R-MCC05

LEX AUDITA

INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICANA

OP No.--------------------/2025

In the matter of

STATE OF SOPRANO ………..PLAINTIFF

V.

GOVERNOR OF SOPRANO .……RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 9
ISSSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................... 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................ 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................ 14
1. THE COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO WITHHOLD THE
BILLS FROM GIVING ASSENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. ................................................. 14
1.1 That there is an exercise of discretionary power under article 200 of the constitution of
Indicana. ..................................................................................................................... 14
1.1.1 That there is a compliance to the provisions of the constitution. ................................ 15
1.2. That there is a consideration of security concerns and national integrity. ........................ 15
1.2.1 That there is a matter of foreign affairs involved. .................................................... 16
1.3. That the duties of governor carries a significant constitutional weight. ..................... 16
1.3.1 That the reservation to the president’s assent was a constitutional safeguard. ............. 16
1.3.2 That there is an aim of adequate scrutiny so that potentially contentious issues were not
hastily passed. ........................................................................................................... 17
2. THERE CAN BE ALTERNATE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVATION POWERS OF THE
GOVERNOR, AND RESERVING THE BILL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA. .......................................... 17
2.1. That the reservation powers of governor is authorized under Art.200 of the constitution
of Indicana................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1 That there is a provision of article 163(2) to support the reservation powers. ............... 18
2.2. That there is a potential threat to internal security. .................................................... 18
2.2.1 That this is a matter that falls under union jurisdiction. ........................................... 19
2.3. That the preventive mechanism is favored over curative measures. ............................. 19
2.3.1. That there is an assessment of constitutionality pre-enactment that avoids post
enactment conflicts .................................................................................................... 20
2.3.2. That this is to provide protection against repugnancy.............................................. 20
3. THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER TO CHECK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LAWS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA. .................................................... 21
3.1. That the executive is a constitutional organ. .............................................................. 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3.1.1 That the Executive can act as a check on potential constitutional violations. ............... 22
3.1.2 That the Executive takes oath to protect the constitution. ......................................... 22
3.2 That there is a respect of due process by the executive. ................................................ 23
3.2.1 That the governor can check the constitutionality before taking it into consideration of
president. .................................................................................................................. 23
3.3 That though Judiciary is final, it is not exclusive. ........................................................ 24
3.3.1 That the executive can check the constitutionality at the preliminary stage. ................ 24
4. THE STATE OF SOPRANO DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
EXCLUSIVELY USE PRAKRIT AS IT’S OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. ................................... 25
4.1 That there is restriction to intergovernmental communication. .................................... 25
4.1.1 That there is a violation of Article 346. .................................................................. 26
4.1.2 That there will be an interruption to the coordination with other states. ..................... 26
4.2. That there is violation of Art. 14. ............................................................................... 27
4.2.1 That there is a lack of rational nexus..................................................................... 27
4.2.2. That there is an inaccessiblity in public service for non-Prakrit speakers due to language
barrier. ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 That the Doctrine of Reasonableness is in action. ........................................................ 28
4.3.1 Sudden imposition of Prakrit without a transition period is arbitrary. ........................ 29
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................ 30

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

Govt Government

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Report

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CONSTITUTION PROVISION/ STATUTES

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA, 1950

2. THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT, 1963

B. CASES

1. MP Special Police Establishment v. The state of MP, 2004 (8) SCC 788

2. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974 AIR 2192

3. State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor, 2025 INSC 481

4. In State of Punjab v. Principal secretary to Governor,Of Punjab , 2023 INSC 1017

5. Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI, AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 980,

6. Rama Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

7. In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, 1962 AIR 694,

8. Kaiser-i-Hind Pvt Ltd v. National Textile Corporation, (2002) 8 SCC 182

9. S.R Bommai v. UOI, 1994 AIR 1918

10. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 3209

11. Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959 AIR 648

12. State of Bihar AND ANR v. Bal Mukund Shah, 2000 (4) SCC 640

13. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978 AIR 597

14. E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 INSC 213

15. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

C. ARTICLES/OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. www.scobserver.in/cases/kerala-governor-pendency-of-bills-state-of-kerala-v-governor-
for-2. state-of-kerala/

2.spicylaw.com/supreme-courts-landmark-ruling-governor-vs-state-government/

3. thediplomat.com/2022/05/modi-governments-plan-to-make-hindi-indias-national-
language-stirs-conflict/

4.indiankanoon.org/doc/82729634/

5. https://isdajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Indias-National-Security-.pdf

6. https://interstatecouncil.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHAPTERV.pdf

D. BOOKS

1. DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (2011)

2. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (5 th ed. 2009)
3. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th ed.
2020)
4. 2, SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA
5. S.R MYNENI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA
6 ROY M. MERSKY, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed.) 864

E. LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

1. WWW.HEINONLINE.COM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM

3. WWW.SCC.COM

4. WWW.LIVELAW.COM

5. CASEMINE.COM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff present in the matter, The State of Soprano (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) has
approached the Hon’ble Court, under article 32 of the constitution of Indicana.

The defendants humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pax Indicana is one of the biggest democratic republics in the world, having the highest population
with rich cultural and social diversity. State of Soprano, the federal state located on the southern side
of Indicana, practices strong values of parliamentary democracy, shares a sensitive international
border with Indraprastha, a nation with which Indicana has had strained diplomatic and security
relations. The Indicana union is dominantly populated by people who belong to Devanagari
community. Prakrit, the official language of Indraprastha, is widely spoken in Soprano. Both the
Devanagari and Prakrit language are included in the 8th schedule as official languages under
constitution of Indicana. There has always been a clash of the two cultural dominions in the
background of politics.

The union government of Indicana had a long-standing idea of making the Devanagari language as
the only language used for official purposes throughout Indicana for smoother administration. In May
2023, Dr. vishwanath Sharma was appointed as the governor of soprano who belonged to dominant
Devanagari speaking community. In June 2023, the government had assured that recognizing the
Devanagari language as the national language does not take away the importance of other regional
languages. There were open public protest in non-devanagari states in context of this. The
representatives of soprano claimed that the union government intended to completely destroy the
cultural identity of sopranos and diminish the rich diversity of Indicana.

The constitution had given equal powers to both states and the union, with slight leniency towards the
union government. The state government has been granted sufficient constitutional autonomy to make
decisions on behalf of its citizens, which is a cornerstone of Indicana's democratic and federalist
system.

By 2024, the state government openly criticized the governor’s office for intentionally delaying
certain bills which were submitted for the governor’s assent which included the soprano official
languages act, 2024 passed by the legislative assembly of soprano, seeking to make Prakrit the official
language of the State for administrative and judicial purposes, including its use in the High Court and
other office purposes.

The union government expressed that officially recognizing Prakrit for official purposes posed a
threat to Indicana’s territorial integrity and national security. In 2024, the bill was reintroduced in the
assembly and presented to the governor for assent. Instead of granting the assent, he reserved it for the
consideration of the president under article 200 of the constitution. The Union Government of
Indicana reviewed the contents of the Bill and expressed serious reservations, citing the potential

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

threat to national integrity, administrative complications, and a likely breach of constitutional
provisions such as Article 348 (language of courts) and the Union’s authority in the Concurrent List.

The State Government of Soprano approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indicana, challenging
the Governor’s refusal to give assent, alleging arbitrariness and a breach of federal principles, and
claiming that the Union’s language policy is unconstitutional.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ISSSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO

WITHHOLD THE BILLS FROM GIVING ASSENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE 2: WHWTHER THERE CAN BE ALTERNATE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVATION

POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR, AND RESERVING THE BILL FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA ?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER, ALONG WITH JUDICIARY TO
CHECK THE CONSTITUIONALITY OF LAWS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA
?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE STATE OF SOPRANO HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWET TO

EXCLUSIVELY USE PRAKRIT AS ITS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO

WITHHOLD THE BILLS FROM GIVING ASSENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the course of action adopted by the
Governor in withholding assent to the bill and reserving it for the consideration of the
Hon’ble President is constitutional and justified, based on the grounds of Discretionary
Power under Article 200, Compliance with Constitutional Provisions, Security and National
Integrity Concerns, Involvement of foreign affairs, constitutional role of the governor and
need for scrutiny and concern. Article 200 of the Constitution of Indicana vests the Governor
with discretionary powers to either assent, withhold assent, return a bill, or reserve it for the
President’s consideration. The Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, acted in
accordance with Articles 200 and 201, ensuring due process and constitutional compliance.
The Governor’s role is not ceremonial; rather, it is intended to preserve the integrity of the
Constitution by preventing the passage of potentially unconstitutional laws.

2. WHETHER THERE CAN BE ALTERNATE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVATION

POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR, AND RESERVING THE BILL FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDICANA ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Governor’s reservation of
the bill for the President’s consideration under Article 200 is a constitutionally valid course of
action, supported by multiple legal and constitutional grounds of Constitutional Authorization
(Articles 200 & 163(2)), Internal Security Concerns, Union Jurisdiction Involvement,
preventive measure action, pre- enactment security and protection against
repugnancy(Art.254). The Governor's power to reserve a bill is constitutionally sanctioned
under Article 200, and supported by Article 163(2), which affirms that the Governor's
discretion in such matters is final and generally immune from judicial review, unless
exercised mala fide. By conducting a pre-enactment review, the Governor ensured that the
bill did not violate constitutional mandates or fundamental rights. This maintains federal
harmony and administrative stability.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER, ALONG WITH JUDICIARY
TO CHECK THE CONSTITUIONALITY OF LAWS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDICANA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the executive, particularly the
Governor, has the constitutional authority to check the validity of laws before enactment, as a
safeguard against unconstitutional or harmful legislation. Under Articles 153, 200, and 53, the
Governor and the President form part of the constitutional executive, empowered to prevent
the enactment of unconstitutional laws by withholding or reserving assent. The executive can
act as a check on unconstitutional legislation. Article 159 obligates the Governor to preserve
and defend the Constitution. The exercise of reservation powers flows directly from this oath,
making it a constitutional duty rather than discretionary favor. The Governor’s decision to
reserve the bill concerning Prakrit was based on intelligence inputs and aligned with national
interest. While the judiciary has the final word on constitutionality, the executive also has a
preliminary role. The Governor, under Article 200, acts as a constitutional gatekeeper—
examining laws before they are enacted.

4. WHETHER THE STATE OF SOPRANO HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER

TO EXCLUSIVELY USE PRAKRIT AS ITS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE?

It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the exclusive adoption of
Prakrit as the official language by the State of Soprano is unconstitutional and violates key
provisions of the Constitution of Indicana, on the grounds of violation of constitutional
framework for official languages, disruption to administrative coordination, violation of
Art.14, inaccessibility of Public Services, Breach of doctrine of reasonableness & governor’s
role under Art.200.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO WITHHOLD

THE BILLS FROM GIVING ASSENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
It is most reverently submitted that the course of action adopted by the governor to withhold the bills
from giving assent is constitutional is substantiated through the following contentions:

1.1 That there is an exercise of discretionary power under article 200 of the
constitution of Indicana.
1.It is humbly submitted that the provision of assent to the bill is discretionary under Art. 200
of the constitution of Indicana. According to the constitution of Indicana, the governor is
vested with three choices for granting assent to a bill. Art. 200 of the constitution of Indicana
outlines the powers of the governor regarding the bills passed by the state legislature,
allowing them to assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration by the legislature,
or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration if it contradicts national policy or raises
constitutional concerns. In the context of recognizing Prakrit as the official language of
Soprano, the governor exercised the discretionary authority to reserve the bill. Art. 200
ensures a system of checks and balances in the legislative process at the state level. The
discretionary power acts as a reminder that the legislative assembly’s power is not absolute
and must be exercised with constitutional limits. The governor while acting under article 200
discharges a constitutional responsibility and may act on his own judgement in instances of
constitutional contravention of repugnancy, even without the aid and advice of the council of
ministers. The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 under Art. 200 was reserved by the governor for
its constitutionality, particularly regarding minority rights under Art.30 (1) and concerns
some provisions might be discriminatory and arbitrary.

2.It is emphasized that these powers of governor are not merely ceremonial but are intended
to act as constitutional safeguard in instances where the validity, constitutionality or
implications may raise substantial concerns. In the instant case, the governor’s decision to
reserve the bill for the consideration of the President was made in the legitimate exercise of

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

constitutional safeguard. In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab1, it was held that the
governor’s powers under Art.200 are not ceremonial, but function as constitutional safeguard.

1.1.1 That there is a compliance to the provisions of the constitution.

3. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the governor as the constitutional
head of the state, ensuring compliance with the Constitution while also serving as a link
between the central and state governments. Art. 200 and 201 has been duly followed that it
authorizes the governor to withhold assent, return a bill, or reserve it for the consideration of
the President. The respondent by exercising this power is acting within the explicit limits of
constitutional text and hence the course of action adopted by the respondent is constitutional.

4. The governor is the constitutional head of the state so ensures compliance with the
constitution. The Governor is not to function as a political appointee who can unilaterally
stall legislative progress, but as a constitutional figure who ensures that due process is
respected. This balance is critical to ensuring that the democratic ethos remains intact and
that governance is conducted within the framework of the law, respecting the authority of
elected representatives.

5. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor 2, it was held that the governor is not a mere
political representative but rather a constitutional authority meant to act in a manner that
promotes consensus and governance, instead of acting as a bottleneck.

1.2. That there is a consideration of security concerns and national integrity.

6. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there is a consideration of security
concerns and national security. The respondent argues that both Indicana and Indraprastha
have been involved in boundary disputes and the similarities in local culture would be
misused by the militants to enter the sovereign territory of Indicana.

7. Art. 355 of the constitution of Indicana places a duty on the Union Government to protect
every state from external aggression and internal disturbance and, to ensure that the
government of each state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
The article mandates the Union to safeguard each states from threats like war, external
invasion, or internal rebellion that could disrupt the state’s peace and security. The Union also
has a responsibility to ensure that the state government operates within the framework of the
Constitution. This includes preventing any actions that violate the Constitution or undermine

1
1974 AIR 2192
2
2025 INSC 481

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

its principles. In S.R Bommai v. UOI3, it was held that central intervention is permissible in
cases affecting national security and integrity. In State of Punjab v. Principal secretary to
governor,Punjab4,the court held that the governor is duty bound to reserve a bill for the
consideration of the President if it raises concerns relating to security of the nation.

1.2.1 That there is a matter of foreign affairs involved.

8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there is a matter of foreign affairs
involved as the boundary disputes between Indicana and Indraprastha have led to open war
situations and since Indicana had raised this in the United Nations multiple times. Foreign
affairs, including boundary disputes and war-related issues, are territorial and sovereign
concerns fall exclusively under the Union List 5. Whenever a bill touches upon matters in List
I such as diplomacy, treaties, or foreign affairs, there exists both a constitutional mandate and
judicial precedent for the Governor to reserve it for Presidential assent, safeguarding national
integrity and proper international conduct.

1.3. That the duties of governor carries a significant constitutional weight.

9. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the governor’s duties are not merely
ceremonial; they carry significant constitutional weight. According to Art. 154(1), the
executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor and shall be exercised by him
directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the constitution. The
powers of the state executive are, no doubt co-extensive with the legislative powers of the
state legislature but this does not mean that in order to enable the Executive to function in
respect of any matter, there must be a law of the Legislature already in existence relating to
the subject or that the powers of the executive are limited to the carrying out of these laws 6.
In Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI, It was held that the office of the governor carries a critical
weight in preserving constitutional sanctity.

1.3.1 That the reservation to the president’s assent was a constitutional safeguard.
10. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the reservation of bills for Presidential
consideration was a constitutional safeguard. The reservation of bills act as a safeguard,
preventing the passage of unconstitutional legislation at the state level. This process allows a
further constitutional check by the President. According to Art. 111, the president of Indicana
can exercise an absolute veto, suspensive veto or pocket veto with regard to legislative bills.

3
1994 AIR 1918
4
2023 INSC 1017
5
Entry 10 & 15 List I of Seventh Schedule
6
Rama Jawaya v. State of Punjab : AIR 1955 SC 549

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala 7, the SC recognized that the
President’s/Governor’s assent forms an integral part of the lawmaking process and is a
safeguard against unconstitutional laws.

1.3.2 That there is an aim of adequate scrutiny so that potentially contentious issues
were not hastily passed.
11. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC there is an aim of ensuring that potentially
contentious issues were not hastily passed. In the instant matter, the respondent did not
provide his assent and reserved it before the President and sufficient time was taken before
finding it to be unconstitutional and erroneous. The time taken was for ensuring that potential
contentious issues were not hastily passed. Before providing assent to a bill requires multiple
readings and general and detailed clause by clause scrutiny. In MP Special Police
Establishment v. State of MP, it was held that the governor’s discretion in reserving the bills
is for cases where there constitutional principles, federal balance, or the need for further
scrutiny of contentious questions arise.

12. The executive’s power to withhold or delay assent acts a constitutional check. A deeper
scrutiny, consideration by the executives is required before the bill becomes the law. Also,
they have to ensure that bills conform to constitutional mandates. If a bill is violative of the
constitution, against the public interest or may conflict with central laws or fundamental
rights, the assent cannot be granted.

2. THERE CAN BE ALTERNATE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVATION POWERS

OF THE GOVERNOR, AND RESERVING THE BILL FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA.
It is reverently submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there can be alternate exercise of the
reservation powers of the Governor and reserving the bill for the consideration of the
President under the constitution of Indicana through the following contentions:

2.1. That the reservation powers of governor is authorized under Art.200 of the
constitution of Indicana.
13. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the power to reserve the bill for the
assent is authorized under Art. 200 of the constitution of Indicana. The Court relied on the
Constituent Assembly Debates, including the deletion of the phrase “in his discretion” from
the draft of Article 200, to show that the Governor was not intended to exercise independent

7
2004 (8) SCC 788

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

discretion over state legislation, except in defined circumstances 8. The Governor’s role was
designed to align with the principles of a responsible executive accountable to the legislature.
The discretion afforded to the Governor under Article 200 was important for the checks and
balances system inherent in the Constitution. The Governor does not have any individual
discretion and he withholds the assent to a bill as per his constitutional obligation. In M.P
Special Police case, It was held that the discretion conferred on the governor means that the
governor is the constitutional or formal head and the state power is vested in him.

2.1.1 That there is a provision of article 163(2) to support the reservation powers.
14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that if any question arises whether any
matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is or by under this constitution
required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final,
and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the
ground that he ought or not ought to have acted in his discretion 9. If a bill endangers
constitutional provisions, affects national interest, or is of grave legal importance, the
governor has the discretion to reserve it for the president. In Kaiser-i-Hind Pvt Ltd v.
National Textile Corporation 10, the court referenced article 163(2) to reaffirm that the
governor’s discretionary actions, such as bill reservation are immune from judicial challenge
except in cases of mala fide or abuse.

15. The utility and purpose of the reservation power, coupled with Art. 163(2), is to provide a
channel for constitutional review, especially when a bill exceeds legislative competence,
violates fundamental rights, is manifestly inconsistent with constitutional norms or national
interest.

2.2. That there is a potential threat to internal security.

16. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the governor can inter alia reserve a
bill for the consideration of the president if it is against the provisions of the constitution or
opposed to national interest, central laws or of grave importance. In the instant matter, the
similarities in the local culture of Soprano and the nearby Indraprastha would be misued by
the militants to illegally enter the sovereign territory of Indicana causing a potential threat to
internal security. This discretion exercised by the respondent is bona fide supported by cogent
justification on how the bill may imperil public order or democratic principles and not be a

8
Shamsher Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab: 1974 AIR 2192
9
M.P Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradhesh: 2004 (8) SCC 788
10
(2002) 8 SCC 182

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

tool for political obstruction. This balance promotes responsible federalism while ensuring
that internal security is stringently protected through proper legislative scrutiny and
constitutional oversight. Bona fide concerns relating to security justify the Governor’s
reference to the President. In the state of Tamil Nadu case, it was held that reservation of
bills under Art. 200 on exceptional grounds like internal security is permissible. In Shamsher
Singh v. State of Punjab, it was upheld that the governor’s reservation powers encompass
bills impacting constitutional governance and security.

2.2.1 That this is a matter that falls under union jurisdiction.

17. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the constitution of Indicana, that
the constitution vests the Union Government with overriding jurisdiction over matters
touching fundamental constitutional issues, national interest, or federal balance. On reserving
the bill to the consideration of the President, union executive, the Governor, state executive
transfers the matter from state jurisdiction to the union jurisdiction. In the recent presidential
reference on governor’s powers (2025)11 the SC ruled that the powers to reserve bills under
Art. 200 implicate union jurisdiction. The court clarified that when the governor reserves the
bill for president, the matter transcends state jurisdiction and falls within union constitutional
authority for final approval. Though federalism entails a division but also a hierarchy where
the union retains supremacy on matters affecting the Constitution’s basic structure or national
importance. In state of Punjab v Principal Secretary to Governor, it was held that after
reservation by the governor the bill falls under the purview of the union government and the
President’s decision on assent is final. In the state of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil
Nadu, it was reaffirmed that the governor acts within and on behalf of Union jurisdiction in
reserving bills based on constitutional concerns and that this reservation engages union
executive authority.

2.3. That the preventive mechanism is favored over curative measures.

18. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the governor’s power to withhold or
reserve assent under Art.200 is a preventive constitutional safeguard designed to stop
unconstitutional or harmful legislation from becoming law at an early stage, rather than relying
on courts to strike down such laws after enactment. In order to avoid any chaos or irreplaceable
harm, laws potentially violating any fundamental rights, constitutional provisions, or national
security can be checked before enactment. Once a bill becomes a law, curative mechanism can
be time consuming, expensive and disruptive to governance and public order. The governor’s

11
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor : 2025 INSC 481

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

discretion of withholding or reserving for assent provides a speedy and constitutionally
mandated stopgap, maintaining a balance of power between state legislature, executive and
judiciary. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, the SC emphasized that the
preventive power is to be exercised sparingly but effectively to ensure constitutional
compliance. Preventive restraint aligns with the principle that prevention is better than cure,
especially when constitutional rights or national stability may be a risk. Derogation from the
powers of HC, danger to internal security, opposition to directive principles of state policy or
violation of fundamental rights are some examples of preventive grounds. In the instant matter,
there is a potential threat to internal security if assent is granted to the bill.

2.3.1. That there is an assessment of constitutionality pre-enactment that avoids post

enactment conflicts.
19. It is respectfully submitted that the pre-enactment assessment of constitutionality helps
avoid post-enactment conflicts recognizes the practical and legal benefits of scrutinizing
legislation before it becomes law. Such assessment, often exercised by the executive through
mechanisms like the Governor’s power to reserve Bills for Presidential consideration, serves
as a vital constitutional safeguard to prevent the enactment of laws that may be
unconstitutional or detrimental to broader public interests. By raddressing potential conflicts
at the outset, this process mitigates prolonged legal battles, social unrest, or administrative
chaos that often accompany post-enactment judicial challenges. It facilitates smoother
governance by ensuring that laws align with constitutional mandates and do not infringe upon
fundamental rights or federal balance. Moreover, this anticipatory review respects the
separation of powers by allowing executive prudence while leaving ultimate constitutional
adjudication to the judiciary. Thence, it is stated such pre-enactment scrutiny by the
Governor, based on credible intelligence and constitutional concerns, is indispensable to
maintain national security and unity, thereby preventing divisive and harmful legislation from
taking effect and sparking broader conflicts between the Union and the States. In Nabam
Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunchal Pradesh 12, it was held that reservation of bills allows for
preventive adjudication that avoids post- enactment judicial or political turmoil.

2.3.2. That this is to provide protection against repugnancy.

20. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC this was done in to provide protection
against repugnancy. In the instant matter, the Union government through the Home minister
had assured the recognition of Devanagari language as the national language and it does not

12
AIR 2016 SC 3209

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

take away any importance of other regional language and their constitutional protection. In
such a case, there arises a question of repugnancy between central law and state law and the
provision relevant is Art. 254. According to Art. 254(1), if any provision of the state law is
repugnant to a provision in a law made by the Parliament which it is competent to enact or to
any existing law with respect to one of the matters in the concurrent list, then the
parliamentary or the existing law prevails over the state law and it does not matter whether
the Parliamentary law has been enacted before or after the state law. To the extent of
repugnancy, the state law is void. In Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh13, it was held that
repugnancy between two statutes arises when there is a direct conflict, that is, these laws are
fully inconsistent and have absolutely irreconcilable provisions.

21. Ordinarily under Art. 254(1),in a situation the supremacy is in favor of centre, and state
law is void as to the extent of repugnancy. In State of Tamil Nadu case, although the
Governor noted that the Bills were intra-vires the competence of the State Legislature having
been legislated under Entry 66 of List I, Entry 32 of List II and Entry 25 of List III, yet he
reserved the said Bills for the consideration of the President in the second round on the
ground that the Bills suffered from repugnancy on account of being contrary to Entry 66 of
the Union List i.e., List I. These grounds have been taken by the Governor to reserve the 10
Bills for consideration of the President.

3. THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE POWER TO CHECK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF LAWS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the executive has the power to check the
constitutionality of laws under the constitution of Indicana through the following contentions:

3.1. That the executive is a constitutional organ.

22. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the executive is a constitutional organ
with the power to check the constitutionality of laws. According to Art. 153, there shall be a
governor for each state and is the executive of the state. The governor is entrusted with the
prevention of unconstitutional laws as Art.200 empowers the governor, in their capacity as
the constitutional executive to grant, withhold or reserve the bill for the consideration of the
President. According to Art.53, the executive power of the union is vested in the President
and is allowed to exercise his executive powers through officers subordinate to him, directly

13
AIR 1959 SC 648

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

or indirectly, in consonance to the provisions of the constitution. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
State of Punjab14, The Court explained that the executive power vested in the President and
Governors extends beyond mere implementation, highlighting the separations and overlaps
among the constitutional organs but affirming the executive’s constitutional status and
authority.

23. The executive is a vital component of the constitutional system of checks and balances,
ensuring that the legislative process does not result in laws contrary to the constitution. The
key role played by the executive is to prevent the legislature from enacting laws that are
unconstitutional or detrimental. The governor’s powers related to legislation, such as giving
or withholding assent to bills, reserving it for the consideration of the President, help
maintain this balance.

3.1.1 That the Executive can act as a check on potential constitutional violations.
24. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the executive is a vital constitutional
organ that safeguards the supremacy of the constitution by proactively checking the
potentially unconstitutional legislation. Art.200 empowers the governor to reserve bills for
presidential consideration on clear constitutional grounds if the bill contravenes the
constitution, affect the powers of the High court or is of national importance. In the instant
matter, the State of Soprano wanted Prakrit to use for High court purposes as well which
would be violative of Art.348(1) of the constitution of Indicana that all proceedings in SC and
HC shall be in English language.

25.The SC in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India15 recognized that the governor’s use of
reservation powers operate as a constitutional check. The court also emphasized that judicial
review is only applicable if the executive’s actions are found to be unreasonable or
unconstitutional. Here in the instant matter, the executive has followed due process and the
actions are not found to be unreasonable.

3.1.2 That the Executive takes oath to protect the constitution.

26. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the Governor’s oath in Art. 159
obligates them to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution and the law, as well as
dedicating their service to the well-being of the state’s people. This oath is a solemn

14
AIR 1955 SC 549
15
AIR 2006 SC 980

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

constitutional commitment that the governor has to uphold the constitution, even above
transient political or legislative pressures. The governor is a very high constitutional
functionary and he is supposed to act fairly and honestly, in a manner consistent with his
oath. The reservation powers under Art.200 flows from the oath taken by the executive that is
exercised whenever there is a constitutional threat. The oath reinforces that reservation is not
a discretionary favor, but a constitutional duty in the face of possible violations, safeguarding
constitutional supremacy before a bill becomes a law. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of
Tamil Nadu, SC highlighted the link between oath and reservation powers that governor’s
constitutional obligation includes preventing unconstitutional laws from being enacted.

3.2 That there is a respect of due process by the executive.

27. It is humbly submitted that the Governor’s action in withholding assent and reserving the
Soprano Official Languages Bill for the President’s consideration is firmly grounded in
constitutional authority. Under Article 200 of the Constitution of Indicana, the Governor
holds discretionary powers as a constitutional safeguard to ensure that State legislation does
not compromise the Union’s interests, including national security and territorial integrity.
Given that Prakrit is the official language of Indraprastha, a hostile neighboring country with
a history of border conflicts and militant activities, the Governor’s decision is justified on
cogent intelligence inputs highlighting potential security threats. The Governor, as the
Union’s representative, acted prudently and adhered to due process by referring the Bill for
Presidential consideration instead of granting immediate assent. This measured approach
demonstrates procedural propriety and good faith rather than arbitrary delay. Furthermore,
the Respondent submits that the executive’s role in preemptively reviewing legislation to
protect constitutional values complements, rather than supplants, the judiciary’s ultimate role
in adjudicating constitutionality. Lastly, the Respondent emphasizes that federalism under the
Constitution does not confer absolute autonomy to States when national unity and security
are at stake; thus, the Union’s efforts to promote administrative uniformity through a
common official language are legitimate and constitutionally permissible.

3.2.1 That the governor can check the constitutionality before taking it into
consideration of president.
28. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the governor can check the
constitutionality before taking it into the consideration of the President. Theses checks ensure
that the federal structure and basic tenets of the constitution are upheld, with the Governor
acting acting as constitutional gatekeeper prior to the presidential scrutiny. In State of Tamil
Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court clarified that the Governor’s

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

powers under Articles 200 and 201 can be exercised within constitutional limits. The Court’s
directives further enunciate that the Governor’s check of constitutionality is a preventive
mechanism designed to uphold federal balance and protect fundamental rights, ensuring that
potentially unconstitutional legislation does not become law without proper scrutiny and
consideration at the national level.

3.3 That though Judiciary is final, it is not exclusive.

29. It is humbly submitted that while the judiciary is the final authority on the questions of
constitutional validity, its role in determining the constitutionality of laws is not to the
exclusion of the other branches or mechanisms provided by the constitution. Separation of
Power is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution, which has been rightly declared
by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah 16, (2000) 4 SCC
640.*.Under article 212 (2) of the constitution of parliament, no officer or member of the
legislature in whom powers are vested by or under this constitution for regulating procedure
or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in legislature shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers. According to the
articles 122&212 of the constitution, the courts have been prohibited from inquiring into the
proceedings of the parliament and legislature respectively. The principle of separation of
powers in Indicana, ensures a dynamic system of checks and balances, wherein the executive
and the legislature also play essential roles in assessing the legality and propriety of their
actions. The governor as the constitutional head, is required to ensure that legislation is in
conformity with constitutional provisions before granting assent. It is respectfully submitted
that the finality of judicial review does not imply exclusively; rather, it harmoniously coexists
with other constitutional processes necessitating vigilance and scrutiny from all branches of
the state. This ensures that every legislative enactment and executive action remains
consonant with the constitution’s spirit and letter from inception to implementation.

3.3.1 That the executive can check the constitutionality at the preliminary stage.
30. It is respectfully submitted that the constitution of Indicana, contemplates a system in
which the executive branch- including the governor-may examine the constitutionality of
legislation at the preliminary stage of its enactment. The governor, as the constitutional head
of the state is empowered under article 200 to assent a bill, withholds assent therefrom, return

16
(2000) 4 SCC 640

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

a bill for reconsideration, or to reserve the bill for the consideration of the president. The
executive’s role extends to reviewing legislative bills for any constitutional infirmity or
conflict with existing legal principles, thereby preventing the passage of potentially
unconstitutional laws and avoiding post-enactment judicial conflicts. the executive is not
merely an administrative body but a constitutional authority entrusted with maintaining the
constitutionality of state and central governance. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the
President and Governor, as parts of the executive, have discretionary powers to return bills
for reconsideration or reserve them for Presidential assent (Article 200) based on their
assessment of constitutionality and other constitutional concerns. This preliminary
constitutional scrutiny by the executive acts as a crucial filter, preserving the federal
structure, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law.

4. THE STATE OF SOPRANO DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER

TO EXCLUSIVELY USE PRAKRIT AS IT’S OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.

It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the State of Soprano do not have the
constitutional power to exclusively use Prakrit as its official language through the following
contentions:

4.1 That there is restriction to intergovernmental communication.

31. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the adoption of Prakrit as the exclusive
official language of Soprano, creates effective barrier to intergovernmental communication.
The constitution of Indicana envisages a balance between linguistic autonomy of states under
Art.345 and the need for uniform channel of communication under Art. 343-346. By
substituting Devanagari/English with Prakrit, the state has acted in excess of its constitutional
powers and created a barrier in communication between the Union and the states.

32. If a bill is attempting to establish Prakrit as the official language of the State of Soprano,
thereby restricting intergovernmental communication or undermining the official languages
framework, the governor is constitutionally bound and empowered under Art. 200 to reserve
such a bill for the consideration of the President, thereby it acts as a preventive check against
exclusionary language policies. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor, on application to use a
language exclusively for judicial proceedings have been subject to central approval, with the

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SC and Ministry Of Law repeatedly asserting Hindi/English as essential for
intergovernmental and legal operations, especially beyond administrative convenience.

4.1.1 That there is a violation of Article 346.

33. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the Art.346 mandates the language
authorized for official use by the Union (Hindi and English) shall be the language of
communication between the states and the Union. In the instant matter, if Prakrit is adopted,
it would amount to violation of Art.346. Art.346 balances Indicana’s linguistic diversity
against practical need for a uniform language of communication for intergovernmental
cohesion and governance. The State of Soprano insisting exclusively on Prakrit would disrupt
the uniformity as the union government had a long-standing idea of making Devanagari
language the only language used for official purposes to comb out the red tape 17. Art.346
strikes a balance between respecting state linguistic identity and ensuring efficient
communication critical to the federal polity. Exclusive imposition of state language for
intergovernmental communication undermines national integration and the constitutional
scheme.

4.1.2 That there will be an interruption to the coordination with other states.
34. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that unilateral adoption of Prakrit as the
official language of Soprano will disrupt the coordination with other states. According to the
official languages Act, 1963, English and Hindi are authorized as official languages for the
Union government’s purposes including inter-state communications. Exclusive use of a
regional language such as Prakrit would disrupt the mandated communication channels,
increasing the risk of communication and administrative inefficiency.

35. There is a duty to ensure a shared language for governance accessibility. Art.346
mandates uniformity in official communication between governments thereby enhancing
administrative coordination, ensuring all government stakeholders can effectively participate
in governance regardless of their native language and preventing linguistic isolation or
exclusion. Unauthorized exclusive language usage obstructs necessary intergovernmental
communication, violating these constitutional mandates.

36. Language uniformity through English or Hindi acts as a functional bridge. An isolation of
State of Soprano would be the outcome of exclusive use of Prakrit leading to interruption or
delays in governmental process, which is against the constitutional objective of integrated

17
Excessive formalities, rules or bureaucratic procedures that cause delay, inefficiency

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

governance. Art.200 empowers the Governor to reserve such a bill for presidential scrutiny,
safeguarding against laws that impede effective intergovernmental communication. In Uttar
Pradesh Official language Act case 18, the judgement emphasized the constitutional scheme
for preserving Hindi and English for governmental communication, ruling that the state
cannot unilaterally impose exclusive language that impose obstructions.

4.2. That there is violation of Art. 14.

37. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there is a violation of Art.14. In the
instant matter, the unilateral imposition of Prakrit by the state of Soprano offends the equality
mandate under Art.14 as, it is arbitrarily discriminates the non-native Prakrit speakers and
lacks any rational basis in governance. Non- Prakrit speakers who are the linguistic minorities
or officials not proficient in the language are excluded which would amount to unreasonable
classification and this amount to the violation of Art.14’s prohibition on arbitrariness and
discrimination. Justice P.N Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI19, expanded the scope of
Art.14, emphasizing that any law must not be arbitrary and must comply with constitutional
fairness standards.

4.2.1 That there is a lack of rational nexus.

38. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the principle of classification under
Art.14 requires intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. A classification without this connection is arbitrary and violates Art.14’s guarantee
of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Classification must be based
on a real, substantial difference distinguishing one group from one another, and this
difference must have a logical connection to the law’s purpose.

39. In the instant matter, the exclusive use of Prakrit without providing communication in
Hindi or English lacks a logical connection to governance objectives because it restricts
communication with other states and the union, excludes non-Prakrit speaking citizens from
the government and judicial processes, disrupts administrative efficiency. The governor under
Art.200 can reserve such bills which lack rational nexus with constitutional objectives or
violates the established laws. In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu20, the court held that any
state action which is arbitrary is violative of Art.14 and is relevant where the exclusive
language laws may be arbitrary, lacking reasonable classification or nexus. In Ram Krishna

18
U.P. Hindi Sahittya Sammelan vs State Of U P
19
1978 AIR 597
20
1973 INSC 213

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar 21, the court recognized the intelligible differentia and rational
nexus test under Art.14, if language based classification in law lacks these, they are
unconstitutional.

4.2.2. That there is an inaccessiblity in public service for non-Prakrit speakers due to
language barrier.
40. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the public services must be accessible
to all citizens regardless of linguistic background. In the instant case, if assent to the bill is
granted, exclusive use of Prakrit by the state of Soprano would create a language barrier for
non-prakrit speakers, denying them access to government services, legal processes, and
essential information. Such an exclusion contradicts the basic principles of equitable
governance and violates citizen’s right to fair treatment.

41. The Official languages Act, 1963 mandates the use of Hindi and English for official
communication between the states and the union, facilitating across linguistic groups. In the
instant matter, the exclusive state legislation promoting only Prakrit undermines this
framework and can fragment the governance. Granting classical language status to a language
is for the promotion & preservation & it does not mean its exclusive use in public
administration or legal processes. The Governor’s reservation of any bill foregrounding
exclusive Prakrit use is necessary to uphold the constitutional framework ensuring equitable
public service accessibility and administrative coherence.

4.3 That the Doctrine of Reasonableness is in action.

42. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the doctrine of reasonableness
mandates that any law or administrative action must be fair, rational, just, and not arbitrary
serving a legitimate purpose with a logical connection. The governor’s decision to withhold
and reserve the bills for the consideration of the Hon’ble President is both constitutional and
reasonable. In the instant matter, the state’s move to use only Prakrit would have hindered
intergovernmental communication. The governor by reserving the bill, ensured the principle
of cooperative federalism under the constitution was maintained. The governor is duty-bound
to withhold or reserve such bills when they touch upon matters in the Union List or national
concern. This action was reasonable consistent with Art.200. In E.P Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu, it was held that reasonableness is a core element of quality.

21
1958 AIR 538

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

43. The Official languages Act and constitutional frameworks ensure that no language policy
excludes or discriminates irrationally against linguistic minorities. If a bill imposing sole
official language status on Prakrit lacks rational nexus to legitimate objectives and unfairly
excludes non-speakers, it breaches the doctrine of reasonableness. In such cases, the
Governor must exercise the power of reservation under Art.200 to prevent unconstitutional
laws.

4.3.1 Sudden imposition of Prakrit without a transition period is arbitrary.

44. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that sudden and unilateral imposition of
Prakrit without providing a transition period, training of officials, or bilingual publication
creates administrative chaos and disadvantages large section of the society. The sudden
imposition of Prakrit could disrupt state services, judiciary and education. By reserving the
bill, the Governor upheld administrative efficiency and ensured that state law does not
become oppressive or impracticable for citizens & officials.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

AUTHORITIES CITED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY
PRAYED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICANA THAT IT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

1. That the course of action adopted by the governor to withhold the bills from giving assent is
constitutional.

2. That there can be alternate exercise of the reservation powers of the governor, and reserving
the bill for the consideration of the President under the constitution of Indicana.

3. That the executive has the power to check the constitutionality of laws under the constitution
of Indicana.

4. That the State of Soprano do not have the constitutional power to exclusively use Prakrit as
its official language.

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DUTY BOUND

FOREVER PRAY.

Sd /-

CONSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT