1 7 T H N A L S A R

JUSTICE BODH RAJ SAWHNY MEMORIAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MOOT
PROPOSITION
1. The Democratic People’s Republic of Kaduru (DPRK) became an independent country
in the year 2022.
2. For over two centuries, Kaduru was colonised by the Birur Empire and following a
decades long non-violent independence movement, Kaduru finally gained its
independence in 2022.
3. The Birur Empire, centred around the nation of Birur, was a multinational empire with
colonies in different parts of the world.
4. Since Kaduru’s colonisation in the early 19th century, many people from the different
parts of the Birur Empire have settled in Kaduru, including the Birurish people who are
from the nation of Birur itself. These include people from the (now independent) nations
of Solur, Malur, and other such countries.
5. The movement of different peoples from the Birur Empire had caused severe ethnic
tensions over the last six decades between the native Kadurigas (as they called
themselves), the Birurish peoples and the other peoples who had settled in Kaduru from
different parts of the Birur Empire.
6. As per the Birur Empire’s “to each, their own” policy, people of different ethnicities
were settled in different “ethnic enclaves” of Kaduru to “avoid any untoward
interactions between communities”. “Ethnic enclaves” were areas designated for each
community where only members of such ethnicity could buy land or settle in those areas.
Anyone wishing to settle or buy land in a different part of Kadur had to seek the
permission of the Kaduru Government, giving special reasons for doing so.
7. This meant that inter-marriage and intermingling between the different ethnicities was
almost non-existent since marriage and cohabitation was not considered a valid ground
for wishing to settle in a part not allocated for one’s own ethnicity.

1
8. The “to each their own” policy did not apply to Birurish who were free to settle

anywhere and buy land anywhere in Kaduru.

9. Modern scholars now argue that this policy was to prevent the native Kadurigas from

interacting freely with Solurans, Malurites, and people of other ethnicities, prompting
them to unite against the Birurish who had settled in Kaduru.
10. In the 1950s, the Kaduriga Independence Movement (KIM) was formed as a political

party with the goal of independence from the Birur Empire and for advocating for the
rights of native Kadurigas in Kadur. It was perceived that the Birurish had given more
government jobs to Solurans and Malurites than Kadurigas.
11. Since 1962, to manage ethnic tensions, the Birur Empire had created an ethnic

representation system for all jobs and educational institutions in the colony of Kaduru.
12. The ethnicity based quotas were divided as follows:

a. General (no reservation): 50%

b. Kadurigas: 25%
c. Solurans: 10%
d. Malurites: 10%
e. Other under-represented ethnicities: 5%
13. This representation system was denounced as “fundamentally unjust” by the KIM in

1964 contending that the Birurish (who were never more than 5% of the population of
Kaduru) would dominate the jobs and educational institutions to the detriment of
native Kadurigas.
14. One of the key demands of the KIM was to increase reservations to at least 50% since

the 1961 census (the first census to record ethnicity) had shown that Kadurigas were
72% of the population of Kaduru.
15. As the demands for reworking the representation system increased, Solurans and

Malurites also organised to advocate for their rights and protect their entitlements
under the Birur Empire. The Solurans for Justice (SFJ) and Maluru Makkalu (MM)
organisations began in the 1970s as a response to the growing popularity of KIM.

2
16. In 2020, the Birur Empire promised to end foreign rule in Kadur by 2022, and to that
end, set up a Constituent Assembly for Kaduru to draft the Constitution for an
independent Kaduru.
17. Two thirds of the Constituent Assembly were elected on the basis of universal adult
franchise and one third were nominated by the Birurish to ensure adequate
representation for every ethnicity.
18. After two years of deliberations, the Constituent Assembly finally unveiled the
Constitution of Kaduru in January, 2022.
19. As observers noted, the Constitution of Kaduru seemed heavily inspired by the
Constitution of India in several material respects and even contains a clause which
states that unless otherwise decided, the judgements of the foreign judicial bodies
shall be followed in interpreting the Constitution of Kaduru where necessary.
20. As part of the transfer of power, the leader of the Constituent Assembly, Ms Sel
Vartha (a leading member of KIM) was appointed as interim Prime Minister until
the first elections in independent Kaduru were to be held in 2024 and the Constituent
Assembly would function as the Union Legislature for the DPRK.
21. The first elections would result in formation of the popularly elected lower house of
the Kaduru Legislature (patterned on India’s Lok Sabha). Elections in Kaduru are
premised on the ‘one person, one vote, one value’ principle, or the principle of equal
representation in voting. Adherence to this principle expects that the vote of each
voter in Kaduru carries the same value, irrespective of which part of the country they
are in.

3
22. The first elections would also elect members to the State Assemblies in Kaduru who
would in turn elect the members of the upper house of the Kaduru Legislature
(patterned on India’s Rajya Sabha).
23. The boundaries of each State overlapped with the ethnic enclaves created under
Birurish rule.
24. Mr Gartazap, the last Governor General appointed by the Birurish, would continue
as a figurehead President of Kaduru till the first Presidential elections are held.

4
25. One of the first laws passed by the Kaduru legislature was the Delimitation Act,
2022 which had the following main provisions:

a. There shall be a Delimitation Commission headed by a Chairperson

who shall be nominated by the Prime Minister.
b. The Delimitation Commission shall consist of as many members as
the Prime Minister may deem fit.
c. The Delimitation Commission shall determine the boundaries of each
constituency (in the Union Legislature and State Assemblies) in such
a manner so as to ensure that there are a similar number of voters in
each constituency.
d. In drawing the boundaries, the Delimitation Commission may take
into account the need to give adequate representation in the legislature
for each community in Kaduru.

26. In all other respects, the Delimitation Act, 2023 was in pari materia with the
Delimitation Act, 1952 passed by India’s parliament.

27. Following this law, the Prime Minister Ms Sartha appointed the following five
members to the Commission:

a. Mr Savo Dulden (the Chairperson)

b. Ms Keedy Earn, member
c. Ms Kinta Caz, member
d. Mr Ferrin Pertha, member
e. Mx Jaka Tamoreesa, member

5
28. All five members of the Commission were members of the KIM and ethnically,
Kaduriga.
29. In June 2023, the Delimitation Commission submitted its report to the Prime Minister
who placed it before the legislature.
30. The main findings of the report are as follows:

a. Given the historic under-representation of native Kadurigas under Birur rule,

they should be over-represented in the legislature.
b. The other seat allocations are deemed “adequate representation” for the other
communities which have anyway benefited from over-representation under
Birur rule.
c. Based on the 2021 census, the following is the approximate breakup of the
major ethnicities in Kaduru:

i. Kadurigas – 68%
ii. Solurans – 12%
iii. Malurites – 12%
iv. Other ethnicities – 8%

d. Out of the 200 contested seats in the lower house of the legislature, each
ethnic majority area (State) would be allotted the following seats:

i. Kaduriga Enclave – 160

ii. Soluran Enclave – 15
iii. Malurite Enclave – 15
iv. The remaining enclaves – 10 (with at least one seat per enclave)

6
 e. Out of the 100 seats in the upper house, the following seats are allotted to each
enclave for indirect election:

i. Kaduriga Enclave - 80
ii. Soluran Enclave -8
iii. Malurite -8
iv. The remaining - 4 (to be selected as a group from the members of the other
enclaves)

31. There was immediate uproar from the non-Kaduriga members of the legislature, especially
the Solurans and Malurites who felt they were being grossly under-represented.
Nevertheless, because the KIM had a simple majority in the legislature, the report was
adopted and the next day, Delimitation Order, 2023 was issued to implement the
recommendations of the Delimitation Commission.

32. Soon thereafter, MM filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Malurite Enclave
challenging the Delimitation Order, 2023 contending that it was a violation of the
Constitution and the Delimitation Act, 2023 and should be set aside.

33. Mr Lino Koy, a resident of the Malurite Enclave filed a writ petition challenging the
constitutional validity of the Delimitation Act, 2023.

34. Immediately after that Ms. Kerri, the Chairperson of the SFJ filed a WP before the
Supreme Court of Kaduru seeking a writ of certiorari on the ground that her fundamental
rights as a Malurite had been violated.

35. In both cases, the DPRK filed a response questioning the maintainability of the writs, the
locus standi of the petitioners and defended the constitutional validity of the Delimitation
Order, 2023.

36. Given the commonality of the issues, the Supreme Court transferred the WP in the High
Court to itself and tagged it with the WP filed by Ms G.

7
37. The Supreme Court has now placed the matter for decision by a Constitution Bench with
the following issues being framed:

a. Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable in each instance?

b. Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to approach the respective courts?
c. Whether the Delimitation Act, 2023 violates the Constitution of Kaduru?
d. Whether the Delimitation Order, 2023 is legal and constitutional?

8
Key extracts from the Constitution of Kaduru

79. Constitution of Union Legislature.—There shall be a Legislature for the Union

which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the
Upper House and the Lower House.

80. Composition of the Upper House.—

1. The Upper House of the Legislature shall consist of not more than one hundred
representatives of the States.

2. The representatives of each State in the Upper House of the Legislature shall be
elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the State in accordance
with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

81. Composition of the Lower House.—

1. The Lower House of the Union Legislature shall consist of not more than two
hundred members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the
States; and

2. For the purposes of clause (1),—

a. there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the Lower House of the
Union Legislature in such manner that the ratio between that number and the
population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States; and

b. each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the
ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted
to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State:

9
3. In this article, the expression “population” means the population as ascertained at
the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.

82. Readjustment after each census.— Upon the completion of each census, the
allocation of seats in the Lower House of the Union Legislature and the division of
each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in
such manner as the Union Legislature may by law determine:

Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the Lower House
until the dissolution of the then existing House
Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the
President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, any election
to the House may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before
such readjustment.

170. Composition of the State Legislative Assemblies.—

1. The Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than three
hundred, and not less than twenty, members chosen by direct election from territorial
constituencies in the State.

2. For the purposes of clause (1), each State shall be divided into territorial
constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each
constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the
same throughout the State.

Explanation.—In this clause, the expression “population” means the population as

ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been
published.

10
3. Upon the completion of each census, the total number of seats in the Legislative
Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies
shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law
determine:
Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the Legislative
Assembly until the dissolution of the then existing Assembly:

Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the
President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, any election
to the Legislative Assembly may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies
existing before such readjustment.

327. Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures—

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by
law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with,
elections to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of
constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such
House or Houses.

329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution —

a. the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment
of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question in any court;

b. no election to either House of the Union Legislature or to the House or either

House of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided
for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.

11
a. Petitioners’ counsels appear for MM, Mr. Lino Koy and Ms. Kerri, whereas the
respondent counsels will appear for the DPRK.

b. Parties are free to raise additional issues but will be bound by the competition’s page
and time limits.
c. This problem has been set by Alok Prasanna Kumar and Ritwika Sharma of the
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Participants may not reach out to either of the setters
or anyone working for the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy for any clarifications.

12