ARUGMENTS ADVANCED______________ RESPONDENT SME 2018

Issue I
Whether the Prayers Sought for by thr PIL Petitioners before the High Court is
maintainable..............................................

Article 14 thus means that ‘equals should be treated alike’; it does not mean that ‘unequals
ought to be treated equally’. Persons who are in the like circumstances should be treated
equally. On the other hand, where persons or groups of persons are not situated equally, to
treat them as equals would itself be violative of Art. 14 as this would itself result in
inequality. Accordingly, to apply the principle of equality in a practical manner, the courts
have evolved the principle that if the law in question is based on rational classification it is
not regarded as discriminatory1. Favourable treatment shown to a public sector undertaking is
not discriminatory. These undertakings stand in a different class altogether and the
classification made between these enterprises and others is a valid one. As the Supreme Court
has observed in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Punjab Drugs Manufacturers
Association, AIR 1999 SC 1626 : (1999) 6 SCC 247. “… preference shown to …… public
sector undertakings being in public interest, will not be construed as arbitrary so as to give
rise to a contention of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is because these play a
positive and progressive role in the economy of our country. So, we can say that, the bilateral
treaty between Swadesh and Wakanda can’t be stated as arbitrary in nature. Ultimately, we
can conclude that it doesn’t violate Article 14 of Swadeshi Constitution

ARTICLE 19(1)G (ii)

Article 19(6)(ii) enables the state to make laws for creating state monoplies either
partially or complete in respect of any trade or business or industry or service. The state
may enter into any trade like any other person either for administrative reasons, or with
1
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
 the object of mitigating the evils in the trade, or even for the purpose of making profits in
order to enrich the exchequer.  The state is not required to justify its trade monopoly as a
‘reasonable’ restriction and as being in the ‘interests of the general public.2 . It is
presumed to be note that no objection can be taken under Art. 19(1)(g) if the state carries
on a business either as a monopoly, complete or partial, to the exclusion of all or some
citizens only, or in competition with any citizen3., the transfer of energy from Wakanda
by WEC to Swadesh’s SPL was for the public interest. State was acting in a good faith as
the project promised that it would provide energy to 60 percent of whole of nation’s
population. So, it is clearly shown that this decision to create state monopoly was for the
benefit of public, hence it is not violative of 19(1)(g) of Swadeshi Constitution

ARTICLE 21
Since, Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely
guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality of life4, and
therefore, State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its
constitutional obligation in the larger public interest5, guaranteed as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. To establish of the violation under Article 21, the act
should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article
19. , So it is clearly indicated that Article 21, here is not violated. Also, the local people were
provided compensation for leaving the project site, even after receiving the money, people
did not move out of that place, so state can’t be held liable here

2
New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 679 : (1981) 1 SCC 537; Utkal Contractors & Joinery
(P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 2310 : 1987 Supp SCC 751.
3
P.T. Society v. R.T.A., AIR 1960 SC 801 : 1960 (3) SCR 177.
4
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi, Air 1994 SC 1844;
5
Consumer Education And Research Centre And Others v. Union Of India And Others , Air 1995 SC 922
ISSUE II

ARGUMENT

LIABLE FOR OFFENCES

According to Section 3 of Penal Code, a foreigner committing offence within Swadesh

without being physically present in India may be held liable under the Act, in view of phrase
“as if such act had been committed within Swadesh” in Section 3- the words “every person”
comprehending all persons without limitation irrespective of their nationality, allegiance,
status etc. barring as may be specially exempted by virtue of Article 361(2) of Constitution of
Swadesh and other statutory provisions of a well-recognized international
law/treaty/commission.6 In England, principles propounded in Somechai7case by Lord
Griffiths is regarded as the law there. So, according to the facts Mr. Rolando is a citizen of
UK of Swadeshi origin, but he is indulged in criminal conspiracy with some corrupt officials
of Wakanda and Swadesh. As, Mr. Rolando is a citizen of UK but he has committed a crime
which is not committed in that particular territory but it affects the interest of the country as
he was involved in swapping the Grade II Vibranium with Grade III Vibranium which was
exported to Swadesh, so here, Mr. Rolando would be held liable for Criminal Conspiracy U/S
120 of Penal Code

II PART: JURISDICTION

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
Government of the Republic of India, Desiring to make more effective the co-operation of the
two countries in the suppression of crime by making further provision for the reciprocal

6
Mobarik Ali V State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 : 1958 SCR 328 : 1957 CrLJ 1346
7
SomechaiLiangsiriprasert v Govt of U.S.A (1990) 3 WLR 606
extradition of offenders. This extradition treaty was signed by Great Britain with India in
1992 to stop the extra-territorial crimes. However, the treaty was in force from 15th November
1993. According to this treaty, both nations shall preclude the extradition by the Requested
State of its nationals either in respect of a territorial offence or in respect of an extraterritorial
offence. Conspiracy is defined in Article 7 of this treaty. So, according to that the Indian
Courts can have the jurisdiction of the person who is the citizen of either of the countries. In
recent case of State Bank of India vs Mallya8 the UK High Court has given a clear yes to the
extradition of Vijay Mallya of Kingfisher Airlines for the offences committed against State
Bank of India. Bofors scam9 seems to be the most relatable case for this problem. Where
Indian courts got the jurisdiction against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi and held
him liable for conspiracy, fraud, forgery for accepting illegal gratification from a Swiss bank
account. Tuncay Alankus a Turkish national was alleged with criminal conspiracy and he was
found guilty with many Indian officials and ex-PM of India was charged with corruption
charges. Alankus’s appeal was rejected by Delhi HC and held him liable for the offences.
According to these cases, It is clear that Mr. Rolando would be liable for all the acts he has
done and can be extruded from England by the enforcement of treaty and can be punished
under Sec 120 of SPC (Swadesh Penal Code) and SML Act and Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988.

8
[2018] EWHC 1084 (Comm) 2018 WL 02117928
9
Ottavio Quattrocchi v CBI (1998) 75 DLT 97 (DB)