Scribd
Upload
73 views7 pages

Moot Court Informant

This document contains a summary of a case being argued before the Supreme Court of Swarajaya. [1] It provides the table of contents and lists authorities to be cited. [2] It states the court has jurisdiction under Article 32 as the case relates to fundamental rights under Article 19. [3] It outlines the facts of the case, which challenge advocates practicing law while also serving as public representatives full-time. The petition argues this violates rules restricting full-time employment and prevents proper representation. [4] It summarizes the arguments that the state can restrict professions and advocates cannot devote full attention to law and politics. [5] The submission requests advocates be barred from practicing law while serving as representatives.

Uploaded by

gouri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views7 pages

Moot Court Informant

This document contains a summary of a case being argued before the Supreme Court of Swarajaya. [1] It provides the table of contents and lists authorities to be cited. [2] It states the court has jurisdiction under Article 32 as the case relates to fundamental rights under Article 19. [3] It outlines the facts of the case, which challenge advocates practicing law while also serving as public representatives full-time. The petition argues this violates rules restricting full-time employment and prevents proper representation. [4] It summarizes the arguments that the state can restrict professions and advocates cannot devote full attention to law and politics. [5] The submission requests advocates be barred from practicing law while serving as representatives.

Uploaded by

gouri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

1

TEAM NAM E

FORUM NAME: S UPREME COURT OF SWARAJAYA

COMPETITION NAME: S TATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PARTY FOR WHICH MEMORIAL IS PREPARED: INFORMANT


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial No. Page No.

1. Cover page 1
2. Table of contents 2
3. Index of Authorities 3
4. Statement of Jurisdiction 4
5. Statement of Facts 5
6. Summary of Arguments 6
7. Final submission/Prayer 7
3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
4

S TATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the present petition filed by M r Ravi Vanguri in the Supreme Court of Swarajaya under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Swarajaya it is hereby prayed for issuance of a writ of
mandamus to restricts the advocates being also public representatives in the republic of
swarajaya to practice law till they are discharging the duties as public representatives.

The aforesaid matter as is coming under Article 19 of the constitution of Swarajaya and since the
public representatives also work full time, therefore they cannot devote full time to the
profession of advocacy which shall be detrimental to the interests of the clients /litigants.

Since the above matter relates to the fundamental rights of the citizens to carry out any trade
business occupation or profession, hence maintainable in the court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Swarajaya.
5

S TATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts in the above matter are as follows:

1. The present public interest petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Swarajaya
2. That law can be formed by the state under Article 19(6) laying down various qualification
and its conditions for practicing any profession.
3. That currently advocates are allowed to be public representatives and simultaneously
practice law in the courts of Republic of Swarajaya.
4. That Article 19(1) confers the right upon the citizens of Swarajaya to practice any trade,
business or profession of their choice.

Issues raised in the instant petition are:

1. Advocates working full time as public representatives and simultaneously working as


advocates is highly illegal.
2. Advocates carrying on the duties of public representatives should be restricted from
doing so.
6

S UMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

In the present matter it is hereby relied upon by me upon the rule 49 of the bar council that
anybody in full time employment should be barred from practicing law in the courts.

That when a person assumes resp onsibility of two offices cannot whole heartedly do the work of
any one of the offices and hence is detrimental for the stakeholders of those offices whose the
person has assumed charge.

It should be noted specifically that the state can make law relating to the condition of practice of
any profession, and state here also includes any agency of the state and also under Article 19(6)
of the Constitution of Swarajaya state can make laws to restrict too.

The prescription under any law for the times being in force also includes the restriction to be
prescribed which can be very well done by the state in the present case.
7

FINAL S UBMISS ION

In the above premises it is hereby prayed for to issue a writ of mandamus restricting the
advocates who are also public representatives to practice law in any court of Swarajaya till the
time they are discharging the duties as public representatives…

You might also like