1

TEAM CODE:TC-I

VIII NATIONAL LEVEL INTER - COLLEGIATE LAW

FEST LEX-LOCI, 2024

__________________________________________________
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SAMRAT

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. & APPEAL NO.: ___/ 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 32&136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SAMRAT

IN THE MATTERS OF

MR. AKHIL LAMBA

&

MR. MANOHAR TAMBA............................................................... (PETITIONERS)

VERSUS

STATE OF NIHAR

&

STATE OF KARUNA PRADESH..................................................... (RESPONDENTS)

TO HON'BLE THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMRAT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE ………………………...................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS.………………………………………………………….. 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………. 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.………………………………………………………. 5-6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………………. 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………...…. 8-9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………. 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………… 11-12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………............................................13-26

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………. 27
 3

2. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Art Article

Fundamental Rights
F.R
Others
ORS
and
&
Versus
V./ Vs./ V/S
Percentage
%
Other Backward Classes
OBC
Educationally Backward Class
EBC
Scheduled Tribe
ST
Scheduled Caste
SC
Supreme Court
SC
High Court
HC
According to, same as
Pari Materia
Economically Weaker Section
EWS
Matters under this list are handled by Central
Union List
Government
Public Interest Litigation
PIL
Karuna Pradesh Backward Class
KPBC
Honourable
Hon’ble
Union of India
UOI
 4

Arunachal Pradesh
A.P
Madhya Pradesh
M.P
Census
Entry 69
Right to Information Act, 2005
RTI

Read with
r/w
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITES

STATUTES:
 The Constitution of India.
 The Census Act, 1948.

CASES:

 K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India

 Youth for Equality and Others v. State of Bihar
 State of Andhra Pradesh v B. Archana Reddy
 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India
 T. Muralidhar Rao v. State of A.P.
 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
 Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
 Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
 Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
 Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India
 Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
 State of Madya Pradesh v Thakur Bharat Singh (1967)
 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
 Mohini v. State of Karnataka
 Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
 CA Rajendran v. Union of India
 Om Kumar v. Union of India
 Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr
 Sharma Transport v. Government of
 Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent of Tihar Jail, Delhi
 National Institute of Technology, Karnataka v. Praneeth S
 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
 Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra
 6

 B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu

 State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr.

BOOKS:
 D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 1, 1st Edition: 2011)
 D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 2, 1st edition: 2011)
 H. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume 1, 4th Edition: 2017)
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edition. 2018)
 V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India
 Black's Law Dictionary
 Central Government Official Gazzate
 Oxford Advanced Dictionary
 Concise Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyar
 Patna High Court CWJC No.5542 of 2023(6) dt.04-05-2023 Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary
 Krishan Keshav, Singhal’s Constitutional Law –II

International Treaties, Customs& Judgements

 University of California v. Bakke (1978)

*The Constitution of Samrat and The Census Act,1948 of Samrat are pari materia with
the Constitution of India and The Census Act,1948 of India. *
 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners in the instant case seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by virtue of Art. 32 & Art. 136 r/w Art. 142 of the Constitution of India.
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Samrat: 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.
Art. 136 of the Constitution of India-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
Art. 142 of the Constitution of India-
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and
any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India
in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court
shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production
of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Samrat, is a South Asian Country with a population over 1.3 billion making it the
most populous country in the world. Samrat, a country of diverse religion with
Shrutism being the majority religion, constituting 80% of the country's population.
Istishanism is the second-largest religion in Samrat, making up approximately 15% of
the population. To redress historical injustices and Caste Discrimination, Poverty,
affirmative action policies were implemented, including reservations in education and
employment for marginalized groups such as the Minorities, Other Backward Classes
(OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) as Traditional categories
and the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) to address the economic disparities.
2. The State of Karuna Pradesh, situated in the southern coastal region, seventh largest
state which makes around 13% of population of Samrat and majority of the
population of this state follow the religion- Istishan. On July 22nd, 2023 State
Government of Karuna Pradesh introduced Karuna Pradesh Istishan Reservation Act,
2023, on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner highlighted that
approximately 65% of the state's 6.4 million Istishan population were living below the
poverty line, earmarking 5% reservation in educational institutions and public
services for the Istishan community in Karuna Pradesh.
3. On November 15th, 2023, the Karuna Pradesh State government replaced the
Ordinance with the Karuna Pradesh Reservation under the State to Istishan
Community Act, 2023 (Karuna Pradesh Istishan Reservation Act). However, the Act
faced legal scrutiny when Mr. Manohar Tamba challenged its constitutionality before
the High Court of Karuna Pradesh. The Hon’ble Court stated that the identification of
the Istishan community in the state as a backward Class was based on unscientific and
defective criteria. The High Court, deeming the criteria for identifying the Istishan
community as backward flawed, declared the reservations Unconstitutional.
4. In response, On 15th February, 2024 the State of Karuna Pradesh appealed the High
Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Samrat where SC granted a limited interim
stay on the verdict, allowing those already benefiting from the Act to continue
receiving reservation benefits pending further legal proceedings.
5. On 10th July 2022, he Nihar government issued a notification to initiate a caste-based
survey to collect data on socio-economic conditions to help create better government
 9

policies for disadvantaged groups in the state of Nihar (eastern State in Samrat
Country), known for its rich history and culture, caste discrimination remained deeply
rooted, dominating to social and economic progress. To address this issue, the Nihar
government initiated a caste-based survey in two phases to gather data on socio-
economic conditions, revealing that 64% of the state's population belonged to
backward classes and 34% were categorized as "poor."
6. Based on the survey findings on Ist January 2024, the Nihar Legislative Assembly
passed the Nihar Caste Reservation Act, 2024, proposing a substantial increase in
reservation limits for SCs, STs, OBCs, and EBCs to a total of 65%, with an additional
10% for EWS. This move aimed to foster inclusivity and diversity in educational
institutions and job sectors, aligning with the state's socio-economic goals.
7. Previously, OBCs had an 8% quota, while EBCs held 12%. The proposed amendment
significantly boosts these figures to 18% for OBCs and 25% for EBCs. Similarly, SCs
witness an increase from 14% to 20%, and STs move from 10% to 12%. The changes
reflect a comprehensive understanding of the population dynamics and the need for
proportional representation.
8. However, challenges arose when Akhil Lamba, a resident of Nihar filed a Public
Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the caste-
based survey, as per Entry 69 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. And that the Census
Act of 1948 does not contemplate the caste-based census and the constitutionality of
the Nihar Caste Reservation Act, arguing that only the Union government had the
authority to conduct a census and that the Act violated the Basic Structure of the
Samrativa Constitution.
9. These legal challenges are clubbed and referred to refer the matters to a Constitutional
Bench to the Supreme Court of Samrat, with the hearing scheduled for 17th February
2024
 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON'BLE COURT?

2. WHETHER THE KARUNA PRADESH ISTISHAN RESERVATION ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

3. WHETHER THE NIHAR GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO CONDUCT

A CASTE-BASED SURVEY?

4. WHETHER THE NIHAR CASTE RESERVATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES

THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF SAMRATIVA CONSTITUTION?
 11

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON'BLE COURT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition
filed before the bench is maintainable as it has requisite locus standi and also there is
a violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 14, Article 15,
Article 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present PIL is
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Samrat.

2. WHETHER THE KARUNA PRADESH ISTISHAN RESERVATION ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

It is humbly submitted that the Karuna Pradesh Istishan Reservation Act is

constitutionally invalid for several reasons. Providing reservations solely on the basis
of religion is violative of the fundamental rights as it lacks rational nexus between
reasonable classification and intelligible differentia. Further, the report submitted by
the Commissioner, Karuna Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes (KPBC) was
based on unscientific and defective criteria and was insufficient. And most
importantly the Act exceeds the 50% reservation principle established by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in landmark judgement Indra Sawhney vs Union of India1, thereby
contravening judicial precedent. These factors collectively render the Karuna Pradesh
Istishan Reservation Act unconstitutional.

3.WHETHER THE NIHAR GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO

CONDUCT A CASTE-BASED SURVEY?

It is humbly submitted that the contention arises from the question of whether the
Nihar government possesses the authority to conduct a caste-based survey. The
appellant submits that the Nihar government lacks the empowerment to carry out such
a survey. According to constitutional provisions, the state government's competence
in conducting caste-based surveys is questionable, particularly given the exclusive
law-making power conferred upon the Central government concerning the census.
The data obtained through such surveys infringes upon the Right to Privacy enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution. By collecting information based on caste, the
 12

government encroaches upon individuals' fundamental right to privacy, potentially

leading to discriminatory practices. Consequently, the Nihar government's initiative to
conduct a caste-based survey must be deemed unauthorized and unconstitutional,
warranting judicial intervention to safeguard individuals' privacy rights and uphold
constitutional principles.

4. WHETHER THE NIHAR CASTE RESERVATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES

THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF SAMRATIVA CONSTITUTION?

The petitioner argues that the Nihar Caste Reservation Act 2023 violates the Basic
Structure of the Samrativa Constitution by contravening Articles 14, 21, and 29(1),
along with the principle of secularism. They contend that any law infringing upon
fundamental rights, as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, disrupts the
Constitution's basic structure, which includes the mechanism of judicial review.
Moreover, the Act's provision of reservation based explicitly on religion is seen as a
departure from secular principles, as upheld by various Supreme Court precedents.
The petitioner asserts that the Parliament lacks the authority to undermine the
Constitution's basic structure, and thus, the Act must be nullified.

Additionally, the petitioner advocates for the use of transformative constitutionalism

as an interpretative mechanism to adapt constitutional principles to evolving societal
norms, particularly regarding reservations. They argue that while fundamental rights
remain constant, their application must align with changing societal understandings.
Therefore, the Act's contentious provisions should be scrutinized through this lens,
ensuring that constitutional principles evolve to bridge the gap between legislative
mandates and contemporary values while maintaining the integrity of the
Constitution's basic structure.
 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON'BLE COURT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Samrat that the present
petition filed before the bench is maintainable [1.1]. The requirement for maintenance
of PIL is that there should be a violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant,
and in the present case, there is a violation of articles under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21
[1.2]. Further, whenever there is a violation of fundamental rights enshrined in part III
of the constitution, Article 32 of the constitution of India provides a remedy to file a
PIL in the Supreme Court. All

1.1 THE PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the present petition is completely
maintainable. A PIL is maintainable in case of violation of one or more fundamental
rights. Under no other situation will a PIL be maintained. The basic requirement for
filing a PIL is that the person who files the case must be aggrieved by some act or
omission of any authority, whether it be a government department or otherwise. In the
present case the petitioners are aggrieved by the reservation act passed by respective
states and their fundamental rights are also violated hence fulfilling the conditions
required for maintaining the PIL. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India1
Hon’ble Court held that complaints of violation of fundamental rights is maintainable.
In present case it is direct violation of fundamental rights of the people living in Karuna
Pradesh and Nihar.
1.2 THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT IS VIOLATED UNDER
ARTICLE
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the fundamental rights of the
petitioners under Articles 14,15,16 and 21 of the Constitution are violated. Article 14
states that, The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. In the case of Mohini v. State of
Karnataka2 Hon’ble held that approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the

1
984 AIR 802 1984 SCR
2
1992 AIR 1858 1992 SCR.
 14

protection of fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right. As fundamental rights of

Akhil Lamba and Manohar are infringed by the state, they have legal right to file
petition in Supreme Court. And if the challenge is that first the petitioner should go to
High Court and then approach to Supreme Court, then in case of Romesh Thapar v.
State of Madras3, Hon’ble Court held that if legal person feels that one should directly
go to Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to first approach the High Court and exhaust the
remedy under Article 226 before approaching the Supreme Court. Hence, it was held
before this Hon'ble court that mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy
cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for dismissing a petition under Article
32. By the reason of the above holdings, the present petition stands maintainable in the
absence of an alternate and efficacious remedy.

Article 14 rejects any type of discrimination based on caste, race, and religion, place of
birth or sex. Further In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu4, 1974, the
court said that Article 14 gives a guarantee against the arbitrary actions of the State.
The Right to Equality is against arbitrariness. They both are enemies to each other. So,
it is important to protect the laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive. In the
present case, there is a discrimination based on caste and religion. Further the action of
executive providing reservation solely based on caste and religion is prima facie
arbitrary and hence the Article 14 is violated.

Further Article 15 is violated. Clause (1) of article 15 provides that The State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of
birth or any of them. In the present case, the Karuna Pradesh and Nihar State has
provided reservation only on the basis of religion and caste respectively violating the
above provision.

Furthermore, Article 16 of the applicant is violated. Clause of article 16 provides that

There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment
or appointment to any office under the State, and Clause 2 of article 16 provides that
No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,

3
AIR 1950 SC 124.
4
AIR 1974 SCC 555.
 15

residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State. In the present case Karuna Pradesh by providing
reservation in employment only on the basis of religion is violative of above-mentioned
clauses.

Further Article 21 of the constitution is violated. In a landmark judgment, K.S.

Puttaswamy v. Union of India5 (privacy judgment) the Supreme Court recognized the
right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The court held that
privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty and dignity and is intrinsic to the entire
constitutional scheme. In the present case, the Nihar government by conducting a caste-
based survey is violating article 21, due to inadequate data protection measures. The
argument is that the question of caste, a personal information question, when asked
during the survey, would violate the right to privacy of a person. Also, assigning a caste
identity to all citizens, regardless of whether they intend to use State benefits, goes
against the Constitution. This is against the right to identity, right to dignity, right to
informational privacy, and right of choice guaranteed by Article 21 and hence the
petitioners’ said right has been violated.

1.3 THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER KARUNA

PRADESH COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (KPBC) WAS BASED
ON UNSCIENTIFIC AND DEFECTIVE CRITERIA AND WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT.

It is humbly submitted that, Hon’ble High Court of Karuna Pradesh had already
declared that the identification of the Istishan community in the state as a backward
Class was based on unscientific and defective criteria. It further held that the
identification of the entire Istishan community as a Backward Class on the sole basis of
religion was unconstitutional. Unscientific and defective solely cannot be considered to
allow the reservation just on the sole basis of the religion. It may result into dynamic
circumstances to the normal people living in the state and is legally unfair, arbitrary and
discriminatory in nature.

5
(2017) 10 SCC 1.
 16

In case of CA Rajendran v. Union6 of India Hon’ble court held that to bolster its
declaration, The State may establish report based on the data which it already has in its
possession or it may collect such data through a Tribunal, official or authority. All that
is needed is that the opinions are based on certain materials which are sufficient and
apt. However, if the State seeks to exercise its discretion and to make such a provision,
it must collect quantifiable data demonstrating the ineptness of the representation of
that class in government services. It added that if the decision of the State authorities to
implement reservations in respect of promotion is confronted, the State concerned must
submit the required quantifiable data to the Court and satisfy the Court that such
reservations have become essential. It should be taken into consideration the ineptness
of the presence of SCs and STs in a specific position or position of positions, without
impacting the general quality of administration as required by Article 335 of the
Constitution.

In Om Kumar v. Union of India78, Hon’ble Court held that no action of the State should be of
an arbitrary and irrational nature which distinguishes among individuals it may be whatever
basis most importantly on the basis on sex, caste, religion, gender, race and place of birth. In
the present case it isdirectly creating discrimination among the people of the state on basis on
religion and unscientific report.

2. WHETHER THE KARUNA PRADESH ISTISHAN RESERVATION ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that The Karuna Pradesh Istishian
Reservation Act is constitutionally invalid [2.1] The reason being, the Reservation
provided under the Act is solely based on religion violating the equality and the
secular character of the constitution [2.2]. Further, the Act is constitutionally invalid
because it exceeds the 50% reservation principle given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Indira Sawney v. UOI9. [2.3] Further, the report submitted by the Commissioner,
Karuna Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes (KPBC) is based on unscientific
and defective criteria and is insufficient to show that the given community is socially
backward [2.4].

6
AIR1968 SCC 507.
7
(2001 (2) SCC 386.
 17

2.1 KARUNA PRADESH ISTISHAN RESERVATION ACT IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the said act is unconstitutional as it
is coherently inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution. The impugned Section
infringes Article 14 [2.1] Article 21 [2.2] and Article 29(1) [2.3] enshrined in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 13(2) states “The State shall not make any law which takes
away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of
this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”. Therefore, as per Article
13(2) of the Constitution, the impugned Act is void and liable to be struck down. In
addition, influx of illegal migrants into a country amount to external aggression and
internal disturbances. The impugned amendment is violative of article 355 [2.4]

2.1 THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ART 14.

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner's right to equality under the law as per Article
14 of the Constitution of Samrat has been violated, by this form of discrimination created
under the Karuna Pradesh Ishitan Reservation Act. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in
State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of classification
under Article 14 has been the subject of deliberation in a catena of cases.

2.1.1 THAT THERE IS UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION.

Article 14 is based on the rule of law and equality before law. It is humbly submitted
that the right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the Parliament cannot
transgress the principle of equality. Therefore, no action of the State should be of an
arbitrary and irrational nature which distinguishes among individuals. While the State is
permitted to exercise differentiation amongst certain individuals who are differently
situated, it must possess a rational nexus with the object of the enactment and an
intelligible differentia. This is called the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification. To attract
Article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or
arbitrary, and that it does not rest on any rational basis with regard to the object which
the Legislature has in view in making the law in question.
 18

In the case of Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr9,
the court held that, “constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be
exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be
exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in
it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every
action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act
arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated.”
In the case of ReEP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu10, the court clearly laid down that,
“where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political
logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14.”
Furthermore, Justice Pasayat in Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P11 has observed
as follows, “The expression ‘arbitrarily’ means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or
done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in
the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment,
depending on the will alone”

2.1.1.1 THAT THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON INTELLIGIBLE

DIFFERENTIA.

It is humbly submitted that the above Act creates a classification, which is unreasonable
and thus fails to satisfy the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification. The “Ishitisan faith”
used as a parameter for granting reservation, is making an unreasonable classification
between actual underserved based on the backwardness. By virtue of this provision, even
the upper strata of the aforementioned community, is eligible for this form of
compensatory discrimination. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent of Tihar
Jail, Delhi12, differential treatment meted out to prisoners from different countries was
held violative of Article 14. The impugned act grants reservation only to the individuals
of “Ishitishan faith”. Thus, the impugned Act treats a class of persons differently based
on the “religion” residing in the territory of Samrat. Such a classification is violation of
Article 14.

9
AIR1968 SCC 507.
10
967 SCR (2) 454..
11
1980 3 SCR 1338.
12
AIR 1975 SCC 1505.
 19

2.1.1.2 THIS DIFFERENTIA DOES NOT HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION TO

THE OBJECT OF CLASSIFICATION.

The definition being too wide suffers from the vice of over inclusion without having any
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the act. If, apart from the individuals who
are actually the lower strata of that particular community in terms of educationally &
socially backward residing in the territory of Samrat, even the ones who are not as
backward as them, will have an upper hand in enjoying this form of compensatory
discrimination, and their inclusion is unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and violates
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is hence
submitted that this is a clear case of classification within a class, which is arbitrary and
violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution.

2.2 THAT THIS UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION VIOLATES ARTICLES

15 AND 16.

A cumulative reading of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution reveals that the two
Articles prohibits discrimination and promotes equality of opportunity. However, in the
instant case, the impugned act creates a new class of “reservation” itself through the
aforementioned classifications. This goes beyond the scope and violates Articles 15 and
16. Although it may be argued that this is permissible under the article 15 (4) and 16 (4),
it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the powers are not unfettered as
there must exist a reasonable classification. Using religion as the sole criterion for
reservations might be seen as discriminating against individuals not belonging to the
Istishan faith, potentially restricting their access to education and public services which
could be seen as arbitrary and lacking a rational nexus with the objective of achieving
social justice.

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (199213), which emphasized the need for objective
indicators like social and economic backwardness, not just religion, for classifications in
reservation policies.

2.3 CONTRAVENTION OF PRINCIPLES OF FAIR AND TRANSPARENT

SELECTION.

13
[1992 Supp (3) SCC 217].
 20

Reservations based on religious minority would undermine meritocracy and hinder the
selection of the most qualified individuals for educational institutions and public
services, potentially impacting national efficiency and quality. This compensatory
discrimination should not come at the cost of merit, and alternative methods like
scholarships or financial aid could address economic disadvantage without impacting
merit-based selection.

While the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and forbids
discrimination, there are instances where judgments and arguments have supported
meritocracy as a principle in certain contexts.

In the recent case of National Institute of Technology, Karnataka v. Praneeth S

(2023)14: In this recent case, the court reaffirmed the importance of meritocracy in
technical education institutions, stating that reservations cannot be allowed to operate in
complete disregard of merit. However, it acknowledged the need for affirmative action
within a reasonable framework.

In another case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)15: Upheld

affirmative action while stressing the importance of considering individual merit
alongside race-based classifications.

2.4 SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND COORDINATED STEPS TO CREATE A

DIVISION IN THE SOCIETY

I. The perpetuating religion-based reservations could solidify existing social hierarchies

and reinforce negative stereotypes against marginalized communities. This could worsen
social stigma and hinder opportunities for individual achievement outside designated
categories.

ii. Overemphasis on religion identity for reserving opportunities could exacerbate "us vs.
them" mentality, leading to increased social friction and resentment between different
communities. This could hinder efforts towards building a more unified and inclusive
society.

14
AIR 2020SCC 5051.
15
438 U.S. 265.
 21

iii. Competition for limited resources within and between reserved and non-reserved
categories could escalate tensions and conflict among different communities. This could
negatively impact social harmony and hinder cooperation towards common goals.

3. WHETHER THE NIHAR GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO CONDUCT

A CASTE-BASED SURVEY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Nihar government is not
empowered to conduct a caste-based survey. It is humbly submitted that by conducting a
caste-based survey the Nihar government is violating the right to privacy enshrined under
Article 21 of the constitution. [3.1] Further, conducting a caste-based survey is basically
conducting a census and such a right to conduct a census is given only to the centre as
per Entry 69 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. [3.2]

3.1 CASTE-BASED SURVEY VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that by conducting a caste-based survey
the Nihar government is violating the right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the
constitution. Article 21 of the constitution reads that

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”

It also ensures certain safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. Further
in landmark judgment, Re K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)16 the Supreme Court
recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The
court in the said judgment held that privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty and
dignity and is intrinsic to the entire constitutional scheme. In the present case, the Nihar
government by conducting a caste-based survey is violating article 21, due to inadequate
data protection measures. Also, assigning a caste identity to all citizens, regardless of
whether they intend to use State benefits, goes against the Constitution. This is against
the right to identity, right to dignity, right to informational privacy, and right of choice
guaranteed by Article 21 and hence the petitioners’ said right has been violated. Hence,
there is considerable amount of privacy concern as the survey collects private

16
(1964) 1 SCR 332.
 22

information about caste, place of birth, gender, etc. which could be shared with political
parties. It is argued that in addition to the total absence of data integrity, there is also no
measure implemented by the State to ensure the data security.

3.1.1 CASTE-BASED SURVEY CAN BE CARRIED OUT ONLY AFTER

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that since the survey was announced in
the Official Gazette through an executive notification, it could not be considered as law.
Law cannot be by executive notification; it has to be a statute law.

Further, any action taken by a government or its officials that can potentially restrict
fundamental rights must be sanctioned by a legislative authority. To support this point,
the reliance is placed on Re Puttaswamy v Union of India (2018) and State of Madya
Pradesh v Thakur Bharat Singh (1967)17, both of which affirmed that fundamental rights
can be reasonably restricted only through a legislative enactment. In the present case the
same has not been followed hence the Nihar government is not empowered to conduct a
caste-based survey.

3.2 ONLY THE UNION GOVERNMENT CAN UNDERTAKE A CENSUS, AS PER

ENTRY 69 OF LIST I OF THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the right to conduct a census is only
enjoyed by the central government as per entry 69 of List I of the seventh schedule and
The Census Act of 1948. In the present case the state government by conducting a census
in disguise of caste-based survey is violating the same.

3.2.1 NIHAR GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY CONDUCTING A CENSUS IN

THE DISGUISE OF SURVEY.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the present case the way Nihar
government has conducted a caste-survey, it is nothing but the caste-based census. First,
referring to Black's Law Dictionary which defines 'census' as an official count of people,

17
1967 AIR 1170.
 23

made for the purpose of compiling social and economic data of the political sub-division
to which the people belong. 'Census' as defined in Patna High Court CWJC No.5542 of
2023(6) dt.04-05-2023 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary is the count of a population
and a property evaluation in early Rome, which is almost a complete enumeration of the
population, made by the Government. The Concise Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha
Aiyar defines it as an official enumeration of the inhabitants of the State or country with
details of sex, age, family, occupation, possession etc.

Survey" on the other hand, as defined in the Oxford Advanced Dictionary, is an

investigation of the opinions, behaviour, etc. of a particular group of people, which is
usually done by asking them pre framed question. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as
an appraisal and a general consideration of something and also includes the measuring of
a tract of land. It has also been defined as a poll or questionnaire, especially one
examining popular opinions.

The essential difference between a 'census' and 'survey', as we discern from the above
definitions, is that the former contemplates collection of accurate facts and verifiable
details; while, a survey is intended at collection and analysis of opinions and perceptions
of the general public which may be aimed at a specific community or group of people or
the extended community of a polity. Hence, while in a 'census’ details of an individual
are collected, in a 'survey' often the opinions and perceptions of the targeted persons are
collected. Both result in an analysis of the data collected; which in the case of a 'census'
are empirical, while in a 'survey' are mostly logical conclusions. Viewed from the above
perspective, the present exercise by the State of Nihar can only be seen as an attempt to
carry out a 'census' under the name of a 'survey'.

3.2.2 ONLY THE UNION GOVERNMENT CAN UNDERTAKE A CENSUS, AS

PER ENTRY 69 AND ENTRY 94 OF LIST I OF THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 246(1) is a non-obstante
provision which overrides clauses (2) and (3) and confers Parliament with the exclusive
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I of the
Seventh Schedule. And as per Entry 69 of List I of the Seventh Schedule which reads as
“Census”, only Union government can undertake a census and the state government has
no right to do so.
 24

Further entry 94 of list 1 states that

“94. Inquiries, surveys and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List.”

It is clear from the above that the abovementioned right is exclusively granted to union
government and the state government doesn’t possess any right over it.

3.2.3 THE CENSUS ACT, 1948 EMPOWERS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

ONLY TO DEAL WITH CENSUS.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as per Section 3 of the Census
Act,1948 only central government is empowered to conduct a census. The section 3 of
the Census Act,1948 reads as follows-

3. Central Government to take census

"The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its
intention of taking a census in the whole or any part of the territories to which this Act
extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do, and there upon the
census shall be taken.”

Further, the same Act doesn't even contemplate the caste-based survey. Hence, by taking
into consideration the above point which exclusively grants the central government the
power to conduct a census, we can conclude that the Nihar Government is not
empowered to conduct a caste-based survey.

4. WHETHER THE NIHAR CASTE RESERVATION ACT 2023 VIOLATES THE

BASIC STRUCTURE OF SAMRATIVA CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted that the impugned Act, by virtue of violating Articles 14, 21 and
29(1) of the Constitution and the constitutionally enshrined principle of secularism, does
not follow the Basic Structure of the Constitution and hence must be declared null and
void.

4.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES THE PART III OF THE

CONSTITUTION.
 25

It is humbly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution mandates all constitutional
bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. It also mandates a mechanism
for testing the validity of legislative acts through an independent organ, viz. the judiciary.
This power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and part of its
basic structure.

Part III of the Constitution contains the Fundamental rights and thus protects substantive
as well as procedural rights. These fundamental rights act as a fetter on plenary
legislative powers and uphold the dignity of every individual. These fundamental rights
mentioned in Part III are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of Samrat.
Therefore, any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the
doctrine of basic structure.

It is humbly submitted that Nihar Caste Reservation Act 2023 violates the fundamental
rights enshrined in the Articles 14, 21 and 29(1), as established by the petitioner. Thus,
the impugned act violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

4.2. THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM

ENSHRINED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala18 the Supreme Court reiterated that

secularism was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Enumerating the basic
features of the Constitution, Sikri, C.J. named “secular character of the Constitution” as
one of them. Shelat and Grover, JJ. stated that “secular and federal character of the
Constitution” were among the main ingredients of the basic structure enumerated therein.
This was reiterated by the Hon'ble Court in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.20

In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra19 the Supreme Court
went on to define the concept of secularism in the realm of philosophy and in utilitarian
terms. The Court set the role of the State to be neutral or impartial in extending its
benefit to citizens of all castes and creeds and cast a duty on the State to ensure through
its laws that disabilities are not imposed based on persons practising or professing any
particular religion. This hon'ble court has further declared that secularism is a part of

18
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
19
975 AIR 1778.
 26

fundamental law and an unalienable segment of the basic structure of the country's
political system.

In the instant case, the Nihar Caste Reservation Act 2023 provides reservation to the
individuals belonging to Ishtishan communities. It is submitted by the petitioners that the
act is unprecedented, in the sense that never before has religion been specifically
identified in the reservation law as the ground for distinguishing between backward
classes and non- backward classes. The present Act has introduced religion as a new
principle into the reservation law and can be said as “communally motivated politics”.
The individuals from Ishtishan community who are to be granted the benefit of this
legislation is to qualify for reservation only on the basis of religion; requirement that
goes against one of the basic tenets of the Constitution, secularism.

It is humbly submitted that while religious persecution may in the given facts and
circumstances could be a reasonable principle for differentiation, it cannot be articulated
in a manner that dilutes the republican and secular foundations of citizenship, and goes
against constitutional morality.

4.3. THE ACT MUST BE DECLARED INVALID DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE

BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION .

It is humbly submitted that the Parliament does not have the power to damage or destroy
the basic structure or basic features of the Constitution. In Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Shri Raj Narain20, the Hon'ble Court concluded that the test of meeting the basic
structure “can be and have to be used to test the validity of ordinary laws just as other
parts of the constitution.”. Further, in B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 21envisaged the
extension of power of judicial review to executive actions and/or ordinary laws
impugned qua basic structure doctrine, which are on the lines of the law laid down in
State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr.22

In light of the above observations, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Act, which
is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution must be struck down.

20
AIR 1975 SC 2299.
21
2001) 7 SCC 231.
22
(1977) 4 SCC 608.
 27

4.4. THE PRINCIPLE OF TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM MUST

BE AN INTERPRETATIVE MECHANISM.

So as to acknowledge changing times and conceptions on the notions of reservation,

there is a need to apply transformative constitutionalism when interpreting constitutional
principles. Since equality is part of the morality guiding rule of law, it is necessary to
think of the Constitution as a living, ever-involving organism that reduces the gap
between legislative tyranny and progressing times. Fundamental rights, therefore, do not
change with time, but the underlying concepts behind them do.
 28

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly
submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I) The petitions are maintainable before this Hon'ble Court.

II) the Karuna Pradesh Istishan Reservation Act is constitutionally invalid.

III) The Nihar government is not empowered to conduct a caste-based survey.

IV) The Nihar Caste Reservation Act, 2023 violates the Basic Structure of Samrativa
Constitution.

AND / OR That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of
justice, equity, and good conscience. For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty
bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted by the counsels of Petitioner.