Summary of Arguments

I. Whether the centre can authorise the MBI to investigate Mr. Makkhi’s scams
without obtaining the consent of the state of Viks?

State consent is not required to investigate Mr. Makkhi’s scams for the reason that there
was general consent under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
(hereinafter referred to as DSPE Act) as given by the State of Viks in 1972 and the
announcement of investigation was made prior to the withdrawal of the general consent
by State Govt.

II. Whether the MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling by
BSF officials without the consent of the State of Viks?

The Murray Bureau of Investigation ( hereinafter referred to as MBI) does not require
prior consent of the State of Viks before proceeding to investigate the alleged smuggling
by BSF officials since the alleged acts of smuggling involve ‘firearms’ which is Entry 5
of the List I (Union List) of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of Turki and the Centre
has the only jurisdiction to investigate the offences related to List I (Union List).
 Arguments Advanced

I. Whether the centre can authorise the MBI to investigate Mr. Makkhi’s scams
without obtaining the consent of the state of Viks?

1. It is most humbly submitted that under Section 6 of DSPE Act it is

required by the MBI to obtain the consent of the concerned State Govt.
before initiating an investigation of a case in the State1. The consent in
such a case is of two types, first is General consent and second is Specific
Consent.When a State gives a general consent under Section 6 of DSPE
Act to the MBI for probing a case, the agency is not required to seek fresh
permission every time it enters that State in connection with investigation
or for every case.

2. It is again respectfully submitted that the Centre Govt. announced the

investigation of Mr. Makkhi’s cases of bribery by the MBI before the
withdrawal of the General consent by the State, which it had originally
given in 19722. Presence of general consent at the time of announcement
of investigation by Centre in Mr. Makkhi’s scams vitiate the requirement
of specific consent of the State of Viks to investigate the said scams..

3. In this context, reference to certain authorities would be fruitful. Supreme

Court in case of Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of
Investigation3, while dealing with the question regarding the withdrawal
of consent by the State Govt. held that the withdrawal of consent by State
Govt. under Section 6 of the DSPE Act can have only prospective
operation and would not affect matters in which action has been initiated
prior to the issuance of the order of revocation.

4. Therefore, keeping the above mentioned arguments in view it is contended

that the Centre can authorise MBI to investigate Mr. Makkhi’s scams
without obtaining the consent of the State of Viks.

1
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, s.6.
2
Moot Prop, Para 12.
3
Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116.
 II. Whether the MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling
by the BSF officials without the consent of the State of Viks?

1. It is most respectfully submitted that the Constitution of Turki, in making the distribution
of legislative powers between the Union and the States, adopts the method followed in
the Government of India Act, 1935. 4 The various matters of legislation have been
enumerated in three lists; List I or the Union List; List II or the State List; List III or the
Concurrent List. The Union Parliament has exclusive power of legislation with respect to
subjects or items in List I. The State Legislatures have exclusive powers with respect to
items enumerated in List II. The powers in respect of the items in List III are Concurrent
i.e., both the Union and The State Legislatures can make laws in respect of the subjects
enumerated in the Concurrent List, but any Union Act can override the State Act in the
event of a conflict between the two on the manner in the Concurrent List.

2. The present case of smuggling by the BSF officials involves ‘firearms’ as well, which is
Entry 5 of the Union List under the 7th schedule of the Constitution of Turki. Firearms
being part of the Union List invokes the jurisdiction of the Central Govt. to investigate
the offences related to an Entry of the Union list.

3. The Calcutta High Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Singh v. Central Bureau of
Investigation5 held that the Central Govt. officials who work under the Statute enacted
by the Central Govt. must be outside the scope of Section 6 of the DSPE Act and again
the Calcutta High Court in another case of Vinay Mishra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Ors6 held that the Central Govt. or MBI’s power to investigate and
prosecute its own officials cannot be obstructed by the State even if the offences were
committed within the territorial limits of the State.

4. Thus based on the above mentioned arguments and case laws it is contended that the
involvement of Central Govt. employees (BSF officials) and the Subject related to the
Union List in the alleged smuggling cases, the requirement of consent of the State of Viks
to investigate the said cases by the MBI is of no relevance.

4
M.P. Singh, Constitution of India.
5
Ramesh Chandra Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/29494/2021.
6
Vinay Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2160.