate these disparities the
President of Aryavartta abrogated Article 370 and consecutively nullified Article 35A.

d) Furthermore, it is of prime importance to consider that Article 35A was never ratified
by the Aryavarttan Parliament through Article 368 of the Constitution. Typically,
constitutional amendments in Aryavartta require a specific process outlined in Article
368, which involves approval by both houses of Parliament or a special majority in
certain cases. The fact that Article 35A was introduced without such ratification raises
questions about its constitutional validity.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

22
Therefore, in light of the Facts stated, Issues framed, Arguments advanced and Authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed before this Honourable Supreme Court to adjudge, declare and/or
direct that:

1. The abrogation of article 370 is of Constitution of Aryavartta is constitutional and

valid.
2. The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 is constitutional and valid.
3. The petition is dismissed as it cannot be maintained under article 32 as there is no
violation of fundamental rights.

And pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

23