Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'A'

TEAM CODE: J
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT

OF ARCADIA
GULRAK STARK
.......PETITIONER
V/s
STATE OF ARCADIA & Others
......RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
P a g e | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................
STATEMENT OF FACTS................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............................................................
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................
13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................
17
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act, 2015 and the Amendment Act
violates the Right to Occupation under Article 19(1)(g)......................................
Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Amendment Act

is violative of Art. 21 of the Targaryen Constitution............................................
29
The Act and the Amendment is violative of Article 301

of the Targaryen Constitution...........................................................................
26
The K&W Act is violative of Right to Privacy

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India......................................
17
32
The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists

and is also repugnant to the existing Central Acts...............................................
35
PRAYERS............................................... 39
22nd M.C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
P a g e | 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr. No.
Abbreviation
Full form
1.
Honble
Honorable
2.
U.O.I
Union of India
3.
Ors.
Others
4.
K&W
Kingslayer and Whitewalker
5.
Govt.
Government
6.
SCW
Supreme Court Weekly
7.
A. P.
Andhra Pradesh
8.
Guj.
Gujarat
9.
Sec
Section
10.
Vs.
Versus
11.
M.P
Madhya Pradesh
12.
AIR
All India Reporter
13.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
14.
Art.
Article
15.
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
16.
Re
Reference
P a g e | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Sr. No.
Name of the Case
Full Citation
Page
No.
1.
HinsaVirodhakSangh vs
MirzapurMotiKureshJamat& Ors
AIR 2008 (SC) 1892
19, 27
2.
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal

Corporation and Ors
1985 3 SCC 545
20
3.
U.P. vs Charan Singh.
AIR (SCW) 2015-02615.
21
4.
Raghubir Singh vs General Manager

Haryana Roadways
SCC 2014 (10) 301
21
5.
Jharkhand vs Kamal Prasad
SCC 2014 7 223
21
6.
Mohd. HanifQuareshi and others v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh and others
AIR 1958 (SC) 731
22, 28
7.
Mohammad Faruk v. State of Madhya

Pradesh
AIR 1970 (SC) 73
22
8.
RamratanJhawar Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh
AIR 2003 AP 84
23
9.
Hashmattullah Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh
AIR 1996 (SC) 02076
23
10.
Re-RamlilaMaidan vs Home Secretary,

Union of India
2012 (5) SCC 1
27
11.
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
2011 (8) SCC 1
29
12.
Distt. Registrar vs Canara Bank
AIR 2005 (SC) 186
29
13.
BhagyodayJanparishad vs. State of Gujarat

through Chief Secretary
2013 AIR(Guj)
29
14.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
1978 SCR (2) 621
30
P a g e | 4

15.
State of Madras vs N.K.NatarajaMudaliar
AIR 1969 SC 147
33
16.
Atiabari Tea Company Limited v. The

State of Assam and others
1961 (1) SCR 809
33
17.
ITC vs. Agricultural Produce Market

Committee
AIR 2002 SC 852, 894
37
P a g e | 5

BOOKS REFEREED
1.
C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.
2.
Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.
3.
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.
4.
G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.
5.
H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India, 2ndEdition, 2006. 1987 AIR 748
6.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.
7.
J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India.
8.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.
9.
P.M. Bakshi&Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.
10. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.

11. C.C.V. Subba Rao, Indian Constitutional Law, 1st Edition, 2006.
12. D. J. De, The Constitution of India, 3rdEdition, 2002, Vol. 1 & 2.
13. D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8thEdition, 2008, Vol. 4&5.
14. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEdition, 2010, Vol. 1 & 2.
STATUTES
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

INDIAN FISHERIES ACT, 1897
LIVE STOCK IMPORTATION ACT, 1898
MANUALS REFERRED
DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR INDIANS

HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WEBSITES REFERRED
http://india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
P a g e | 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The present PIL is filed in the Honble High Court of Arcadia under Art. 226 of the
Constitution of Targaryen Union that reads as follows.
Art 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause
(1), without-
P a g e | 7

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High
Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party
in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court
shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is
received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period,
before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the
application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or ,
as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.
THIS MEMORANDUM SETS OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH NEEDS TO BE
SETTLED IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE SUBMISSIONS THERE UNDER.
P a g e | 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The province of Arcadia is an economically advanced but highly agriculture based society
located in the Union of Targaryen. The Arcadian economy relies heavily on marine
agriculture- the cultivation of Kingslayer weed that grows in shallow water and is
consumed locally as well exported to other areas of Targaryen Union. A key element in the
cultivation is the spawning process of the Whitewalkers, which had the side effect of
distribution of Kingslayer seeds resulting in its sowing. This was the sole reason for which
the Whitewalker came to be closely related with the culture of Arcadia. Successive to the
spawning period the Whitewalker enters the phase called Long Night wherein it ceases to
be of any use. Wild Whitewalkers usually spend most of their lives in the deep sea outside
territorial waters of the Targaryen Union, but within its Economic Zone. But it spend the
spawning period exclusively near the shoreline.
2. With time the cultivation of Kingslayer became more organised and the Whitewalkers began
to be bred in the inland saline ponds to help sowing Kingslayer. However as technology
progressed, the use of Whitewalkers reduced as the mechanised sowing machines became
more affordable. Furthermore the meat of Whitewalker is consumed in Targaryen Union
which provides farmers an additional source of income. The best edible Whitewalkers are
usually caught in the deep sea and exclusively a community called First Men conducts the
fishing of Whitewalker in Arcadia and neighbouring provinces.
3. In 1978 as the Arcadian National Party formed the part of the ruling coalition at the centre
and ensured the passing of the legislation that successfully amended the Targaryen
Constitution to insert a new Article 48 A which reads as follows:-
P a g e | 9

Organisation of marine agriculture and fish farming:- The state shall endeavour to organise
marine agriculture and fish farming on modern scientific lines and shall in particular, take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter, of the
Whitewalker fish and other such productive fish.
4. The challenge to the constitutionality of this article was refused by the Targaryen Supreme
Court on the grounds of it being in pari materia with article 48 of the Constitution of India.
Later in 2014 Arcadian Nationalist party came to power in Arcadia and subsequently in
2015 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act was passed in furtherance of
Article 48A, which prohibited the killing of Whitewalker unless it is certified that they have
entered the Long Night or were otherwise not useful for sowing Kingslayer. The said bill
received president assent and was notified on 3rd March 2015.
5. The relevant sections of the said act read as follows:Section 31) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any usage or
custom to the contrary, no person shall kill or cause to be killed any Whitewalker in any
place in the state of Arcadia, unless he has obtained a certificate in writing from the
competent authority.
2) No certificate shall be granted under sub sec (1), if in the opinion of the competent
authority the person applying for the certificate is likely to kill or cause to be killed:
a) A Whitewalker, which is economical for the purpose of marine agriculture operations and
sowing of Kingslayer.
P a g e | 10

Section 4:
The police may, subject to the provisions of this act, enter any place and seize any property
that is used to slaughter any Whitewalker in respect of which no certificate is granted under
the act.
6. As a result to the passing of this legislation the price of Whitewalker meat in Arcadia
skyrocketed and a black market of illegally slaughtered fish thrived. Also doctors expressed
concerns on deprivation of rich source of protein to the people with reasonable means.
7. Yet the Right wing of the Arcadian Nationalist Party was unhappy and felt that the
legislation was not enough to protect Whitewalker which they considered as the national fish
of Arcadia. Subsequently the Right wing replaced Mr. Jaideep Lannister with Mr. Gaurav
Clegane as the Chief Minister of Arcadia and the applications for grant of certificate were
being summarily rejected on the grounds that all Whitewalkers contributed to the sowing of
Kingslayer in some way. Immediately the state assembly of Arcadia also passed the K&W
Amendment Act on 15th June 2015, which received Presidential assent the next day, was
notified and made law on 18th June 2015. The Amendment Act outlawed the possession of
Whitewalker meat and made the same a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.
Some of the relevant sections of the said Amendment Act read as follows:8. Sec 5 (sec 2 of the Amendment Act)
5 (a) (1) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this act, shall transport or
arrange a transport of a Whitewalker, from any place within the State to any place outside the
place, for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
(2) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this Act, personally or through his
agent, representative, servant or any such other person acting on behalf of him, export or
import any Whitewalker outside the State of Arcadia.
P a g e | 11

(b) No person shall purchase or sell or dispose of any Whitewalker for slaughter or with the
knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this law for the time being in force, no person
shall, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, possess (keep in custody) meat of any
Whitewalker.
(d) No person shall possess the meat of any Whitewalker slaughtered outside the state of
Arcadia .
Sec 6 (Sec3 of the amendment act)
6. Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 5 shall be punished with an imprisonment
for the term which may extend to one year after conviction or with a fine which may extend
to rupees one thousand.
9. Ms. Gulrak Stark a firebrand Arcadian from the Radical Liberal Party and a popular
environmental activist was dissatisfied and rather disappointed with the actions of the
Arcadian Govt. taken over by mindless radicals. She therefore filed a Public Interest
Litigation alleging violation of her fundamental rights, those of every Targaryen Citizen as
well as those of the First Men, in the High Court of Arcadia with the reliefs to quash and set
aside the K&W Act 2015 and the K&W Amendment Act 2015.
The said PIL is now placed for hearing and final disposal before the division bench of the
Honble High Court of Arcadia.
The laws in the Targaryen Union are similar and in pari materia with those of India.
P a g e | 12

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015 and the Kingslayer and
Whitewalker [Amendment], 2015 is violative of Art. 19 of the Targaryen Constitution and
should thus be declared as unconstitutional?
2. Whether Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker (Amendment) Act, 2015 is ultra
vires Art. 21 of the Targaryen Constitution?
3. Whether Section 4 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is violative of Article
21 of the Targaryen Constitution?
Whitewalker [Amendment], 2015 is violative of Article 301 of the Targaryen Constitution?
Whitewalker [Amendment], 2015 violates the doctrine of occupied lists and is also
repugnant to the existing Central Acts?
P a g e | 13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.
The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act, 2014 and the Amendment Act violates the
Right to Occupation under Article 19(1)(g).
The members of the First Men community almost exclusively carry out the fishing of wild
Whitewalkers found in the deep seas of Arcadia and they will adversely be affected by a
complete prohibition to slaughter and fish for Whitewalkers. The Wild Whitewalkers are
edible and extremely healthy and thus are widely consumed in the Targaryen Union. First
Men, thus sell and export the meat of the Whitewalkers to various provinces in Targaryen
Union. Owing to the Act and subsequent amendment thereto, there is a complete ban on the
profession of First Men. Thus, the said Act is violative of Article 19(1)(g) which guarantees
Right to Occupation.
1.1The restrictions are not in the interest of public and are unreasonable and thus
cannot be saved by Art 19(6).
The reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India can only be
applicable in the presence of a larger public interest. The Whitewalkers caught in the wild
and deep sea were edible where Kingslayer did not grow as they grew only in shallow water
and the ones used for production of Kingslayer were bred in saline inland ponds and thus
both the production of Kingslayer and the sale of meat co-existed. Thus there was no reason
to prohibit slaughtering completely as the lawful slaughtering of Whitewalker had no impact
on production of Kingslayer. The enforcement of the Act is working adversely in the public
P a g e | 14

interest as it is destroying livelihoods of farmers and limiting the protein diet essential for the
people. Hence, in the absence of any larger public interest, right guaranteed under Article 19
cannot be taken away.
1.2 The K&W Act violates Right to Livelihood and goes against the aims and object of
the Act.
The objects and reasons of the K&W Act aim at protecting the livelihood of the farmers.
Adversely, by a complete prohibition in the slaughtering and trade of Whitewalker fish, the
livelihood of all the farmers who made a living by selling Whitewalkers and First Men, a
community which deals in the fishing of wild Whitewalkers is at stake. Hence, as the Act
goes against its object and reasons and violates the Right to Livelihood guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Act is ultra vires and void.
2. Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Amendment Act is violative of Art.
21 of the Targaryen Constitution.
The Section prohibits even the possession of Whitewalker meat which is beyond the object
and the purpose of the Act and the State by virtue of this Section aims at regulating ones
freedom of choice of food and thus the said section is ultravires Article 21.
2.1 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act 2015 violates Freedom of choice of
food.
Freedom of choice of food is an essential right guaranteed under Right to privacy under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, by enforcing such an absolute prohibition on
consumption of Whitewalker meat, the Act violates the peoples right to freedom of choice of
food under Article 21.
P a g e | 15

2.2 The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act 2015 Act is against the provisions
of Article 47 of the Constitution.
Article 47 of the Constitution of India states it is the duty of the State to raise the level of
nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health. However, by putting a
prohibition on the slaughter of the Whitewalkers, the Act has deprived the people of the State
of a rich source of protein, thereby making the K&W Act not in furtherance of Article 47.
2.3 The Act violates Article 29 of the Constitution.
There are minorities/tribes who consume Whitewalker flesh for their subsistence. The rights
of such minorities are protected under Art 29 of the Constitution and thus by prohibiting the
consumption of Whitewalker, the Act also violates Art 29.
3. The K&W Act is violative of the Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Section 4 of the K&W Act violates the Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. As per the provisions laid down under the said Act, the police have the
power to enter and search any property and further also provides the right to seize the
property. It is submitted that the Act fails to lay down any specific procedure to be followed
in carrying out search and seizure and thus in the absence of it, an individuals right to
privacy stands to be compromised. It is also further submitted that it fails to satisfy the triple
test laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. Hence, being violative of Article 21 and
failing the triplet test, the Act should be declared bad in law.
P a g e | 16

4. The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act 2015 Act and the Amendment Act
are violative of Article 301 of the Targaryen Constitution.
Section 5 of the K&W Act prohibits trade in Whitewalker in any form, from the state of
Arcadia. As per Art 301 there is freedom of trade and commerce throughout the territory of
India i.e. Intra state as well as inter-state and thus the present act is violative of the same as it
prohibits trade of meat of Whitewalker. The reasonable restriction applicable on this right
provided under Article 304 is not considerable in the present case as there is absence of any
larger public interest.
5. The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists and is also repugnant to the
existing Central Acts.
5.1 The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists.

Entry 57 of List I in the Seventh Schedule provides for Fishing and Fisheries beyond
territorial waters. The Respondents thus cannot make laws relating to fishing or fisheries
beyond territorial waters subject to Entry 57 of List I, The Union List. Hence, by making a
law prohibiting slaughter of Whitewalker fish which mostly spend their lives in the exclusive
Economic Zone, the State is going well beyond its legislative competence thereby making the
Act violative of the doctrine of occupied lists.
5.2 The provisions of the K&W Amendment Act is repugnant to The Indian
fisheries act, 1897 and the Livestock Importation Act.
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 and the Livestock Importation Act, are Central Acts which
have already covered the respective fields which the provisions of the K&W Act contravene.
The K&W Act being repugnant to these Central Acts, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
P a g e | 17

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection (Amendment) Act, 2015 is violative of

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, the state legislative assembly of Arcadia passed the Kingslayer and
Whitewalker Protection Act 2015 and thereby restricted the slaughter of Whitewalkers. The
said Act permitted the slaughter of Whitewalker only when the certificates were issued
stating that Whitewalkers have entered The Long Night / they have ceased to be useful for
sowing Kingslayer. An announcement was also made by the then Chief Minister of Arcadia,
Mr. Jaideep Lannister that such certificates would be freely granted to fishermen from
Arcadia (and especially the First Men) who fished for wild Whitewalkers.
However the state legislative assembly thereafter passed the Kingslayer and Whitewalker
(Amendment) Act on 15th June, 2015 and thereby made the Act more stringent and
unreasonable.
The provisions of the Amendment read as follows:
Sec 5 (sec 2 of the Amendment Act)
5 (a) (1) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this act, shall transport or
arrange a transport of a Whitewalker, from any place within the State to any place outside
the place, for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
P a g e | 18

(2) No person acting in contravention of the provisions of this Act, personally or through his
agent, representative, servant or any such other person acting on behalf of him, export or
import any Whitewalker outside the State of Arcadia.
(b) No person shall purchase or sell or dispose of any Whitewalker for slaughter or with the
knowledge that it may be slaughtered.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this law for the time being in force, no person
shall, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, possess (keep in custody) meat of any
Whitewalker.
(d) No person shall possess the meat of any Whitewalker slaughtered outside the State of
Arcadia .
Sec 6 (Sec3 of the amendment act)
6. Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 5 shall be punished with an imprisonment
for the term which may extend to one year after conviction or with a fine which may extend
to rupees one thousand.
It is humbly submitted that at present since the Respondents have stopped granting
certificates, there is a complete ban on the slaughtering of Whitewalkers and the same is
violative of Art 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
First Men carry out the fishing of wild Whitewalkers which are found only in the deep seas of
Arcadia. As per the facts of the case the Wild Whitewalkers are edible and extremely healthy
P a g e | 19

thus the meat of Whitewalker is consumed widely in the Targaryen Union. First men, thus
sell and export the meat of the Whitewalkers to various provinces in Targaryen Union.
Owing to the Act and subsequent amendment, theres a complete ban on the profession of
First Men. They are not being granted certificates and thus their whole occupation has come
to a standstill. It is submitted that such absolute prohibition on the profession of the First Men
is unreasonable and thus deserves to be quashed.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of HinsaVirodhakSangh vs
MirzapurMotiKureshJamat & Ors1 provided that, Had the impugned resolutions ordered
closure of municipal slaughter houses for a considerable period of time we may have held the
impugned resolutions to be invalid being an excessive restriction on the rights of the butchers
of Ahmedabad who practise their profession of meat selling. After all, butchers are practicing
a trade and it is their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which is
guaranteed to all citizens of India. Moreover, it is not a matter of the proprietor of the
butchery shop alone. There may be also several workmen therein who may become
unemployed if the slaughter houses are closed for a considerable period of time, because one
of the conditions of the licence given to the shop-owners is to supply meat regularly in the
city of Ahmedabad and this supply comes from the municipal slaughter houses of
Ahmedabad. Also, a large number of people are non-vegetarian and they cannot be
compelled to become vegetarian for a long period.
Therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment the petitioner respectfully submit that the K &
W Act is violative of Article 19(1)(g).
1.1The restrictions imposed by the State are not in the interest of public and are
unreasonable and thus cannot be saved by Art 19(6).

1
AIR 2008 (SC) 1892

P a g e | 20

Further it is submitted that such freedom of trade and profession could only be restricted as
provided under Art 19 (6) which clearly states that only if there is a public interest the
reasonable restrictions may be imposed. In the present case there is no public interest
involved and thus the Act is arbitrary. The Whitewalkers caught in the wild and deep sea
were edible where Kingslayer did not grow as they grew only in shallow water and the ones
used for production of Kingslayer were bred in saline inland ponds and thus both the
production of Kingslayer and the sale of meat co-existed. Thus there was no reason to
prohibit slaughtering completely as the lawful slaughtering of Whitewalker had no impact on
production of Kingslayer.
Instead, it is humbly submitted that such prohibition on the freedom of trade and profession is
acting counterproductive considering the many instances stated in the factsheet. The
enforcement of the K&W Act, led to a black market of illegally slaughtered fishes. The lack
of availability of the Whitewalker fish to the people, deprived them of a rich source of protein
as expressed by many doctors. Finally, the said Act being endangering the livelihood of many
farmers and people for whom fishing and consuming Whitewalkers were their basic means of
subsistence, the said Act should be declared unconstitutional.
1.2 The K&W Act violates Right to Livelihood and goes against the aims and object of
the Act.
The Act and Amendment is also violative of Right to Livelihood as protected under Art 21.
On one hand the Statement and Objects of the Act provide that it is for the protection of the
livelihood of the traditional farmers however the facts of the case clearly provide that the
farmers were engaged in cultivation of Kingslayer and also engaged in sale of meat and thus
they had dual source of income. The K&W Act imposes a complete ban on this activity of the
farmers and the First Men and thus is violative of their right under 19(1) (g) and also violates
P a g e | 21

the right to livelihood provided under Art 21 of the Act. In the name of protecting and
promoting the rights of traditional farmers, they have deprived poor farmers and the First
Men of their only means of subsistence and thus have placed them in a precarious position.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal
Corporation and Ors21985 3 SCC 545 held, Upon that assumption, the question which we
have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one
answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished
or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except
according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An
equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live
without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not
treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his
right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness
but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in
accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as
a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes
life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a
person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. The same
principle was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. vs
Charan Singh3 and Raghubir Singh vs General Manager Haryana Roadways4
1985 3 SCC 545

AIR (SCW) 2015-0-2615
4
SCC 2014 (10) 301
3
P a g e | 22

The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jharkhand vs Kamal Prasad5, held
The error of the State Government of either Bihar or Jharkhand would not justify to throw
away the respondent-employees by making them unemployed who have been well-settled in
their life since the same would amount to a clear case of discrimination and deprivation of
their livelihood.
Further it is submitted that the Respondents in the present case have rejected all the
applications for license on the ground that the Whitewalkers (both male and female) never
cease to be useful. The facts clearly show that the Whitewalkers cease to be of any use after
they enter the Long Night period and thus the reason cited by the Respondents is not
justified. Also it is submitted that the selling of old animals that are no longer useful for
farming and buying a new animal from the proceeds which would contribute in farming is a
common practice of farmers. Similarly, by refusing the certificates, an added burden to
maintain the Whitewalkers has been imposed on the farmers. Farmers who could hardly
maintain their family, would find it extremely difficult to maintain the Whitewalkers that are
not capable of producing Kingslayer.
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh and others6AIR 1958 (SC) 731 held that a total ban on the slaughter of she
buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding
milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the
interest of general public
Further held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Faruk v. State of
Madhya Pradesh7 AIR 1970 (SC) 73, that

5
SCC 2014 7 223

AIR 1958 (SC) 731
7
AIR 1970 (SC) 73
6
P a g e | 23

the impugned notification though technically within the competence of the state
government, directly infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed
by the article 19 (1) (g) and may be upheld only if it is established that it seeks to
impose reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and a less
drastic restriction will not ensure the interest of the general public. Further held
that A prohibition imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights to carry o an
occupation, trade and business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed
not in the interest of the general public but merely to respect the susceptibilities
and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not
the same as that of the claimant. Therefore the impugned notification issued by
the state govt. must be declared ultra vires as it infringes Article 19 (1) (g) of the
constitution.
Also, in the case of Ramratan Jhawar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh8AIR 2003 AP 84
wherein the petitioner urged that the Govt. by allowing slaughter under fit to slaughter
certificate violated article 48. The Honble High Court of Allahabad held that the contention
of the petitioner that the object of Article 48 is to see that no cattle should be slaughtered
even if they ceased to be useful or milch or draught has no merit. The above mentioned
Quareshi cases observations were reiterated in this case, that explaining the object of article
48, the total prohibition is not permissible. Also the total prohibition of slaughter of she
buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bulls without prescribing any test or requirement as to
their usefulness offends the fundamental rights of the butchers.And therefore the prayer of the
petitioner to put total ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she buffaloes was rejected.
AIR 2003 AP 84
P a g e | 24

The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hashmatullah vs State of M.P9 held,We
are pained to notice the successive attempts made by the State of Madhya Pradesh to nullify
the effect of this Court's decisions beginning with Mohd. Hanif's case and ending with Mohd.
Faruk's case, each time on filmsy grounds. In this last such attempt, the objects and reasons
show how insignificant and unsupportable the ground for bringing the legislation was. The
main thrust of the objects and reasons for the legislation seems to be that even animals which
have ceased to be capable of yielding milk or breeding or working as draught animals can be
useful as they would Produce dung which could be used to generate non conventional
sources of energy like bio -gas without so much as being aware of the cost of maintaining
such animals for the mere purpose of dung. Even the supportive articles relied upon do not
bear on this point. It is obvious that successive attempts are being made in the hope that some
day it will succeed as indeed it did with the High Court which got carried away by research
papers published only two or three years before without realising that they dealt with the
aspect of utility of dung but had nothing to do with the question of the utility of animals which
have ceased to be reproductive or capable of being used as draught animals. Besides, they do
not even reflect on the economical aspect of maintaining such animals for the sole purpose of
dung. Prima facie it seems farfetched and yet the State Government thought it as sufficient to
amend the law.
Thus, in the present case the Respondents have erred by passing the Amendment Act on the
point that the Whitewalkers never cease to be useful and in light of the above case the
Amendment deserves to be quashed.
Further if they are unable to maintain them properly, by virtue of Prevention of Animal
Cruelty Act, they would be penalised for the same.

9
AIR 1996 (SC) 0- 2076

P a g e | 25

Section 11 of the Act provides, 11. Treating animals cruelly: (1) If any person
(h) being the owner of (any animal) fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or
shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which tender it likely
that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation thirst; or
(k) offers for sale or without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is
suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill treatment;
he shall be punishable (in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten
rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence
committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than
twenty-five rupees but which may extend, to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a
term which may extend, to three months, or with both.)
Thus this Act firstly denies them the right to carry on their profession freely and thus violates
Art 19(1)(g) and further deprives farmers of their right to livelihood and even imposes an
additional burden upon the farmers to bear the maintenance cost of such Whitewalkers. The
occupation carried on by the farmers of breeding fish has thus been completely stopped and
thus there is a serious threat to the livelihoods of the hundreds of farmers and are thus placed
in a very sorry state.
2. Section 5(d) of the Amendment is ultra vires Art. 21 of the Targaryen Constitution.
Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment Act states:
P a g e | 26

(d) No person shall possess the meat of any Whitewalker slaughtered outside the state of
Arcadia.
On perusing section 5(d) of the Act it is found that mere possession of Whitewalker meat by
a person is an offence and he shall be punished under section 6 of the Act. It is humbly
submitted that by prohibiting the possession of meat under Section 5(d) of the Act and
making it a criminal offence, the state has gone well beyond the object and purpose of the
Act. The object being protecting the Whitewalker in the state of Arcadia and promote
livelihood of the farmers, a person importing meat of the Whitewalker from a different state
or country and consuming it, nowhere violates the object of the Act. It is thus submitted that
there is no nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the restriction imposed under
section 5(d) of the Act. By restricting the consumption of meat the state is targeting to
regulate ones right to freedom of choice of food which is a fundamental right guaranteed
under article 21 of the Constitution and thus it is extremely unreasonable and
unconstitutional.
2.1Freedom of choice of food
It is humbly submitted that every person has the right to freedom of choice of food and it is
an important right granted under Right to privacy under article 21. It is the right of the
individual to decide what he wants to eat and the same cannot be regulated and decided by
the state.
Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hinsa virodhak sangh vs Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat10 has held that what one eats is a matter of ones private affair and
thus it is part of right to privacy as included in Art 21 of the Constitution of India.

10
AIR 2008 (SC) 1892

P a g e | 27

Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Re-Ramlila Maidan vs. Home Secretary,
Union of India11held, Thus, it is evident that right of privacy and the right to sleep have
always been treated to be a fundamental right like a right to breathe, to eat, to drink, to
blink, etc.
2.2The Act is against the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution.
Article 47 of the Constitution of India states
47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve
public health.
As per the facts of the case, it is found that doctors have expressed concerns that persons of
reasonable means would be deprived of a rich source of protein. The meat of Whitewalkers
being a rich source of protein and nutritious was consumed widely and was affordable to the
people. But by virtue of sec 5(d) the people have been deprived of the important nutritional
value of the meat.
A report by the Harvard School of Public health says that,
Fish is a very important part of a healthy diet. Fish and other seafood are the major sources
of healthful long-chain omega-3 fats and are also rich in other nutrients such as vitamin D
and selenium, high in protein, and low in saturated fat. There is strong evidence that eating
fish or taking fish oil is good for the heart and blood vessels.
Similarly, The Dietary Guidelines for Indians, a manual by the National Council of Nutrition,
Indian Council of Medical Research states that Meat is a rich of protein and iron. It also
specifies that it is an essential element of a balanced diet.

11
2012 (5) SCC 1

P a g e | 28

Also, the report says that one portion of pulse can be substituted by one portion of meat. The
people who fished Whitewalker meat for their own subsistence and living and those who
cannot afford buying pulses, are severely deprived of major sources of nutrients which was
available to them freely since generations. Hence, it is the duty of the state to look into the
rights of these minorities and take care of their nutritional intake.
The Honble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. HanifQuareshi vs State of Bihar12 held that
poorer people who can hardly afford fruit/ milk/ ghee are likely to suffer from malnutrition
if they are deprived of even one out-ice of beef/ buffaloes flesh which may sometimes be
within their reach and thus the govt. ought to respect the freedom of choice of food and
restriction/ prohibition is unreasonable.
2.3The Act violates Article 29 of the Constitution.
It is submitted that the Whitewalker meat is affordable to individuals and thus by prohibiting
its possession and consumption the State has neglected the rights of the poor people who
consume it. Thus, there are minorities/tribes who consume Whitewalker flesh for their
purpose of subsistence. The rights of such minorities are protected under Art 29 of the
constitution and thus by prohibiting the consumption of Whitewalker act also violates art 29.
The state has been unmindful of it thereby making the minorities and their rights suffer.
Hence, the Act is unconstitutional and is not in consonance with Article 47 of the
Constitution of India.

12
AIR 1958 (SC) 731

P a g e | 29

3. Section 4 of the K&W Act violates Right to Privacy under Art 21.
It is humbly submitted that Section 4 of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Act is
violative of the fundamental right to privacy and thus is ultra vires Art.21 of the Constitution.
Section 4 states Section 4: (1) The police may, subject to the provisions of this Act, enter
any place and seize any property that is used to slaughter any Whitewalker in respect of
which no certificate is granted under the Act.. As per the provisions of the Act the police
have the power to enter and search any property and further also provides the right to seize
the property. It is submitted that the Act fails to lay down any specific procedure to be
followed in carrying out search and seizure and thus in the absence of it, an individuals right
to privacy stands to be compromised. In the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India132011
(8) SCC 1, the Honble Supreme Court held that, Right to privacy is an integral part of right
to life. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be
allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful
manner. The same view also taken by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Distt. Registrar vs Canara Bank14.
By not stipulating a specific procedure to regulate search and seizure, every farmer who
carries on fish farming, his property would be subject to frequent search and seizure which is
against the objects of the Act and also a serious invasion in ones private life. Merely on the
grounds of him having Whitewalkers, the authorities cannot carry out irregular search and
seize the property. In the case of BhagyodayJanparishad vs. State of Gujarat through Chief
Secretary15 2013 AIR(Guj) 14 , the Honble High Court of Gujarat held that , Applying the
principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we have no

13
2011 (8) SCC 1

AIR 2005 (SC) 186
15
2013 AIR(Guj) 14
14
P a g e | 30

hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the action of the authorities in intercepting
vehicles indiscriminately on the road at random and then carrying out the search in the hope
or nurturing a doubt that the vehicle may contain a cash of more than Rs.2.5 lac or other
articles, without establishment of prima facie grounds or without there being any basis or
subjective satisfaction on the part of the authorities would definitely be a violation of the
right to privacy of such citizens. The authority cannot be given an untrammelled power to
infringe the right of privacy of any person. Even if a statute conform such power upon an
authority to make search and seizure of a person at all hours and at all places, the same
maybe held to be ultra vires unless the restrictions imposed are reasonable one. Right to
privacy deals with persons and not places. The Honble Supreme Court also observed that a
person, if he does not break a law would be entitled to enjoy his life and liberty which would
include the right to not to be disturbed. A right to be let alone is recognized to be a right
which would fall under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Further in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India16 that, Any law interfering with
personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the
procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under
Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be
tested with reference to Article 14. In the present case with respect to the triple test
prescribed, it is submitted that firstly no procedure has been provided under the K&W Act as
to, on what basis/grounds and following what procedure, shall the police initiate search and
seizure. Secondly the provisions provides for seizure of the property used for slaughtering. It
is humbly submitted that a wide and unreasonable power has been granted by allowing
seizure of the whole property.

16
1978 SCR (2) 621

P a g e | 31

If the motive of the Act is to prevent slaughter of Whitewalkers then only the Whitewalkers
should be seized if there is absence of a certificate. By seizing the whole property which is
also used for the slaughter of other animals and not just the Whitewalkers, the provision
therefore takes away the right to slaughter other animals also which are lawfully bred by the
farmers and thus Section 4 suffers from vice of unreasonability.
In the absence of any reasonable procedure for search and seizure the K&W Act fails to
satisfy the mandatory triple test and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside as ultra
vires Article 21 of the constitution.
P a g e | 32

4. The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Act and the Amendment Act are violative of
Article 301 of the Targaryen Constitution.
Section 5 (Section 2 of the Amendment Act) of the K&W Act states5 [2] No person acting
in contravention of the provisions of the Act, personally or through his agent, representative,
servant or any such other person acting on behalf of him export or import any Whitewalker
outside the State of Arcadia.
It is humbly submitted that the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection Amendment Act is
violative of Art 301 of the Constitution of India.
301. Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse- Subject to the other provisions of this
Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free.
Art 301 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of trade and intercourse throughout the
territory of Targaryen Union and thus the freedom is granted for interstate as well as intra
state trading. In the present case, one of the most edible Whitewalkers are found in the state
of Arcadia and thus members of First Men community are involved in the fishing of
Whitewalkers. Similarly as the meat of the Whitewalkers is consumed in the state of Arcadia
as a cheap source of Protein, the First men and other farmers sell the meat to the Arcadians
and thus are involved in trading of the meat. Similarly the meat is consumed widely in the
other provinces of Targaryen Union and thus the Trade houses operate on large scales which
export meat throughout the territory of Targaryen Union. Similarly the demand of
Whitewalker meat is considerably high from industries like hotels and restaurants that require
P a g e | 33

Whitewalker meat of superior quality and thus the Arcadian people were actively involved in
the trading of Whitewalker meat.
However subsequent to the Amendment there is a complete prohibition on the import and
export of Whitewalker and also on the possession of meat and thus the trading activity has
come to a standstill. If the Amendment Act is not quashed, all the trading houses that are
operating on a large scale have to be shut and all the trading activities that are presently being
carried out will have to be suspended. Similarly all the contracts entered prior to the
enactment of this Act will have to be suspended and thus enormous loss would be caused
which is against the very purpose of Art 301 and the interest of Arcadian population. Thus it
is humbly submitted the present Amendment is a hindrance to free trade and thus deserves to
be set aside as being ultra vires of Art 301.
Thus as per Art 301 there is freedom of trade and commerce throughout the territory of India
i.e Intra state as well as inter-state and thus the present act is violative of the same as it
prohibits trade of meat of Whitewalker.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madras vs
N.K.NatarajaMudaliar17,
This Article is couched in terms of the widest amplitude, trade, commerce and
intercourse are thereby declared free and unhampered throughout the territory of
India. The freedom of trade so declared is against the imposition of barriers or
obstructions within the State as well as inter- State : all restrictions which directly
and immediately affect the movement of trade are declared by Art. 301 to be
ineffective.It must be taken as settled law that the restrictions or impediments which
directly and immediately impede or hamper the free flow of trade, commerce and

17
AIR 1969 SC 147

P a g e | 34

intercourse fall within the prohibition imposed by Art. 301 and subject to the other
provisions of the Constitution they may be regarded as void.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Atiabari Tea Company Limited v. The
State of Assam and others18 1961 (1) SCR 809 explained the true essence of Art 301 and
held, Free movement and exchange of goods throughout the territory of India is essential for
the economy of the nation and for sustaining and improving licensing standards of the
country. The provision contained in Art. 301 guaranteeing the freedom of trade, commerce
and intercourse is not a declaration of mere platitude, or the expression of a pious hope of a
declaratory character; it is not also a mere statement of direction principle of state policy; it
embodies and enshrines a principle of paramount importance that the economic unity of the
country will provide the main sustaining force for the stability and progress of the political
and cultural unity of the country.
It is humbly submitted that restrictions may be placed on Art 301 by Art 304 but as in the
present case, there is an absence of any public interest, the Act is violative of Art 301 and
thus deserves to be quashed.

18
1961 (1) SCR 809

P a g e | 35

5.
The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists and is also repugnant to the
existing Central Acts.
5.1 The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists.
In the present case, Section 3 of the Act provides for granting of certificates by the competent
authority prior to slaughtering of the Whitewalkers. It is humbly submitted that facts of the
case clearly state that wild Whitewalkers, whose meat is consumed, are found in the
exclusive economic zone and thus are beyond the territorial waters of Arcadia. It is humbly
submitted that the present act cannot be extended to regulate slaughtering in the exclusive
economic zone by virtue of entry 57 of List I and thus its application is restricted to state of
Arcadia.
Entry 57 of List I in the Seventh Schedule states57. Fishing and Fisheries beyond territorial waters.
The State thus cannot make laws relating to fishing or fisheries beyond territorial waters
subject to Entry 57 of List I, The Union List.
In the present case, the K&W Act as passed by the Legislature of the State of Arcadia
regulates the fishing of Whitewalker fish. These fish spend most of their lives in the deep
P a g e | 36

seas beyond the territorial waters in the exclusive economic zone of the Targaryen Union.
Hence, any law for the regulation of these Whitewalker fish present beyond the territorial
waters of the Targaryen Union is within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and thus, the
present Act cannot regulate slaughtering in the exclusive economic zones.
Therefore the passing of the K&W Act by the State of Arcadia is violative of the doctrine of
occupied list and should be declared as bad in law.
5.2 The provisions of the K&W Amendment Act is repugnant to The Indian fisheries
act, 1897 and the Livestock Importation Act, 1898.
It is humbly submitted that The Livestock Importation Act, 1898 already governs the import
of meat in the whole of India and states that meat could be freely imported into the country.
The Livestock Importation Act being a Central Act has already covered the field and thus by
virtue of the doctrine of occupied field, it is not open for the State to bring out the said Act
which is contrary to the existing Act. Therefore, Section 5[d] of the K&W Act falls squarely
outside the legislative powers conferred upon the Respondent and therefore it should be
quashed and set aside on the ground alone.
Also, it is humbly submitted that the present Act and amendment thereto is ultra vires the
provisions of Indian Fisheries Act which is also a Central Act and thus the Act deserves to be
quashed.
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 states
6. Protection of fish in selected waters by rules of State Government.
(1) The State Government may make rules 1 for the purposes hereinafter in this section
mentioned, and may by notification in the Official Gazette apply all or any of such rules to
P a g e | 37

such waters, not being private waters, as the State Government may specify in the said
notification.
(4) Such rules may also prohibit all fishing in any specified water for a period not exceeding
two years
(5) In making any rule under this section the State Government may
(a) Direct that a breach of it shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one
hundred rupees, and, when the breach is a continuing breach, with a further fine
which may extend to ten rupees for every day after the date of the first conviction
during which the breach is proved to have been persisted in;
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 is a Central Act and regulates fishing throughout the country.
Section 6(1) of the Act gives the State Government powers to make laws for the protection of
Fish in selected water. Also, Section 6(4) of the said Act states that the State cannot prohibit
fishing in any specified area for a period exceeding two years. But in the present case, no
such time period is specified and thus the period can be assumed for any number of years.
Similarly the Meat Food Products Order 1973 regulates the trading in meat and other fish
products and thereby the restriction imposed by the K&W Act is also violative of the above
mentioned Act.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITC vs. Agricultural Produce Market
Committee19AIR 2002 SC 852, 894 held,Necessarily, therefore, the Tobacco Board
Acthaving been enacted by the Parliament and making all provisions in relation to the
tobacco industry including the provisions for growing of tobacco as well as sale and
purchase of raw tobacco, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act,

19
AIR 2002 SC 852, 894

P a g e | 38

the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, entitling the Market Committee to
levy fee for sale and purchase of raw tobacco within the market area will not be operative, so
far as the produce 'tobacco' is concerned. In other words, Central Act would prevail and
would govern the entire gamut of tobacco industry. In this view of the matter, we hold that
the Tobacco Board Act and the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, collide with each other
and cannot be allowed to be operated simultaneously.
Since the K&W Act has provisions contrary to the Central act, the Indian Fisheries Act and is
unreasonable, the said Act should be declared as bad in law.
P a g e | 39

PRAYERS
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, counsel for
Ms. Gulrak Stark, most humbly pray that the Public Interest Litigation filed by the Petitioner
may kindly be allowed and the Honble Court be pleased to issue of a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby in the following manner: -
1. By a writ of certiorari or any other writ quash and set aside the Kingslayer and
Whitewalker Protection Act, 2015;
2. By a writ of certiorari or any other writ quash and set aside the Kingslayer and
Whitewalker Protection (Amendment) Act, 2015;
3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, by a writ of Mandamus direct the Govt. of
Arcadia to grant slaughter certificates to fishermen of Arcadia who fish for
Whitewalkers when they are not spawning;
4. For any other reliefs that this Honble Court may deem appropriate.
P a g e | 40

Respectfully submitted,
Sd/(Counsel for the Petitioner)

Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'A'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'A'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: J

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT

STATE OF ARCADIA & Others

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....

Section 5(d) of the Kingslayer and Whitewalker Amendment Act

The Act and the Amendment is violative of Article 301

The K&W Act is violative of Right to Privacy

The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists

Kingslayer and Whitewalker

Supreme Court Weekly

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reports

Name of the Case

AIR 2008 (SC) 1892

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal

1985 3 SCC 545

U.P. vs Charan Singh.

AIR (SCW) 2015-02615.

Raghubir Singh vs General Manager

SCC 2014 (10) 301

Jharkhand vs Kamal Prasad

SCC 2014 7 223

Mohd. HanifQuareshi and others v. The

AIR 1958 (SC) 731

Mohammad Faruk v. State of Madhya

AIR 1970 (SC) 73

RamratanJhawar Vs. Government of

Hashmattullah Vs. State of Madhya

AIR 1996 (SC) 02076

Re-RamlilaMaidan vs Home Secretary,

2012 (5) SCC 1

Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India

2011 (8) SCC 1

Distt. Registrar vs Canara Bank

AIR 2005 (SC) 186

BhagyodayJanparishad vs. State of Gujarat

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

1978 SCR (2) 621

State of Madras vs N.K.NatarajaMudaliar

AIR 1969 SC 147

Atiabari Tea Company Limited v. The

1961 (1) SCR 809

ITC vs. Agricultural Produce Market

AIR 2002 SC 852, 894

C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.

Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.

G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.

J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India.

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.

P.M. Bakshi&Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.

10. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR INDIANS

5.1 The K&W Act violates the doctrine of occupied lists.

1. The Kingslayer and Whitewalker Protection (Amendment) Act, 2015 is violative of

AIR 2008 (SC) 1892

1985 3 SCC 545

SCC 2014 7 223

AIR 1996 (SC) 0- 2076