Team Code: 11R

4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

IN THE HON’BLE APEX COURT OF INDIANA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION

RESPONDENT IN THE
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

GOVT. OF SUPLEX CITY ........................................................................................... PETITIONER

Versus.
UNION GOVT. OF INDIANA ...................................................................................... RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE APEX COURT OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ I

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. II

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... III

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... IV

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ V

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... VI

• Whether the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance?

• Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government and can
the Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?

• Whether the Highest Court can revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a full-
fledged state?

• Whether the Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the
State?

• Whether the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is parametric to the Governor of any other
States?

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... VII

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... IX

9. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………….....XVII

1
 2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
§ §
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Art Article
Co. Company
CPC Civil Procedure Code or Code of Civil Procedure
Hon’ble Honorable
LG Lieutenant Governor
Or. Order
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
Pg. No. Page Number
R. Rule
S. No. Serial Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SLP Special Leave Petition
v. Versus

2
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES1

I. STATUTES REFERRED
1. Article 239AA, The Constitution of India. (Page No. 9-16)
2. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991. (Page No. 9-16)
3. Schedule 7, The Constitution of India. (Page No. 7-8)
4. Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017, Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court, July
04,2018. (Page No. 9-16)
5. Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017, Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court,
February14, 2019. (Page No. 9-16)
6. Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017, Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court, May
11,2023. (Page No. 9-16)
7. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023. (Page No. 9-
16)

II. TABLE OF CASES

APEX COURT CASES

S. No. Cases Pg. No.
1. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952) SCR 752 7 ,11
2. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 7, 11
3. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 14 SCC 752 7, 11
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - AIR 1978 SC 597 9
5. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. - AIR 1985 SC 886 9

6. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - AIR 1982 SC 149 9

7. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla - AIR 1976 SC 1207 10
8. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) - AIR 1987 SC 579 12

1
All the laws and constitutions of Indiana are analogous to the rules and Constitution of India. Indian Laws and judgments of the
courts in India (based on hierarchy) shall have persuasive value for the country of Indiana, as per the moot proposition.

3
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Apex Court of Indiana has been invoked in this case under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indiana, which confers upon the Court the prerogative to entertain writ petitions for the
enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

This provision empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the vindication and protection
of fundamental rights, when they are violated or threatened within the territory of Indiana.2

The Respondent accepts the maintainability of the case.

2
All the laws and constitutions of Indiana are analogous to the rules and Constitution of India. Indian Laws and judgments of the
courts in India (based on hierarchy) shall have persuasive value for the country of Indiana, as per the moot proposition.

4
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Respondent humbly states before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

1. Indiana's Diversity and Constitution:

Indiana is a populous and diverse nation, covering 2.5% of the global area and housing 15% of the
world's population. It's also the largest democratic country, known for its cultural, religious, and
linguistic diversity. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

2. Federal Structure and Special Status of Suplex City:

Indiana has a federal structure with 28 states and 8 union territories. Suplex City, being the capital,
holds unique status (Article 239AA), allowing limited statehood but keeping critical aspects under
Union control due to national interest.

3. Tensions and Court Battles:

Tensions arise between Suplex City Government and Union Government, primarily regarding
bureaucratic appointments, transfers, and the authority of the Lieutenant Governor.

4. Landmark Court Decision (April 2023):

The Constitutional bench rules in favour of Suplex City Government, asserting their administrative
authority and the binding nature of their advice to the Lieutenant Governor.

5. Union Government's Response and Ordinance:

The Union Government reacts strongly, seeking a review of the decision. In response, they pass an
ordinance that negates the court's ruling, centralizing administrative power and diminishing the role
of the Suplex City Government.

6. Ongoing Legal Battle:

The Suplex City Government, dissatisfied with the delay in the review petition, approaches the
Hon’ble Apex Court again. The court schedules the writ petition alongside the review for October
2023, coinciding with the Parliament session where the Union Government plans to push the bill
supporting the ordinance.
5
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance?

2. Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government and
can the Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?

3. Whether the Highest Court can revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a
full-fledged state?

4. Whether the Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the
State?

5. Whether the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is parametric to the Governor of any other
States?

6
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance?
Yes, the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance but it scrutinizes them based on specific
legal principles. In many instances, when the introduced ordinances which were challenged before the Apex
Court, they were held valid because they were promulgated to meet an urgent situation and they did not violate
the basic structure of the Constitution. For instance, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952), Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985), Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil
Nadu, (2013). Similarly, the ordinance in discussion is based on the principles and values enshrined in the
Constitution of Indiana and hence is expected to pass the scrutiny of the Apex Court.

2. Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government and can
the Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?
The power of the President to issue ordinances, as laid out in Article 123 of the Indian Constitution, is
circumscribed by several important limitations. Firstly, ordinances can only be promulgated on subjects that
fall within the legislative purview of both Houses of Parliament, precluding their use on matters exclusively
under state jurisdiction. The given Ordinance made in exercise of powers under Article 239-AA(3)(b) and
Article 239-AA (7) of the Constitution of Indiana. Article 239-AA(3)(b) states that Parliament has the power
to make laws with respect to “any matter” for NCTD. Article 239-AA(7)(a) grants Parliament the power to
enact a law for “giving effect to, or supplementing” the provisions of Article 239-AA, and for all matters
incidental to it. Hence the given ordinance is not by passing any limitations prescribed in the Constitution of
Indiana. Apex Court indeed can nullify the above ordinance but there has to be a rationale behind it. No
fundamental rights are violated, nor any other provision of the Constitution is disregarded in the given case.

3. Whether the Highest Court can revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a full-fledged
state?
No, Highest Court cannot revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a full-fledged state. It is the
Parliament who has the power to amend the Constitution, including Article 239AA. This means that the
Parliament and not the highest court could, in theory, revoke the special status of fSuplex City and convert it
into a full-fledged state. But the Apex Court has the power to strike down any law that it finds to be
unconstitutional. This means that the Supreme Court could, in theory, strike down any law that the Parliament

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
any
violative of the basic structure doctrine. The Constitution of Indiana grants Suplex City a special status for a
reason, and the Apex Court is unlikely to change that status without a compelling reason. The separation of
powers in India mandates the distribution of powers among distinct institutions, thereby limiting their
authority. This arrangement effectively prevents the consolidation of power that could lead to authoritarianism
or chaos, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.

4. Whether the Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the State?
The Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the State subject to the
provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. Article 239-AA(3)(a) stipulates that the legislative assembly of
NCTD has the power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the State List and Concurrent List
insofar as such matter is applicable to Union Territories except entries 1,2, and 18 of List II and entries 64, 65
and 66 of List II insofar as they relate to the above entries. Also, Article 239-AA(7)(a) grants Parliament the
power to enact a law for “giving effect to, or supplementing” the provisions of Article 239-AA, and for all
matters incidental to it, which includes entry no 41 of the state list of the seventh schedule also. Hence after
this ordinance, the administrative control of the state with respect to services shall be the with Lieutenant
Governor which stands on the foundation of constitutional provisions.

5. Whether the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is parametric to the Governor of any other
States?
No, the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is not parametric to the Governor of any other because the nature
of Suplex City is itself unlike any other state. The Supreme Court in the 2023 major judgment stated that the
union territory of Suplex City is sui generis which means it is unique. It is a sui generis union territory because
it was the only union territory which had the privilege of having both a state legislature and a council of
ministers. It is not a full-fledged state; that may be unfortunate. It is an escalated union territory with more
powers than other union territories. The union government can make laws notwithstanding that there's a
vacuum on any matter in any of the three lists. So, the ultimate power of the union territory of Suplex City is
still vested with the Centre. The fact that it's a sui generis union territory, ultimate power rests with the Union
government through the Lieutenant Governor unlike Governors of other states.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I
Whether the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance?

Yes, the Apex Court can entertain a writ petition against an ordinance but it scrutinizes them based on specific
legal principles. These include jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, res judicata, delay and laches,
exhaustion of alternative remedies, substantial questions of law, and abuse of process.
A. Clear Violation of Fundamental Rights:
• The Apex Court may accept a writ petition if the introduced ordinance or any law involves a
clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Fundamental
rights are the basic rights and freedoms that every citizen is entitled to.
• Example: In the case of 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India'3, the Apex Court accepted the writ
petition because it involved a violation of the petitioner's right to personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution.
B. Question of Public Importance:
• The Apex Court may entertain a writ petition if it raises a substantial question of law or an issue
of public importance. This means that the case has wider implications beyond the immediate
parties involved.
• Example: In 'Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P.4', the Apex Court accepted the writ
petition as it raised important questions regarding the rights of minority educational institutions.
C. PIL Matters (Public Interest Litigation):
• PIL allows any public-spirited person or organization to approach the court on behalf of those
who may not be able to do so themselves. The court may accept a PIL if it involves issues of
public interest.
• Example: In the case of 'S.P. Gupta v. Union of India'5, popularly known as the Judges Transfer
case, the Apex Court accepted the PIL filed by four senior-most judges seeking to prevent
executive interference in judicial appointments.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - AIR 1978 SC 597
4
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. - AIR 1985 SC 886
5
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - AIR 1982 SC 149

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

D. Prima Facie Case for Interference:

• The Supreme Court may accept a writ petition if the petitioner can establish a prima facie case,
meaning there is enough initial evidence to support their claims.
• Example: If a petitioner provides compelling evidence that a government action is likely to
infringe upon their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court may accept the writ petition.
E. Emergency Situations:
• In cases of urgency or emergency, where immediate relief is required, the Supreme Court may
entertain a writ petition even outside regular court hour.
• Example: In 'A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla6', during the Emergency (1975-1977), the
Supreme Court accepted writ petitions challenging detentions under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act (MISA) despite the challenging circumstances.
F. Challenging Unconstitutional Legislation or Executive Actions:
• The Supreme Court may accept a writ petition if it challenges the constitutionality of a
legislative act or an executive action, including ordinances.
• Example: If a petitioner believes that a recently promulgated ordinance violates their
constitutional rights, they can approach the Supreme Court with a writ petition challenging its
validity.
G. Absence of Alternative Remedies:
• If there are no effective alternative remedies available to the petitioner, the Supreme Court may
accept the writ petition. This can happen if pursuing other remedies would cause irreparable
harm or delay justice.
• Example: If a petitioner claims that approaching lower courts or administrative remedies would
be futile or unduly time-consuming, the Supreme Court may accept the petition.
H. Public Functionaries or Bodies Acting Ultra Vires:
• If a public authority, officer, or body exceeds its legal authority or acts beyond its powers, the
Supreme Court may accept a writ petition to restrain such actions.
• Example: If a government official acts in a manner that is not authorized by law or is in
violation of established legal procedures, a writ petition may be filed to challenge their actions.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.

6
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla - AIR 1976 SC 1207
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

These criteria serve as a framework for determining the validity and admissibility of a writ petition. The Court
evaluates each case on its merits, ensuring that it meets the established legal standards before deciding whether
to proceed with the petition against an ordinance. In essence, while the Apex Court has the capacity to address
writ petitions against ordinances, it does so with a judicious examination of the legal grounds and principles
that underpin such petitions. This ensures that each case brought before the Court is evaluated rigorously,
upholding the integrity and fairness of the legal process. The Apex Court of Indiana on several occasions has
entertained the writ petition against an ordinance and declared the respective ordinance as void since it was
not adhering to constitutional provisions.

In many instances, when the introduced ordinances which were challenged before the Apex Court, they were
held valid because they were promulgated to meet an urgent situation and they did not violate the basic
structure of the Constitution. For instance, here are some examples of cases where in the Apex Court writs
were filed against ordinances but ordinances were held valid:
• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952)7: The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Maintenance
of Public Order Ordinance, 1951, which was promulgated to prevent the spread of communal violence,
was valid.
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985)8: The Supreme Court upheld
the validity of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Ordinance, 1985, which was promulgated to control
the price and size of newspapers.
• Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2013)9 14 SCC 752: The Supreme Court
upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Ordinance, 2013, which was promulgated to protect the interests of depositors in
financial establishments.

In all of these cases, the Apex Court held that the ordinances were valid because they were promulgated to
meet an urgent situation and they did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Similarly, the ordinance
in discussion is based on the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution of Indiana and hence is
expected to pass the scrutiny of the Apex Court.

7
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952) SCR 752
8
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
9
Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 14 SCC 752
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE II

Whether there are limitations on ordinance making power of the Union Government and can the
Apex Court can nullify the above ordinance?
The power of the President to issue ordinances, as laid out in Article 123 of the Constitution of Indiana, is
circumscribed by several important limitations.
A. Limitations on Ordinance Making Power:
The power of the President to promulgate ordinances, as outlined in Article 123 of the Constitution of
Indiana, is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations:
• Subject Matter (Article 123): An ordinance can only be issued on subjects on which both Houses
of Parliament can legislate. It cannot be used to legislate on matters exclusively within the domain
of the states.
• Immediate Necessity (Article 123): The President can only promulgate an ordinance when they
are satisfied that "immediate action" is required. It cannot be used to replace or amend existing laws
unless the situation demands prompt legislative action.
• No Repromulgation (Judicial Pronouncement): Re-promulgation of ordinances without the
approval of the Parliament is not permissible. This has been reaffirmed by various judicial
pronouncements, emphasizing that the government must seek approval from Parliament within six
weeks of reconvening.
• Discretionary Power (Judicial Pronouncement): The ordinance-making power is a discretionary
power and is expected to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.
In the case of 'DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar'10, the Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate
ordinances is a legislative power under Article 123, not an executive power. Therefore, it must be used in
exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the regular legislative process.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

10
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) - AIR 1987 SC 579
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

B. Role of the Apex Court in Nullifying Ordinances:

• The Apex Court of India has the authority to review the validity of an ordinance finds that an
ordinance is unconstitutional, it can declare the ordinance null and void.
Grounds for Nullification:

• Ultra Vires the Constitution (Article 13): If an ordinance goes beyond the powers conferred by
the Constitution or violates any constitutional provision, the Apex Court can nullify it, in line with
Article 13 which declares laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights as void.

• Violates Fundamental Rights (Article 13): If an ordinance infringes upon the fundamental rights
of citizens, it can be struck down under Article 13.

• Not Meeting the Necessity Criteria (Article 123): If the Court finds that the situation did not
warrant immediate legislative action, it may invalidate the ordinance, as per the criteria set in Article
123.

• Re-promulgation without Approval (Judicial Pronouncement): If an ordinance is re-

promulgated without obtaining the necessary approval from Parliament, the Apex Court can nullify
it, based on judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of seeking parliamentary approval.

The given Ordinance made in exercise of powers under Article 239-AA(3)(b) and Article 239-AA
(7) of the Constitution of Indiana. Article 239-AA(3)(b) states that Parliament has the power to make
laws with respect to “any matter” for NCTD. Article 239-AA(7)(a) grants Parliament the power to
enact a law for “giving effect to, or supplementing” the provisions of Article 239-AA, and for all
matters incidental to it.

Hence the given ordinance is not by passing any limitations prescribed in the Constitution of
Indiana. Apex Court indeed can nullify the above ordinance but there has to be a rationale
behind it. No fundamental rights are violated, nor any other provision of the Constitution is
disregarded in the given case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
ISSUE III
Whether the Highest Court can revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a full-fledged
state?
No, Highest Court cannot revoke special status of Suplex City and convert it into a full-fledged state. It is
the Parliament who has the power to amend the Constitution, including Article 239AA. This means that the
Parliament and not the highest court could, in theory, revoke the special status of fSuplex City and convert
it into a full-fledged state. But the Apex Court has the power to strike down any law that it finds to be
unconstitutional. This means that the Supreme Court could, in theory, strike down any law that the
Parliament violative of the basic structure doctrine. The Constitution of Indiana grants Suplex City a special
status for a reason, and the Apex Court is unlikely to change that status without a compelling reason.

The separation of powers in Indiana holds significant importance for several key reasons. It serves
as a safeguard for citizen rights by empowering the judiciary as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution,
ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and liberties. An illustrative example is the unanimous
affirmation by a nine-judge Constitutional Bench in the 'Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of
India'11 case, solidifying the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indiana.
Moreover, this principle acts as a bulwark against the potential abuse of power, as it mandates the
distribution of powers among distinct institutions, thereby limiting their authority. This arrangement
effectively prevents the consolidation of power that could lead to authoritarianism or chaos, thereby
upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Additionally, the separation of powers bolsters judicial
independence, allowing the judiciary to discharge its functions with autonomy and impartiality. It also
facilitates functional specialization within various institutions, enhancing the efficiency of the government
machinery. Lastly, this doctrine minimizes conflicts among governmental bodies by establishing clear
boundaries and providing for judicial review to peacefully address any potential disputes that may arise
between different branches of the government.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE IV

11
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
Whether the Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the State?

Article 239-AA(3)(a) stipulates that the legislative assembly of Suplex City has the power to make laws with
respect to matters enumerated in the State List and Concurrent List insofar as such matter is applicable to
Union Territories except entries 1,2, and 18 of List II and entries 64, 65 and 66 of List II insofar as they relate
to the above entries.

Also, Article 239-AA(7)(a) grants Parliament the power to enact a law for “giving effect to, or supplementing”
the provisions of Article 239-AA, and for all matters incidental to it, which includes entry no 41 of the state
list of the seventh schedule also.

The judgment of 202312 is imperative to argue that the Court had allowed the Parliament to make a law
to enhance the powers of the Lieutenant Governor. A specific paragraph of the judgment, states: - :

“Thus, the scope of the legislative and executive powers of the Union and NCTD that has been discussed under
this section is multi-fold. Under Article 239AA(3)(a), the legislative power of NCTD extends to all subjects
under the State List and the Concurrent List, except the excluded entries. As the 2018 Constitution Bench
judgment held, the executive power of GNCTD is coextensive with its legislative power.
In other words, the executive power of SUPLEX CITY extends to all subjects on which its Legislative
Assembly has power to legislate. The legislative power of the Union extends to all entries under the State List
and Concurrent List, in addition to the Union List. The executive power of the Union, in the absence of a law
upon it executive power relating to any subject in the State List, shall cover only matters relating to the three
entries which are excluded from the legislative domain of NCTD.
As a corollary, in the absence of a law or provision of the Constitution, the executive power of the Lieutenant
Governor acting on behalf of the Union Government shall extend only to matters related to the three entries
mentioned in Article 239AA(3)(a), subject to the limitations in Article 73. Furthermore, if the Lieutenant
Governor differs with the Council of Ministers of GNCTD, he shall act in accordance with the procedure laid
down in the Transaction of Business Rules.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

12
Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017, Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court, May 11,2023.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023
However, if Parliament enacts a law granting executive power on any subject which is within the domain of
NCTD, the executive power of the Lieutenant Governor shall be modified to the extent, as provided in that
law. Furthermore, under Section 49 of the GNCTD Act, the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers
must comply with the particular directions issued by the President on specific occasions”

Hence it can be inferred that the Government of the Suplex City can control the administrative control of the
State but it is subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. But after this ordinance, the
administrative control of the state with respect to services shall be the with Lieutenant Governor. The whole
transition stands on the foundation of the constitutional provisions.

ISSUE V
Whether the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is parametric to the Governor of any other
States?

No, the Lieutenant Governor of Suplex City is not parametric to the Governor of any other because the
nature of Suplex City is itself unlike any other state. The Supreme Court in the 2023 major judgment13
stated that the union territory of Suplex City is sui generis which means it is unique. It is a sui generis
union territory because it was the only union territory which had the privilege of having both a state
legislature and a council of ministers. It is not a full-fledged state; that may be unfortunate. It is an
escalated union territory with more powers than other union territories. The union government can make
laws notwithstanding that there's a vacuum on any matter in any of the three lists. So, the ultimate power
of the union territory of Suplex City is still vested with the Centre. The fact that it's a sui generis union
territory, ultimate power rests with the Union government through the Lieutenant Governor unlike
Governors of other states.

.
PRAYER

13
Civil Appeal No 2357 of 2017, Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, Supreme Court, May 11,2023.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY, 2023

In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Pass a direction, order, or appropriate writ affirming the constitutionality and validity of the
Government of Suplex City (Amendment) Ordinance 2023.

b) Dismiss the petitioner's claims in their entirety, for the reasons set forth in the submissions made by
the respondents.

c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the interest
of justice.

Sd/-

(Counsel for Respondent)

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TEAM CODE 11R)