22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 0

TEAM CODE – 57

22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL

TOURNAMENT, 2022

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF TURKI

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF TURKI

W.P. NO: /2022

UNION OF TURKI ……. PETITIONER

STATE OF VIKS ...…. RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT OF TURKI

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial Number Title Page Number

1 Table of abbreviations 2

2 Index of Authorities 3

3 Statement of jurisdiction 4

4 Statement of facts 5

5 Issues for consideration 6

6 Summary of arguments 7

7 Arguments advanced 8

8 Prayer for relief 17

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 2

Serial Number Abbreviation Full Form

1 SSP Skywalk Samaj Party

2 VKD Voucher Karthinks Dal

3 MBI Murray Bureau of

Investigation

4 BSF Border Security Force

5 DSPE Delhi Special Police

Establishment

6 PCA Prevention of Corruption Act

7 THC Trinamool Herbal Congress

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 3

Cases Page no.

1. The state of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) SC AIR 1361………………9

2. The state of Karnataka v Union of India (1978) SC AIR 68…………………9

3. Gandhi Sahitya Sangh trust v Union of India and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 356….10

4. S. Parthasarathi v State of Andhra Pradesh (1973) SC AIR 2701…………11

5. Major E. G. Barsay v The State of Bombay (1961) SC AIR 1762…………13

6. The State of West Bengal v Union of India (1964) SCR (1) 371…………14

Statutes
1. INDIAN CONST. art. 131………………………………………………………...8

2. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946……………………………….11

3. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988…………………………………………13

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 4

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM FOR PETITION FILED

BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNION OF TURKI
UNDER ARTICLE 131. IT SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND THE LAWS ON WHICH
THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 5

1. NATURE AND POLITICAL SCENARIO OF THE UNION OF

TURKI
The Union of Turki is a sovereign country located in South-East Asia. At present,
the State of Turki has 28 States and 8 Union Territories. According to the State of
Turki's Constitution (also known as the "Turkish Constitution"), the State of Turki
has a federal structure with a distinct division of powers between the Center and
States. Since Turki's independence, the Skywalk Samaj Party ("SSP") and the
Voucher Karthinks Dal ("VKD") have dominated the political landscape. The
VKD has held sway in Turki since 2014, and Mr Muskesh Narangi serves as the
country's prime minister.
2. NATURE AND POLITICAL SCENARIO OF THE STATE OF

VIKS
The State of Viks is a state located in the Eastern Part of Turki, sharing its border with
Bangladesh on its East. The VKD has made an effort to widen its base of support in
Viks. In preparation for the state elections scheduled for January 2022, the VKD
organised anti-corruption campaigns, portraying itself as a party free of corruption
and promising to remove the threat of corruption from the politics of the State of
Viks. Sanky Caustic was re-elected as the Chief Minister for a record-breaking fourth
term, and the THC won by a wide margin despite the best efforts of the VKD.
3. WRIT PETITION BY UNION OF TURKI
The MBI as announced by the central government was to investigate the bribery case
relating to the current sports minister of the state, and the smuggling instance at the
border of the state of Viks. Therein the state of Viks withdrew its general consent to
the MBI shortly after the respective. In a case brought before the Supreme Court of
Turki under Article 131 of the Turkish Constitution, the Central Government
challenged the State to withdraw the general consent unilaterally and without good
cause. The ability to revoke general consent was further clarified as not being an
unqualified power. The State of Viks argued that the petition could not be upheld
because the controversy was political in nature.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 6

I. Whether the petition under Article 131 of the Constitution of Turki is

maintainable?

II. Whether the power of the Central Government to transfer

investigations to the MBI without the consent of the State, is a
transgression of the separation of powers between the Centre and
States?

III. Whether the Centre can authorize the MBI to investigate Mr Makkhi’s
scams without obtaining the consent of the State of Viks?

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 7

I. Whether the petition under article 131 of the constitution of Turki is

maintainable?

The writ petition submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is maintainable under
article 131 of the constitution of Turki. There is a dispute between the union and
the state as well there is a clear locus standi. The matter regarding the legal right
of the petitioner. Thereof the petition is maintainable.

II. Whether the power of the central government to transfer investigations to the
MBI without the consent of the state, is a transgression of powers between
the centre and states?
The power of the central government to transfer investigations to the MBI without
the consent of the state is not a transgression of powers between the centre and
states as the centre has statutory powers under the DSPE Act. The MBI is under
central control as it is under Schedule VII. The centre can authorize MBI to
investigate under a real likelihood test.

III. Whether the Centre can authorize the MBI to investigate Mr Makkhi’s
scams without obtaining the consent of the State of Viks?
In the matter, the centre can order an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry
Act as well the MBI can act in the case against public officials as stated in the
PCA. The power of the state to withdraw the general consent is not absolute as it
as observed was only to maintain the federal structure, which eventually violates
the limits of the federal structure.

IV. Whether the MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling
by the BSF officials without the consent of the State of Viks.
The MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling by the BSF
officials without the consent of the State of Viks, as the MBI is under the centre as
well as the BSF officials who can work on the matters dealt with by the centre.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the petition under article 131 of the constitution of Turki is

maintainable.

1. It is humbly submitted before the court that the petition filed under article 131 is
maintainable as [1.A.] the dispute is between the government of Turki and a state,
[1.B.] the dispute is regarding the legal right of the petitioner, [1.C.] there exists a
clear locus standi.

[1.A.] Dispute is between the government of Turki and a state.

2. “Under article 131(a) of the constitution of Turki it is the original jurisdiction of the
supreme court to hear the cases of dispute between the government of Turki and any
state or states.”1

3. In the present matter petition is filed before the Hon’ble Supreme court against “the
unilateral withdrawal of general consent by the respondent with no cogent grounds” 2
which leads to a dispute between the union and the state.

4. Since, in the present matter there is a dispute between the government of Turki and
the state of viks therefore, this case falls under the original jurisdiction of the supreme
court hence, this petition will be maintainable under article 131.

1
INDIAN CONST, art 131
2
Moot Prob, Para 14

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 9

[1.B.] Dispute is regarding the legal right of the petitioner

5. The expression of a legal right is used to distinguish it from political rights over
which the court has no jurisdiction. legal rights are confined to the rights which are
enforceable by an action in a court of law.

6. Legal right has various interpretations two of which are valuable from the point of
view of the present case first to the question related to any claim or dispute between
union and state as to their competence, under schedule VII, and second is related to
the question as to the power of the union government to order in an inquiry into
allegations of corruption against a minister or ministers of the state, both of these
observations are made by the court in the state of Karnataka v. union of India3.

7. In the judgment of the state of Rajasthan v. Union of India4, it was observed that the
only requirement necessary for attracting the applicability of article 131 is that the
dispute must be one involving any question on which extent of a legal right depends
irrespective of whether legal right claimed or not and the infringement of that right is
also not necessary.5

8. In the present case due to the withdrawal of general consent respondent has prevented
the centre from performing its two legal rights one is related to the transfer of arms
across the border which can affect foreign relations and as foreign relations matters
come under the power of union backed by entry 10 of List I under schedule VII of the
constitution of Turki and in the second circumstance it is the legal right of centre to
inquire the cases related to corruption against the minister of state as observed the in
state of Karnataka v Union of India.

9. Since in both situations there is a violation of the legal right of the government of
Turki therefore, the petition filed under article 131 will be maintainable.

[1.C.] There exists a clear locus standi.

3
(1978) SC AIR 68.
4
(1977) SC AIR 1361.
5
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) SC AIR 1361.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 10

10. Locus standi is the legal capacity to sue or approach courts under both the
inquisitorial and adversarial systems, the parties approaching the courts must have
been deprived of their right which gives them the capacity to present before the court.

11. As observed in Gandhi Sahitya Sangh trust v. Union of India and Ors6, where there
was a water dispute between two states but the appeal has been filed by the trust in
that case supreme court held that the trust had no locus standi as under article 131 of
the constitution of Turki water dispute between the two states can be brought only by
the states and not an individual or society.

12. In the present case since there is a dispute between the union of Turki and the state
of Viks and the same is brought to the court by the party to the dispute therefore they
have the locus standi and the suit under article 131 will be maintainable.

II. Whether the power of the central government to transfer

investigations to the MBI without the consent of the state, is a
transgression of powers between the centre and states?

13. It is submitted that the central government of Turki has the power to transfer
investigations to MBI without the state’s consent as [II.A.] power of the central
government is backed by statutes, [II.B.]works of MBI comes under the union list,
[II.C.] CBI authorization to MBI to investigate is under real likelihood test.

[II.A.] Central government has statutory powers in both the cases

14. Delhi special police establishment act,1946 is a statute which backs the investigative
power of MBI.

6
(2003) 9 SCC 356.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 11

15. Under section 5 of the Delhi special police establishment act centre by orders can
extend the power and jurisdiction of the DSPE act to any area including states except
union territory.7

16. In the present case there would be two investigations one is related to the smuggling
of arms across the border which BSF has prevented and another investigation is
related to the corruption accusations against the sports minister of the state of viks, in
both the centre can transfer the case to MBI by extending the power and jurisdiction
of DSPE act to investigate the case in the state without its consent.

[II.B.] MBI comes under the union list of schedule VII

17. Control over MBI is mentioned under entry 8 of the union list (LIST I) under
schedule VII of the constitution of Turki, therefore it’s the function of the centre to
control its work.

18. Since the centre has jurisdiction over MBI according to the above-mentioned
provision of the constitution hence in the present transfer of the case to MBI by the
centre is not a transgression of power.

[II.c.] Centre’s authorization to MBI to investigate under real likelihood test.

19. Real likelihood test was developed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P.8 which is based
on the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done according to
this principle If right-minded persons would think that there is a real likelihood of bias
on the part of an inquiring officer, he must not conduct the enquiry.

20. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the
apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party.

7
The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
8
(1973) SC AIR 2701.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 12

21. In the present case both the disputes are related to the state of viks one where there is
the smuggling of arms across the border and the second, is the corruption charges
against the state’s sports minister both cases, the centre has a reasonable apprehension
that police machinery could not be trusted to investigate the matter fairly or
impartially since sitting chief minister might be involved in both the cases and
particularly in the second case state’s sports minister was involved.

22. Since there is the likelihood of biasedness by the state if It had been allowed to
meddle in the investigation of both cases therefore transfer of investigation to MBI by
the centre is not a transgression of separation of power.

III. Whether the Centre can authorize the MBI to investigate Mr

Makkhi’s scams without obtaining the consent of the State of Viks?

23. It is submitted that the Centre can authorize MBI to Investigate the particular case
without obtaining the consent of the state of Viks as the centre can order an inquiry.
[III.A]. The matter is related to the contention of power to withdraw General consent
which is not absolute [III.B]. MBI is a central Force and thereof, refusing the
investigation by the particular would be a violation of the limits of federal structure
[III.C].

[III.A] Power of Union Government to order inquiry

24. As interpreted by the court in the State of Karnataka v Union of India, the expression
‘legal right’ under Article 131 of the Constitution of Turki was interpreted to include
the power of the Union Government to order inquiry, under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, over allegations of corruption, misuse of powers of the government
against a minister or ministers or other officers or agents of the state.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 13

25. The MBI acts under the prevention of corruption act which is practical to make more
effective provisions for the prevention of bribery & corruption. It contains provisions

for dealing with several kinds of misconduct besides embezzlement.

26. The MBI is a non-statutory body, it derives its powers from The Delhi Police
Establishment Act, of 1946. It, under The Prevention of Corruption Act, investigates
cases against public officials and the employees of the Central Government, Public
Sector Undertakings, Corporations or Bodies owned or controlled by the Government
of Turki.9

27. It is a centre-controlled body and thus functions accordingly to the legal rights of the
Union government.

[III.B] Power to withdraw general consent is not absolute

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has been provided with this in regard to the general
consent. The withdrawal of the general consent unilaterally and without any cogent
reason is beyond the powers of the state. Thereof produces the power of withdrawal
of general consent of the state contingent.

29. In 1961, the Supreme Court in the Major E.G. Barsay10 judgment held that Section 6
was incorporated in the DSPE Act “only to maintain the federal structure of the
nation”. The subject of “law and order” is the domain of the State government under
Schedule VII of the Constitution. Thus, to maintain law and order the Centre can
authorize MBI to investigate on the matters of the state.

30. The State Government's authority to grant consent for a CBI investigation cannot
include a right of an omnibus power to issue instructions not to grant consent in any
circumstance and/or to revoke previously granted consent.

9
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10
Major E. G. Barsay v The State Of Bombay (1961) SC AIR 1762.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 14

31. Withdrawing the “consent” specifically shortly after the allegations against the sports
minister produces a contention on the particular action taken by the state. Inclusive of
the action being unilateral without a prudent cause produces ambiguity and thereof
makes the power of withdrawal of general consent provisional.

[I.C] Violation of limits federal structure of the constitution of Turki.

32. The MBI being a central force can investigate in any state, and any state refusing the
same by the unilateral withdrawal of the general consent would be violating the limits
of the federal structure of the constitution of Turki.

33. The allegations of Mr Makkhi of bribery which is relative to the economic matters of
the country as the amount alleged is of large scale, the aforementioned decision of the
Supreme Court of India in State of W.B. v. Union of India11 was one of the important
pronouncements where the concept of federalism was discussed. It was stated the
powers of the Union have been enlarged particularly in the field of economic unity,
and this was done for there to be centralised control and administration in certain
fields if rapid economic and industrial progress had to be achieved by the nation.

34. The exercise of legislative and executive powers in the allotted fields is hedged in by
numerous restrictions so that the power of the States is not in coordination with the
Union. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, the federal structure under the Indian
Constitution was concerned, the Court reiterated that the Constitution prescribes a
federal structure which provides for the division of powers between the States and the
Centre, but with a focus towards the centre.

11
(1964) SCR (1) 371.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 15

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

35. The MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling by the BSF
officials without the consent of the state of Viks. The Instance of smuggling through
the border of the country producing it as an international matter thereof is under the
central government. [I.A]. The BSF (Border security force) is a central force therefore
all the matters under the particular are dealt with by the union government. Is a central
force therefore the matter is under the central government [I.B].

[I.A] The international matters are dealt with by the centre.

36. It is submitted to the Honourable supreme court that Under list 1 entry 10 it is given
that foreign matters are to be dealt with by the central government. Therein the
withdrawal of the general consent by the state against the MBI investigation is
immaterial.

37. Smuggling of articles inclusive of the firearms provides the matter with a
categorization of an international matter and as stated in State of Rajasthan v. Union
of India the Court observed that the States cannot stand in the way of legitimate and
comprehensively planned developments of the country in the manner directed by the
Central Government.

38. The MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling by the BSF
officials without the consent of the State of Viks as it works under the central
government and therefore can investigate the matters handled by the central
government.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 16

[III.B] Forces of the centre can work in the matters dealt with by the centre.

39. It is submitted to the Honourable supreme court that the matter is as stated in the
union list is under the central government and as the BSF officials were central
government employees, the withdrawal of the general consent of the state of Viks
does not affect the powers of the MBI to Investigate the matter.

40. As the MBI is a body which works under the central government it can investigate
the matter without the general consent of the state.

41. Under section 6a of the Delhi special police establishment act it is given that if the
allegations relate to government employees established by or under any Central Act,
Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that
Government then the MBI can investigate in the matter.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22ND NLIU ANNUAL FRESHERS’ MOOT POOL TOURNAMENT, 2022 17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS USED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE AND DRAW THE DECREE THAT:

i. The petition under Article 131 of the Constitution of Turki is maintainable.

ii. The power of the Central Government to transfer investigations to the MBI without
the consent of the State, is not a transgression of the separation of powers between the
Centre and States.

iii. The Centre can authorize the MBI to investigate Mr Makkhi’s scams without
obtaining the consent of the State of Viks.

iv. The MBI can investigate the matter related to the alleged smuggling by the BSF
officials without the consent of the State of Viks.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL
OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

DATE:

PLACE: SUPREME COURT OF TURKI

(S/D)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER /

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER