STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In Abyssinia, a state governed by the Federal Liberal Sangha (FLS), the Chief
Minister took a stand against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and publicly
expressed disagreement with its implementation. This move was prompted by
concerns over the CAA's potential impact on the state's social fabric and the rights of
its residents.

2. The CAA, enacted by the central government, aimed to relax citizenship requirements
for individuals fleeing persecution in certain neighboring countries. However, the
Chief Minister of Abyssinia rightly pointed out that implementing such a law could
lead to discrimination and social unrest within the state.

3. Moreover, Abyssinia, being a border state, faces significant challenges related to

illegal migration from Bongdesh. The Chief Minister's concerns likely stem from the
potential exacerbation of these migration issues under the CAA.

4. By publicly criticizing the CAA and refusing to implement its rules, the Chief
Minister of Abyssinia was exercising their state's rights and responsibilities as per the
federal structure of Alkebulan. The decision to impose 'President's rule' in Abyssinia
by the central government was an overreach of authority and undermined the
principles of federalism and state autonomy.

5. The Abyssinian state government's petition against the central government's decision
in the Supreme Court raises crucial constitutional issues regarding federalism, state
sovereignty, and the balance of power between the center and the states. It is
imperative for the Supreme Court to uphold the principles of federalism and ensure
that the rights of states like Abyssinia are protected from undue central interference.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petition filed by the Abyssinian state government fall under the Supreme
Court's original jurisdiction?
2. Whether the enforcement of the president’s rule on Abyssinia constitutionally valid?
3. Whether the Abyssinia, as a state within the federal structure of Alkebulan, possess
the authority to refuse Union Rules?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1
Whether the petition filed by the Abyssinian state government fall under the Supreme
Court's original jurisdiction ?
a. The petition filed by the Abyssinian state government challenging the imposition of
President's Rule in Abyssinia is maintainable under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution.
b. Article 131 grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on disputes
between the Government of India and one or more States.
c. The framers of the Constitution intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter in
disputes of this nature.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) interpreted Article 131 and held
that disputes between the Union and States fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.
1.1 Is the Judicial review applicable for the President’s rule?
The 44th Amendment Act addressed the misuse of emergency powers. It stipulated that a
Proclamation of Emergency (under Article 352) could only be issued when India’s security or
any part of its territory was threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the President’s proclamation was subject to
judicial review on grounds of illegality, malafide, and abuse of power. It concluded that the
power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute1.
By relying on these binding principles from Indian case laws and the relevant legal
provisions, the Abyssinian state government can strongly assert the validity of their petition
challenging the imposition of President's Rule in Abyssinia before the Supreme Court under
its original jurisdiction.

1
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
 Issue 2
Whether the enforcement of the president’s rule on Abyssinia constitutionally valid?
Art 355 of the Indian Constitution states provides that the obligation of the centre to protect
the state arises when there is external aggression , internal disturbance and when the state
government cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitution.
Justifying the argument that the imposition of President's Rule in Abyssinia was beyond the
constitutional provisions involves demonstrating how the central government's decision to
invoke Article 356 exceeds the limits prescribed by the Indian Constitution :
a. Article 356 should only be invoked when there is a "failure of constitutional
machinery" in a State. This failure implies a breakdown in the State's ability to govern
as per the Constitution. In Abyssinia's case, there was no such breakdown; rather, it
was a disagreement over the implementation of a central law. Using Article 356 in
situations other than what it is intended for amounts to its misuse.
b. The imposition of President's Rule in Abyssinia can be deemed unconstitutional as it
violates the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Federalism
mandates a clear division of powers between the Union and the States, with each
having autonomy in their respective spheres. Imposing central rule without valid
grounds encroaches upon the State's jurisdiction and disrupts the federal balance.
c. As per precedents set by Indian courts, Article 356 should be utilized sparingly and as
a measure of last resort. If the central government fails to establish a genuine
breakdown of constitutional machinery or valid reasons for the imposition of central
rule, it renders the proclamation of President's Rule in Abyssinia beyond the scope of
the Constitution.
d. The validity of the proclamation issued under article 356(1), Is justice able on such
grounds as: whether it was issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the
material was relevant or whether the proclamation was issued in malafide exercise of
the power or was based wholly on the extraneous and /or irrelevant grounds. The
proclamation of the president’s rule should be used as a last resort and that the state’s
autonomy should be respected.2. The imposition of president’s rule in a state and the
subsequent actions of this president should have a reasonable Nexus the exercise of
power by the president under the article 356 must have reasonable Nexus to the object
of the proclamation The Onus was on the person challenging The actions of the
president to prima facie establish if they were a malafied or extraneous exercise of
power in case a prima facie case was made out the onus would then shift to the union
to justify the that the exercise of power had reasonable Nexus with the object of
proclamation3.
The central government's decision to invoke President's Rule in Abyssinia due to a
disagreement over the implementation of a central law sets a dangerous precedent of using
Article 356 as a tool to enforce compliance with central policies, thereby compromising the
democratic principles and federal balance enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

2
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
3
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution 2023 INSC 1058
2.1 Whether the state governments action is in a manner to subvert the basic structure
of the constitution?
The Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh proclamation held that if any state
government acts in a manner which is calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism it can
lawfully be regarded that a situation has arisen in which the state government cannot be
carried on in accordance with the constitutional provision4.
The majority judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case listed some of the features that
constitute the Basic Structure of the Constitution. These included:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and democratic form of government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Unity and sovereignty of India
- Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
- Judicial review
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Parliamentary system
-Rule of law
- Equality of status and opportunity5
With reference to the above basic feature of the constitution the government of Abyssinia
States that the act of the state government to criticise CAA rules and to state that the
Abyssinia will not implement the CAA Does not result in a manner that would subvert the
basic structure of the constitution. Rather the act of the State government justifies the state
government concerns regarding the protection and safety of its citizens as Abyssinia is a
border state and faces significant illegal migration from Bongdesh would expose Abyssinia to
the threat of internal disturbance. the Chief Minister of Abyssinia rightly pointed out that
implementing such a law could lead to discrimination and social unrest within the state.

2.2 Whether there was a violation of Federalism?

it can be established that the enforcement of President's Rule on Abyssinia must adhere to the
constitutional provisions, justifying its necessity, and ensuring its validity within the
4
Yeshwant Rao v State Of Madhya Pradesh 1993 Supp (1) SCC 520.
5
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC
1461
framework of federalism and governance in India. the need for strict adherence to
constitutional principles and legitimate grounds for the imposition of central rule to maintain
its constitutional validity.

ISSUE 3
Whether the Abyssinia, as a state within the federal structure of Alkebulan, possess the
authority to refuse Union Rules?
Alkebulan Constitution embodies the principle of federalism, emphasizing the distribution of
powers between the Union and the States. Each State has its own legislative and executive
authority, and unless a law falls within the Union List or Concurrent List, States have the
right to refuse to implement laws they deem unconstitutional or against the interests of the
State and its residents.
The Abyssinian State government asserts that the autonomy of States is a fundamental feature
of the Indian federal structure, allowing States to exercise their discretion in matters that
concern their governance and the welfare of their citizens. By denying the implementation of
rules framed under the Citizenship Amendment Act, Abyssinia is exercising its constitutional
right to decide on matters within its jurisdiction.
3.1. Whether there was a violation of Federalism?
Justifying that the power related to citizenship amendment falls under the State List and not
the Union List :
During the framing of the Indian Constitution, the issue of citizenship was deliberate and
debated extensively. It was recognized that citizenship is intricately linked to local factors,
customs, and cultural considerations, making it a subject best addressed by the States due to
their proximity to and understanding of local circumstances.
The State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution includes Entry 17
which specifically deals with "Citizenship; Naturalisation and Aliens". This entry explicitly
assigns the power to legislate on matters related to citizenship, naturalization, and aliens to
the States, thus establishing State competence in this domain.
The entries in the State List are exclusively within the legislative purview of the State
legislatures. The subject of citizenship, being a part of Entry 17 of the State List, signifies
that the States have the authority to enact laws and regulations relating to citizenship matters
without interference from the Union government. Granting States the power to legislate on
citizenship matters aligns with the constitutional principle of State autonomy. States can tailor
citizenship laws to suit their specific demographic, social, and cultural context, thereby
reflecting the diversity and federal character of the Indian polity.
If the action of Central government has no jurisdiction or the authority then the action of the
Central Government is destructive of the federal structure of the Constitution and the
scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and he States 6. It reinforces the idea
that certain subjects, like citizenship, that are within the State List should be legislatively

6
State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India 1977 4 SCC 608
addressed by the State governments to uphold the principles of federalism and State
autonomy.

The citizenship amendment falls under the State List and not the Union List gains legal
validity and support. These cases reflect the judicial interpretation of the distribution of
legislative powers between the Union and the States, emphasizing the autonomy of State
governments in certain domains such as citizenship legislation to uphold the federal structure
of India's governance system. The imposition of central rule threatens the essence of
cooperative federalism and undermines the autonomy of States in the Indian federal structure.