Alliance University Moot

TC-25
JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2024
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF NAHIRA
IN THE MATTER:
BETWEEN
MR QUANKAR BOLAM AND ORS
Versus
MR ORRY NAKU (PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD) AND

ORS
CIVIL WP- /___/24

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Nahira)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NAHIRA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG.NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 7
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 10
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 12
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 15
7(A). ISSUE-I:
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE
15
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NAHIRA?
[1.1] Petitioner Has Locus Standi To File The Present Writ Petition
15
[1.2] Violation Of Fundamental Rights Of The Petitioner 16
[1.3] Right To Approach Hon’ble Supreme Court Under Article 32 Is
A Fundamental Right In Itself 17
[1.4] Test Of ‘Reasonable Restriction’ 18
ISSUE-II:
WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN
ITS DECISION THAT CATCHER PVT. LTD. IS NOT AN 19
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE WRIT
JURISDICTION AGAINST?
[2.3] Maintainability of writ against private entity. 19

[2.2] Admissibility of AI generated evidence 23
[2.1] Whether there is violation of fundamental rights or not? 26
ISSUE-III:
WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN

ITS DECISION THAT NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD 28
ACTED WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT AND
IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY?
[3.1] National Wrestling Board of Nahira acted outside the powers 28
conferred upon it as per its constitution
[3.2] Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners by National 32
Wrestling Board of Nahira
[3.3] Absence of proper governance in the National Wrestling Board 35
of Nahira
8 PRAYER 33

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
1. & And
2. A.I.R. All India Reporter
3. @ At
4. Anr Another
5. Bom. Bombay
6. Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure
7. Cri.LJ Criminal Law Journal
8. Art. Article
9. Assoc. Association
10. Guj. Gujarat
11. HP Himachal Pradesh
12. Ed Edition
13. ILR Indian Law Reporter
14. IPC Indian Penal Code
15. Comm’n Commission

Jharkhand
16. Jhar.
17. Crim. Criminal
18. Doc. Document

Number
19. No.
Others
20. Ors.
21. Econ. Economic

22. Edn. Edition
23. No. Number
24. Pat. Patna
25. Pg. Page No.
26. r/w Read with

Supreme Court
27. SC
Supreme Court Cases
29. SCC
28. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
29. S. Section
30. Tri. Tripura

Under Article
31. u/a
32. Id. Ibidem
33. u/s Under section
34. Intl. International
35. UOI Union of India
36. No. Number
37. Ors. Others
38. UP Uttar Pradesh
39. Para. Paragraph
40. Vol. Volume
41. r/w Read with
42. Rep. Report

National Anti-Doping Agency
43. NADA
44. Sess. Session

45. TC Trial Chamber

46. Trib. Tribunal
47. WADA World Anti-Doping Agency
48. U.N.T.S. United Nations Treaty Series
49. u/a Under article
50. u/s Under Section
51. UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights
52. UN United Nations
53. UNCAT United Nations Convention Against Torture

United Nations Convention on the Rights of
54. UNCRC the Child
55. UNDHR United Nations Declaration on Human Rights
United Nations High Commissioner for
56. UNHCHR Human Rights
57. UNSC United Nations Security Council
58. UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution
59. VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S. NO. CASES
1 S.P GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA
2 HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. V. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA AND ORS
3 RAMDAS ATHAWALE V. UNION OF INDIA
4 STATE OF MADRAS V. V.G. ROW
5 BODHISATTAWA V. SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY
6 FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION (REGD.) SINDRI V. UOI
7 DARYAO V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
8 SHABNAM V. UNION OF INDIA
9 MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA
10 RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS
11 BCCI V CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND ORS
12 ANANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTA JEEVANDASSWAMI

SUVARNA JAYA VS V.R. RUDANI & ORS
13 T. GATTAIAH VS COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND ANR.
14 MADRAS LABOUR UNION VS. BINNY LIMITED (BUCKINGHAM AND

CARNATIC MILLS)
15 MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA VS ASHA SRIVASTAVA
16 BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER VERSUS V. SADASIVAN AND OTHERS
17 UTTAM CHAND RAWAT VS STATE OF U.P.

18 JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA &
ORS
19 CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS AND ANOTHER VS SHOE BOUTIQUE -
SHUTIQ
20 ANIL KAPOOR VS. SIMPLY LIFE INDIA AND ORS
21 LIEUTENANT COLONEL NITISHA AND OTHERS VS UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS
22 VIJAY SINGH V. NATIONAL ANTI-DOPING AGENCY
23 CHARAN SINGH AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
24 SANGHAR UMAR RANMAL AND ANR V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA
25 SACHIN KUMAR AND ORS V. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE

SELECTION BOARD AND ORS
26 YOGENDER PAL SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA
27 DILIP V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
28 BHARATPUR DISTRICT WRESTLING ASSOCIATION V. CHAIRMAN,

RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
S.NO. BOOKS
COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DR. DURGA DAS

1. BASU EIGHTH EDITION 2007 (THOROUGHLY REVISED, REWRITTEN &
ENLARGED)
INDIA’S CONSTITUTION- ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION
2.
BY SAMARADITYA PAL
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY MP JAIN

3.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY DURGA DAS BASU

4.
V N SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

5.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY P M BAKSHI

6.

S. NO. DICTIONARIES
BRYANA. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8thed.West

1.
Thompson2004).
DR. A. R. LAKSHMAN AJ, WHARTON’S LAW LEXICON (15thed.Universal

2.
Law Publishing Co., 2011)
3. P. RAMANATH AIYER, THE LAW LEXICON (2nded. Lexis Nexis 2002)
SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (5thed.Oxford University Press

4.
2002).
THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY (15thed.Reprint Allied Chambers (India) Pvt

5.
Ltd. 2011).
S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE

1. EBC
2. Hein Online
3. JSTOR
4. Lexis Nexis
5. Manupatra

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, in the instant matter, hereby, humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Nahira under article 32 of the Constitution1
1
NAHIRA CONST. ART. 32.
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. OVERVIEW OF NAHIRA AND BOLAM COMMUNITY
The island nation of Nahira, located in South Asia, is a socialist republic with a constitution
similar to India's. With a population of ten billion, Nahira comprises five main ethnic groups:
Naku (65%), Bolam (15%), Bayal (10%), Horan (8%), and Others (2%). The Bolam community,
traditionally associated with fishing, faces challenges like migration to cities for employment,
primarily manual labor. Despite physical strength, the recent census reveals a 50% poverty rate
among the Bolam population, surpassing the national average of 30%. Notably, the Bolam
community has produced accomplished wrestlers, exemplified by Mr. Quankar Bolam. His
biography, penned by a renowned sports author, chronicles his journey to success despite social,
economic, and political stigma. Post-retirement, Quankar dedicates himself to coaching and
training young Bolan wrestlers, aiming to uplift the community.
B. CONTROVERSIES, LEGAL BATTLES AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS
In 2015, Bolan athletes, including prodigies of Quankar, face doping allegations during Nahira's
national games. Simultaneously, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) investigates Quankar on
drug-peddling charges, leading to raids and leaked WhatsApp messages suggesting bias against
Naku athletes. Despite dropped charges, a news report on rising crime rates within the Bolam
Community prompts increased stigmatization. Further complications arise with the National
Wrestling Board (NWB) implementing strict consequences for doping violations. Three Bolan
wrestlers receive lifetime suspensions for using 'Actoprotectors, challenging NWB's decision
based on the indigenous 'Batavari Srahmi Ras.' Legal battles ensue, questioning the fairness of
drug testing procedures. The NWB, under the leadership of President Orry Naku, introduces an
advanced drug testing program involving Al algorithms. However, concerns arise about the
potential racial profiling of Bolan athletes, impacting their morale and discouraging participation
in wrestling. The call for better representation from the Bolam community in NWB echoes
Quankar's vision for social and economic progress. Amidst public outcry and a writ petition
against alleged discrimination, cases reach the Supreme Court of Nahira, highlighting the
complex interplay of sports, technology, and social issues. The narrative emphasizes the need for
equity, development, and inclusivity within Nahira's diverse ethnic landscape, mirroring
challenges faced by marginalized communities.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF NAHIRA?
ISSUE NO. 2
WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN ITS DECISION THAT CATCHER
PVT. LTD. IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION
AGAINST?
ISSUE NO. 3
WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN ITS DECISION THAT NATIONAL
WRESTLING BOARD ACTED WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT AND IS NOT IN
VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NAHIRA?
It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of Nahira as Mr Quankar Bolam [hereinafter referred to as a Petitioner No. 1], Mr Sother Bolam
[hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 2], Mr Ether Bolam [hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 3]
and Mr Nover Bolam [hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 4] has filed the writ of Mandamus under
Article 32 of Constitution of India. The Contention is substantiated by the way of a three-fold argument:
The Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petition [1.1]; Violation of Fundamental rights of
the petitioner [1.2]; Right to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court under article 32 is a fundamental right in
itself [1.3]; Test of Reasonable Restriction [1.4].
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN ITS DECISION
THAT CATCHER PVT. LTD. IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE
WRIT JURISDICTION AGAINST?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench that as per the requirements of Article 12 of
The Indian Constitution, even if there is a private entity involved the case ,writ is maintainable against a
private entity .Therefore , it can be clearly seen here that Catcher Pvt Ltd is a private company and
hence writ is maintainable. The counsel hereby submits that the Hon’ble High Court was not right in its
decision about the company having no appropriate authority to exercise writ jurisdiction .It is also
submitted that all the functions that were performed were beyond the limits which resulted in
infringement of fundamental rights. The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench that
though the drug testing program was implemented after a thorough evaluation process but still instances
of biases were seen on the part of the company. The petitioner humbly submits her arguments in the
following sub issues viz. [2.1] Maintainability of writ against private entity. [2.2] Admissibility of AI
generated evidence [2.3] Whether there is violation of fundamental rights or not?

ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN ITS DECISION
THAT NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD ACTED WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED
UPON IT AND IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY?
It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Zahura erred in its decision and held that
National Wrestling Board acted within the powers conferred upon it and such action of the Board is not
in violation of principles of equity and non-discrimination provided by the Supreme law of Republic of
Nahira i.e. Constitution of Nahira, 1950. It is humbly submitted that due to the action of National
Wrestling Board, there has violation of various fundamental rights on the part of petitioners and such
action of the Board was taken outside the purview of powers conferred upon it. This Contention of the
petitioners is substantiated by the way of a three-fold argument: National Wrestling Board of Nahira
acted outside the powers conferred upon it as per its constitution [3.1]; Violation of Fundamental Rights
of the Petitioners by National Wrestling Board of Nahira [3.2]; Absence of proper governance in the
National Wrestling Board of Nahira [3.3].

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS

MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF NAHIRA?
“No man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. No man should suffer a wrong by
technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and
not the mistress of the justice.”
It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Nahira as Mr Quankar Bolam [hereinafter referred to as a Petitioner No.
1], Mr Sother Bolam [hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 2], Mr Ether Bolam
[hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 3] and Mr Nover Bolam [hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner No. 4] has filed the writ of Mandamus under Article 32 of Constitution of India.
The Contention is substantiated by the way of a four-fold argument: The Petitioner has locus
standi to file the present writ petition [1.1]; Violation of Fundamental rights of the petitioner
[1.2]; Right to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court under article 32 is a fundamental right in
itself [1.3]; Test of Reasonable Restriction [1.4].
[1.1] PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION
[1.1.1] It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court in various cases has established that an aggrieved party, which has suffered at
the previous or lower court and due to that decision there has been miscarriage of justice on
the part of the aggrieved party, party has locus standi to file a writ petition, against the
judgment passed by the High Court.
[1.1.2] It is humbly submitted that in the current petition, the stand of Petitioner No. 1
and other petitioners has been adversely affected by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court
of Zahura as the judgement clearly stated that there has been no violation of fundamental
rights of the petitioners and the grevious act National Wrestling Board of Nahira [hereinafter
referred to as NWB] was within the powers conferred upon it. As per the judgement of the
Hon’ble High Court of Zahura, it was also held that the principles of equality and non-

discrimination have not been undermined on the part of petitioners.

[1.1.3] It is humbly submitted that in the present case, both the ingredients for
establishing the rule of locus standi are present i.e. (a) Presence of an injury on the part of
aggrieved person and (b) Causation. It is submitted that as justice has not been served,
because quick and unreasonable decision has been given by the Hon’ble High Court of
Zahura, the petitioners, Mr Quankar and other wrestlers, has a locus standi in the said matter.
[1.1.4] It is humbly submitted that in the case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. V. Prem
Chandra Mishra and Ors 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Nahira held that, “ A person
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation
will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of
fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.”
[1.1.5] It is humbly submitted that in the case of S.P Gupta v. Union of India 2, the
Supreme Court observed that “in India a large number of persons are exploited and ignorant
of their legal rights. These weaker sections of the country are not in a position to approach
the court for judicial remedy. So in order to provide justice to these people, the principle of
locus standi should be relaxed. It further held that whenever the legal rights of a person or
class of persons is violated and by any reason they cannot approach the court, then any
public spirited person can file a petition on behalf of them under Articles 226 and 32 of the
Indian Constitution in high court and Supreme Court respectively.” Therefore it is submitted
that the Petitioners has the required locus standi to file the present writ petition.
[1.2] VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER
[1.2.1] It is humbly submitted fundamental rights mark the base of seeking relief under
article 32. The Hon'ble court has time and again recognized that the constitutional validity of
a legislation can be challenged when any of the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of
the Constitution have been violated. Therefore, the violation of fundamental rights is the sine
qua non of the exercise of the right to approach SC.
[1.2.2] It is humbly submitted that in the case of Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India 3,
it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “Unless a question of enforcement of
fundamental rights arises, the jurisdiction of SC under Article 32 cannot be invoked where
1
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. V. Prem Chand Mishra and Ors, (2007) SCC Online SC 1485
2
SP Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
3
Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 1310

the maintainability of a writ petition must show the existence of some fundamental right of
the petitioner that ought to be adjudicated.”
[1.2.3] It is humbly submitted that in the present case, subsequent provisions of
Constitution of Nahira have been violated by National Wrestling Board of Nahira and
Catcher Pvt. Ltd.; Article 14 (Equality Before Law), Article 15 (Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), Article 16 (Equality
of opportunity in matters of public employment), Article 21 (Protection of life and personal
liberty). The violation of these fundamental rights will be discussed in further issues and
arguments.
[1.3] RIGHT TO APPROACH HON’BLE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN ITSELF
[1.3.1] It is humbly submitted that Article 32 constitutes the basic right of citizens to seek
constitutional remedies which works on the doctrine ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’, i.e.‘where
there is right, there is a remedy’. Courts have time and again acknowledged the role of SC as
‘Sentinel on the qui vive’. The right to seek remedy under Art. 32 is contained in Part III of
the Constitution of Indri which makes it a fundamental right in itself. 4 Right to approach SC
under Article 32 is not only conferred as the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by
the constitution but has also been recognized as one of the most highly cherished rights.5
[1.3.2] It is humbly submitted that it not only confers powers to Supreme Court but also
lays upon a duty to guard and uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that fundamental rights are not only intended to protect an
individual's basic rights but they are based on high public policy which makes these rights the
essence of the Constitution and obliges the Apex court to render its duty as its custodian. The
court cannot refuse to entertain or issue an appropriate writ unless it is provided by the
Constitution itself6. In the present petition, the Supreme Court has a constitutional obligation
to discharge its role of the ‘guarantor’ which is also invested with the petitioners as their
fundamental right to seek constitutional remedy under Article 32.
[1.4] TEST OF ‘REASONABLE RESTRICTION’
4
Bodhisattawa v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922
5
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (regd.) Sindri V. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 344
6
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457

[1.4.1] It is humbly submitted that in the case of State of Madras v. V.G. Row7, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court lays a prominent interpretation of the phrase reasonable restriction’
posed on the exercise of fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution as:
“It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard
or general pattern, of reasonableness, can be laid down as applicable to all cases.”
[1.4.2] It is humbly submitted that in the case of Shabnam v. Union of India8, the Apex
Court relying on the landmark judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 9 held that
the right to life and personal liberty has many elements. Human dignity is the first and
foremost which may include the presumption that every person is innocent until proven
guilty, the right of the accused to have a fair trial as well as a speedy trial, which are all part
of human dignity. The SC further read the principle of reasonableness into the procedure
contemplated by Article 21, holding that it must be right and just and fair, and not arbitrary,
fanciful, or oppressive.
[1.4.3] It is therefore humbly submitted that establishing the prima facie infringement of
the fundamental rights of the petitioners and the adequate powers of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the petition ought to be considered for the further adjudication.
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA

WAS CORRECT IN ITS DECISION THAT CATCHER PVT. LTD. IS
NOT AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE WRIT
7
JURISDICTION
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 AGAINST?
8
Shabnam v. Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 702
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench that as per the requirements of
Article 12 of The Indian Constitution, even if there is a private entity involved the case ,writ
is maintainable against a private entity .Therefore , it can be clearly seen here that Catcher
Pvt Ltd is a private company and hence writ is maintainable. The counsel hereby submits that
the Hon’ble High Court was not right in its decision about the company having no
appropriate authority to exercise writ jurisdiction .It is also submitted that all the functions
that were performed were beyond the limits which resulted in infringement of fundamental
rights. The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench that though the drug testing
program was implemented after a thorough evaluation process but still instances of biases
were seen on the part of the company. The petitioner humbly submits her arguments in the
following sub issues viz. [2.1] Maintainability of writ against private entity. [2.2]
Admissibility of AI generated evidence [2.3] Whether there is violation of fundamental rights
or not?
[2.1] MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT AGAINST PRIVATE ENTITY
[2.1.1] The petitioner humbly submits that the term ‘state’ is defined under Article
12 of The Nahiran Constitution as follows -:
12. Definition.—In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the
Government and Parliament of Nahira and the Government and the Legislature of each of
the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of Nahira or under the control
of the Government of Nahira.
The petitioner contends to the wisdom of the court that Article 12 defines the term "State"
for the purposes of the fundamental rights. Article 12 gives an inclusive and not exhaustive
definition of "the State". So defined "the State" include:
(a) the Government and Parliament of Nahira;
(b) the Government and the Legislature of each of the States;
(c) all local or other authorities within the territory of Nahira; and
(d) all local or other authorities under the control of the Government of Nahira.
Therefore it is clear that the phrase “other authorities” has a wider meaning as in the matter of
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of India And Ors10:
10
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of India And Ors, (1979) 3 SCC 489

Five points were mentioned by Justice P.N. Bhagwati to understand if the ‘body’ in news is
instrumental to be called as the ‘State’ under Article 12 or not: (1)The ‘Body’ can be called
as ‘State’ if its entire shared capital is held by the Government of Nahira(2) Such other
authorities have a governmental functional character.(3) The absolute control of such
authorities lie with the government.(4) Such authorities which have an element of command
or authority.(5) The authorities discharging public service.
[2.1.2] The petitioner further brings to the notice of the court that ‘Other
Authorities’ mentioned under Article 12 means all such authorities that lie within the
territory of Nahira and are controlled by the government of Nahira through its acts and
amendments.The counsel further adds that here Catcher Pvt Ltd is implemented by NWB
which is a government body , in collaboration for state of the art drug testing program
which is clearly, a private body performing public function and therefore the petitioner
humbly submits before the Hon’ble bench for the maintainability of writ of mandamus.It
is further added that as the company referred to here is a collaboration therefore its
functions are controlled by government as most of the samples were provided by NWB
only.Therefore, making a private body performing public functions.As in the matter of
BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors11, .The Court ruled that the Board of
Cricket Control of India (BCCI) while not a 'State' under Article 12, the BCCI, due to its
public functions, falls under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court per Article 226.
Actions during the discharge of these public functions are subject to judicial scrutiny,
applying standards akin to those for state actions. The BCCI's significant control over
cricket, recognised by the government, implies it undertakes public functions, even if
currently managed by a non-government entity.The court emphasized that governmental
support and absence of regulation indicated the public nature of BCCI's functions, making
it amenable to judicial review.
[2.1.3] According to clause 1 and clause 2 of Article 226 of The Nahiran

Constitution —(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 , every High Court shall have
power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including 4[writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
11
BCCI v Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 251

mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.] (2) The power
conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority
or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories. Article 226 has a much wider
scope than Article 32 .Therefore as seen in the case of Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya vs V.R. Rudani & Ors12 : It was observed that
under Article 226 ,private bodies performing public duty and owing positive obligation to
the affected party were held amenable to writ jurisdiction.Therefore broadening the scope
of ‘Any person or authority’ under Article 226 .
[2.1.4] Therefore , in the case of T. Gattaiah Vs Commissioner of Labour and
anr.13, the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that a writ was
maintainable against a private management for the enforcement of the statutory duty
under the Industrial Disputes Act, if the violation thus complained was referable to a
public duty on the part of the respondent/private Company or individual.A perusal of the
entire judgment would show that mandamus would issue against a private individual or an
incorporated company provided the private individual or the company is enjoined by law
to perform a duty of a public nature.
[2.1.5] While considering the very same objections in Madras labour Union Vs.
Binny Limited (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills) 14, The Division Bench held as
follows:- "On an analysis of the above rulings, the following propositions emerge:- 1.) A
private body which is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
Nahira is not generally amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution. 2). A writ will issue
against a private body to protect the fundamental rights declared under part III of the
Constitution of Nahira. 3.) A writ will issue in extra-ordinary circumstances if the
monstrosity of the situation warrants it. 4.) A mandamus will be issued against a private
body, if there is no equally convenient remedy and if there is public duty. The petitioner
humbly submits that in the present case several fundamental rights are being violated such
as Article 14 ,15,19,21 of the Nahiran Constitution and therefore a victim can approach to
the Court for the violation of fundamental rights according to Article 32 and Article 226.
12
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya vs V.R. Rudani & Ors, (1989) 2 SCC 691
13
T. Gattaiah Vs Commissioner of Labour and anr, 1981 LLJ 54
14
Madras labour Union Vs. Binny Limited (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills), (1996) 87 COMP CAS 438

[2.1.6] The petitioner further contends to the wisdom of the court that in the matter of
Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs Asha Srivastava15, the maintainability of writ under
Article 226 was observed and the writ in this case was held maintainable against private
school as words "any person or authority" used in Art. 226 cannot be confined only to
statutory authorities and instrumentalities of State but may.cover any other person or body
performing public duty.
[2.1.7] The issue of maintainability of the writ petition was again considered by the
Apex Court in the case of Binny Ltd. and another versus V. Sadasivan and others 16, It
was held that writ of mandamus or remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of Nahira
is a public law remedy and can be exercised against a body or person discharging public
function/public duty. The word "public function" was elaborately discussed to define it. It
was held that a body or person would be performing public function when it seeks to
achieve collective benefit for the public or section thereof and in this situation this
company is performing tests on the wrestlers of the state of Nahira for preventing doping
which is a public law element.
[2.1.8] The petitioner humbly submits that Catcher Pvt Ltd. is a private company and
for the writ to be maintainable , the body should perform public function those performed
by state in its sovereign capacity. The petitioner humbly submits that in the case of Uttam
Chand Rawat vs State Of U.P.17 It is also that even if a person or authority is discharging
public function or public duty, the writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226
of the Constitution, if Court is satisfied that action under challenge falls in the domain of
public law, as distinguished from private law. The twin tests for maintainability of writ are
as follows: 1. The person or authority discharging public duty/public functions. 2. Their
action under challenge falls in domain of public law and not under common law.
[ 2.2 ] ADMISSIBILITY OF AI GENERATED EVIDENCE
[2.2.1] The petitioner hereby submits that according to the facts of this case Catcher
Pvt Ltd. employed AI algorithms for drug testing by collecting private data and samples.
As AI collects and uses data in all aspects, there is a big question concerning the privacy
of individuals because we may not know who the people accessing the information are
15
Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449
16
Binny Ltd. and another versus V. Sadasivan and others, (2005) 6 SCC 657
17
Uttam Chand Rawat vs State Of U.P, MANU/UP/1935/2021

and their purpose. Settling the uncertainties surrounding the issues of privacy , the
progressive case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. vs. Union of India &
Ors18. recognised the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. The Bench unanimously
held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of
the Constitution” In addition to cementing the place of the right to privacy as a
fundamental right, this case also laid down the need for the implementation of a new law
relating to data privacy, expanded the scope of privacy in personal spaces, and discussed
privacy as an intrinsic value.
[2.2.2] The petitioner humbly submits that the significant use of artificial intelligence
in various sectors and cheap access to personal data of individuals by AI has created
ethical and legal difficulties in the maintenance of a balance between the use of personal
data by AI and the privacy protection rights of personal data. According to the article
named Evaluating Privacy Violations of Facial Recognition Technology in the
Backdrop of Oecd Privacy Principles19 :Collection and processing of personal data
should be done only with the consent of an individual and depends on the information that
he/she has regarding the purpose for which the data is being used.
[2.2.3] The juxtaposition of AI, cybersecurity and data ethics is pivotal to responsible
deployment of this technology for the world to harness its optimal potential. Further, this
was also pointed out in the case In Re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy
Litigation, where it was alleged that Facebook unlawfully collected and stored biometric
data derived from pictures of users’ faces. Facebook argued that the term ‘face geometry’
scan mentioned in the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act must be read to mean in-
person scan, which was not explicitly mentioned at the time of data collection. However,
the statute specifies that the purposes to be achieved must be explicitly mentioned at the
time of collection of data. This ‘cramped’ interpretation is not mentioned in the statute
and is antithetical to its purpose of protecting privacy with the rise of biometric
technology and is a violation of the purpose of the specification principle. An issue with
the purpose specification principle is that of compatibility assessment which guages the
compatibility of further processing with the initial purpose.
18
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2017) 10 SCC
19
Evaluating Privacy Violations of Facial Recognition Technology in the Backdrop of Oecd Privacy Principles,
8 CMET (2021) 22, SCC ONLINE

[2.2.4] The petitioner further contends that AI driven cars are

being highly subjected to accidents nowadays because after all it’s a
machine as it can be inferred from the article Recognising Legal Personality
of Artificially Intelligent Entities - A Liability Analysis Under the Law of Crimes 20 It
sheds the light on how numerous reported instances have occurred wherein autonomous
vehicles have injured or killed humans. As machine learning has led to the creation of
algorithms where a machine learns itself, it becomes pertinent to note and understand how
criminal law would address questions of this kind. we still have models like the Cadillac
Super Cruise, Nissan ProPilot Assist, and Tesla Autopilot, which allow the driver to
relegate and relax while the cars run on autopilot mode. The roads witness thousands of
accidents daily. It is a very challenging task to blame a particular party in case of
vehicular accidents. Accidents involving AI entities first came to light when in March
2019, a self-driving Uber car hit a pedestrian on a street in Arizona.
[2.2.5] The petitioner humbly submits that in the case of Christian Louboutin Sas
and Another Vs Shoe Boutique - Shutiq 21: It was observed that “ responses from
ChatGPT as also the one relied upon by the Plaintiffs shows that the said tool cannot be
the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The response of a
Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be
relied upon by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors including the
nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data etc. Further, there are
possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. generated by
AI chatbots. Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There
is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological
development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in
the adjudicatory process.”
[2.2.6] The petitioner further contends that AI has resulted in several mishaps
overcasting the image of many people creating there deepfakes and hence violating there
right to privacy .In the recent judgment of Delhi High Court in Anil Kapoor
vs. Simply Life India and Ors 22. Where protection is granted to actor
Anil Kapoor’s individual persona, and personal attributes, against
20
Recognising Legal Personality of Artificially Intelligent Entities - A Liability Analysis Under the Law of
Crimes, 4.1 NLUO SLJ (2019) 16, SCC ONLINE
21
Christian Louboutin Sas and Another Vs Shoe Boutique – Shutiq, 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 5295
22
Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and Ors, MANU/DEOR/248558/2023

misuse, specifically through Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools used for

creating deepfakes. The order is a first of its kind in India, and is
another step forward in paving the way for a more robust regime
targeting misuse of a celebrity’s attributes.
[2.2.7] The petitioner humbly submits that in the article of Covid-

19 Vaccines in India: Judicial Blind Spots in Upholding the Right
to Health23 :In a major data breach, the information of thousands of
Indians who received the covid vaccine (CoWIN Portal)was leaked on
a Telegram channel. According to several reports, crucial information
like a person's phone number, gender, ID card information and date of
birth was leaked on Telegram. Also in the Facial recognition systems,
powered by AI algorithms, have raised significant privacy concerns. In
one instance, IBM used nearly a million photos from Flickr, a popular
photo-sharing platform, to train its facial recognition software without
the explicit consent of the individuals pictured. The company argued
the images were publicly available, but critics highlighted the
secondary use harm, as the images were initially shared on Flickr for a
different purpose.According to the NITI AAYOG REPORT of November
2022 depicting problems and loopholes in AI. Firstly, right to privacy is
violated by deployment of FRT systems in manners inconsistent with consent-based
frameworks or other prescribed legal manners.This deployment raises concerns on the
propriety of a biometric dataset, ostensibly collected for one purpose, now being
processed for another future purpose. In this case, the person in question may not control
or consent to their data being used for any other purposes. In this way , it prevents a
person from giving meaningful consent.
[2.3] WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT?
Covid-19 Vaccines in India: Judicial Blind Spots in Upholding the Right to Health, 18.2
23
Socio-Legal Rev. 119 (2022)

[2.3.1] The petitioner humbly submits that the major drawback with the advent of AI
would be job displacement, it means that with the rise of AI in modern society there are
many high chances that people might lose their jobs and will be replaced by Artificial
Intelligence. Sometimes AI algorithms can lead to bias if the information on which they
were created and trained upon bias, which would lead to discriminatory outcomes. As AI
collects and uses data in all aspects, there is a big question concerning the privacy of
individuals because we may not know who the people accessing the information are and
their purpose. Hence, violating Right To Privacy of Constitution Of Nahira under
Article 21.
[2.3.2] The petitioner humbly submits that here most of the data
which is personal is provided by NWB without the consent of the
players .Also according to the article of Evaluating Privacy Violations of
Facial Recognition Technology in the Backdrop of Oecd Privacy Principles 24
Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have also faced legal suits by users that claim that their
faces were used without their consent.
[2.3.3] The petitioner further contends to the wisdom of the court that by using AI
techniques there has been a pattern of selective testing hence violating Right to Equality
and making the victims of discrimination under Article 14 ,15 of The Constitution of
Nahira. In the matter of Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha And Others Vs Union Of India
And Others25 :Arts. 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution were violated .It can be seen in the
article named Computational Jurisprudence where multiple critics have raised the
possibility that computer models that learn patterns from data may be subtly biased
against certain groups based upon biases embedded in that data. If the system is treated as
a “black- box”, its process of analysis and decision-making lacks interactivity and is
difficult to accept. A report on COMPAS from Pro Publica states that black defendants in
Florida are more likely to be misjudged as “guilty” than white defendants.
24
Evaluating Privacy Violations of Facial Recognition Technology in the Backdrop of Oecd Privacy Principles,
8 CMET (2021) 22
25
Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha And Others Vs Union Of India And Others, (2021) 33 SACLJ 335

[2.3.4] The petitioner further contends that according to the article of Importance of
Data Ethics in an AI-Driven World26: Amazon used algorithms for many years to make
initial hiring filters and built an internal algorithm for hiring purposes. The algorithm over
time became highly sexist. As more men applied for a job at Amazon, through machine
learning Amazon's computers taught itself that male candidates are preferred.In this way
AI algorithms are not ethically good because it’s a machine performing human tasks and
is thus violating fundamental rights of the people of Naira when only Bolam people were
tested.
[2.3.5] The petitioner humbly submits that according to THE NATIONAL ANTI-
DOPING ACT, 2002: Section 16 : “The Agency shall be responsible for adopting and
implementing anti-doping rules, regulations and policies which conform to international
obligations and commitments for promoting, coordinating and monitoring the doping
control programme in sports to ensure dope-free sport”. Section 20 states: “Where the
Agency has reasons to believe that an athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule
Violation, it shall require such athlete to submit samples for testing, in accordance with
such procedure and in such manner, as may be specified by regulations”. According to
the act (section 26), testing is done by National Dope Testing Laboratory but here it is
done by a private company by providing it all the private data of the players which is a
clear violation of right to privacy under Article 21 of The Nahiran Constitution .
26
ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA
Importance of Data Ethics in an AI-Driven World, 2023 SCC ONLINE NLOG OPED 61
ERRED IN ITS DECISION THAT NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD
ACTEDWRITTEN
WITHIN THE POWERS
SUBMISSIONS CONFERRED
ON BEHALF UPON IT AND IS
OF THE PETITIONER
NOT IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY?
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”
It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Zahura erred in its decision and held
that National Wrestling Board acted within the powers conferred upon it and such action of
the Board is not in violation of principles of equity and non-discrimination provided by the
Supreme law of Republic of Nahira i.e. Constitution of Nahira, 1950. It is humbly submitted
that due to the action of National Wrestling Board, there has violation of various fundamental
rights on the part of petitioners and such action of the Board was taken outside the purview of
powers conferred upon it. This Contention of the petitioners is substantiated by the way of a
three-fold argument: National Wrestling Board of Nahira acted outside the powers conferred
upon it as per its constitution [3.1]; Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners by
National Wrestling Board of Nahira [3.2]; Absence of proper governance in the National
Wrestling Board of Nahira [3.3].
[3.1] NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD OF NAHIRA ACTED OUTSIDE THE

POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT AS PER ITS CONSTITUTION.
[3.1.1] It is humbly submitted that National Wrestling Board of Nahira has clearly acted
outside the purview of the powers conferred upon it by its own constitution which is named
as the ‘Constitution of National Wrestling Board of Nahira’ and this constitution is verified
and signed by the current president of the board, Mr Orry Naku. It is submitted that the NWB
is not at all authorized to provide the data of wrestlers to a private entity for testing purposes
and to detect any doping substance in the samples. It is humbly submitted that National Anti-
Doping Agency of Nahira and National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports established under
the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 is authorized by the Legislature to collect samples of
athletes and conduct such tests. It is submitted National Wrestling Board of Nahira is not at
all authorized and empowered by the Legislature of Nahira to perform such functions and this
action of the board has led to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners.
[3.1.2] It is humbly submitted that Section 16 of the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022
reads as follows:
(1) The Agency shall be responsible for adopting and implementing anti-doping rules,
regulations and policies which conform to international obligations and commitments for
promoting, coordinating and monitoring the doping control programme in sports to ensure
dope-free sport.
(2) The Agency shall have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of this
Act and may direct the collection of samples, manage test results and conduct results
management at the national level.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Agency shall perform
the following functions, namely:—
a) the planning, coordination, implementation and monitoring of anti-doping activities,
including effective testing and whereabouts management;
b) taking measures to prevent Anti-Doping Rule Violations;
c) undertaking anti-doping sensitisation and advocacy measures;
d) carrying out investigation and conducting results management of any Anti-Doping
Rule Violations;
e) adopting and implementing anti-doping rules and policies which conform to
international obligations and commitments and perform its functions in accordance
with such rules and policies;
f) implementing the Convention in accordance with the Act;
g) enforcing anti-doping rules by exercising authority over athletes, athlete support
personnel and other persons, including National Sports Federations and other
sports organisations;
h) promoting anti-doping research;
i) coordinating and cooperating with the World Anti-Doping Agency, Other Anti-
Doping Organisations, National Sports Federations and International Federations;
j) coordinate and collaborate with concerned authorities and stakeholders in matters
relating to establishment of best practices in the marketing and distribution of
nutritional supplements including information regarding their analytical composition
and quality assurance;
k) facilitating sharing and free flow of information relating to the use of doping
substances, doping practices or any Anti-Doping Rule Violation between sports
bodies, officials conducting competition or event, Other Anti-Doping Organisations
and the Agency;
l) establishing code of conduct for officers and employees of the Agency and for such
other persons or agencies engaged by the Agency;

m) establishing standards for the manufacturing of nutritional supplements for sport in
India;
n) undertaking any other activity specified by regulations by the Board that may be
expedient for fulfilling the objective of eliminating doping in sport.
(4) The Agency may make such regulations, as it deems necessary, for the effective discharge
of its functions.
It is humbly submitted that looking at the highlighted part of the above-mentioned section, it
can be clearly seen that the National Anti-Doping Agency of Nahira will have the authority
over all the Sports Federations throughout the country including the National Wrestling
Board and therefore it can be clearly seen that NWB acted outside the purview of powered
conferred upon it.
[3.1.3] It is humbly submitted that as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 27 of the National
Anti-Doping Act, 2022, The Agency shall have the power to collect, use and process the
following personal data for the purposes of implementation of the objectives of the Act and in
accordance with applicable data privacy regulations, namely:—
a) sex or gender of the athlete;
b) list of Anti-Doping Rule Violations committed by an athlete under the Act and the
details of such violation;
c) medical history of the athlete;
d) whereabouts information of the athlete;
e) any other personal data as may be specified by regulations.
It is humbly submitted that the authorization to collect data of athletes is enshrined with the
National Anti-Doping Agency and therefore National Wrestling Board have performed an
action for which they were not at all authorized by the Legislature.
[3.1.4] It is humbly submitted that as per the Constitution of National Wrestling Board of
Nahira, words and phrases like ‘doping’, ‘collection of samples’, ‘collection of samples for
testing’, ‘power to collect, use and process the data’ and etc are not even present in the entire
constitution. It is submitted that the National Wrestling Board ignored there own Constitution
and collaborated with Catcher Pvt. Ltd. For drug testing amongst the wrestlers.

[3.1.5] It is humbly submitted that in the instant matter, it is mentioned in the proposition
that the National Wrestling Board adhering to the National Anti-Doping Rules, has issued
lifetime suspensions to the wrestlers i.e. Petitioners No. 1,2 and 3. It is submitted that Article
XXIV of the Constitution of NWB of Nahira reads as follows:
During the Olympics, Commonwealth or Asian Games or any other International
competitions and National etc., any un-sportsman like behaviour on the part of a wrestler or
official or Coach which includes insulting remarks, undesirable gestures, abusive language
and questioning the decision of judges and referees, provoking the opponents or the
spectators etc., or committing any act which is not in tune with the propriety of
sportsmanship shall be penalized by the Committee appointed on the sport by the President
or any other Senior Office bearer of the Wrestling Federation of India, and further action
and the penalty will be imposed in the following manner:-
i. Disqualification for the duration of the activity of that item of sports.
ii. Disqualification for the entire duration of the competition.
iii. Prohibition from participation in competitions for a fixed period of time.
iv. In case of International competition, the President of WFI of his nominees for that
competition accompanying the team is authorized to take action on the spot.
It is humbly submitted that the National Wrestling Board is not at all authorized to issue
lifetime suspensions to any of the wrestlers and this is one more instance where the National
Wrestling Board of Nahira have used such power which is not conferred upon it either by the
Legislature or by its own Constitution.
[3.1.6] It is humbly submitted that in the matter of Vijay Singh v. National Anti-
Doping Agency27, there were doping against a sportsperson after the completion of a
competition. The Analytical report of the sample given by the Petitioner was detected by the
National Dope Testing Laboratory to involve the presence of prohibited substances i.e., 3-OH
stanozolol & 16-B-OH Stanozolol (Stanozolol metabolites), anabolic steroids which was
mentioned in the Prohibited list of WADA. Therefore, Delhi High Court held the accused
liable for doping and affirmed the suspension of the player. It is most humbly submitted that
if any athlete has to be tested for doping, it has to be done with the help of National Anti-
Doping Agency and the suspension will also be issued by them only. Even if the athlete
wants to appeal against the suspension order, the case is registered against the National Anti-
Doping Agency and not against the particular sports federation of that sport.
27
Vijay Singh v. National Anti-Doping Agency, 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 1317

[3.2] VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS BY

NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD OF NAHIRA
[3.2.1] It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitoners under Article 32 of the Constitution of Nahira as there has been violation of
fundamental rights of the petitioners which are enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. It
is submitted that Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of Nahira have been violated by the
National Wrestling Board of Nahira and due to such action of the respondant parties, there
has been miscarriage of justice on the part of petitioners and other wrestlers of the Bolam
Community.
[3.2.2] It is humbly submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution of Nahira provides for
Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws for each and every citizen of Nahira. It is
also submitted that Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits any kind of discrimination in the
territory of Republic of Nahira on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth.
It is submitted that the petitioners have been discriminated by the National Wrestling Board
and the board has undermined the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
[3.2.3] It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have been the victims of discrimination
on their being the part of Bolam Community by the Respondant Party. It is submitted that the
frequency of tests being conducted by Catcher Pvt Ltd for drug testing amongst wrestlers is
very high when it comes to administration of Bolam Community as compared to other
communities of Nahira. This is being done for only one particular reason that the wrestlers
from Bolam Community have more naturally dominating physical features as compared other
wrestlers from different communities of Nahira. It is submitted that as proved in the previous
sub-issue, National Wrestling Board is not authorized to conduct these tests through itself or
by collaborating with some other company. Not only they they are conducting these tests
illigally, but they are discriminating amongst wrestlers on the basis of there community.
Therefore it is submitted that this is a clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of
Nahira.
[3.2.4] It is humbly submitted that till date, not even a single person has been a part of
the executive committee of National Wrestling Board from other communities of Nahira i.e.
Bolam, Bayal, Horan and Others. Only people from Naku Community are representing in the
executive committee of the National Wrestling Board and there has been clear ignorance
other communities by the board.

[3.2.5] It is humbly submitted that as per Article VII of the Constitution of National
Wrestling Board of Nahira, there are a total number of 15 office bearers of the executive
committee of the board. It is submitted that till date, only people from Naku Community have
been a part of the executive committee and no there is no representation from other
communities. It is also submitted as per Clause (b) of the same Article, it is provided that the
Executive Committee of the Board shall consist of 25% of the management shall comprise of
prominent sportspersons of outstanding merits with voting rights. The merit of course will be
in order of the sports person having participated in (i) Olympic Games, (ii) International
Competitions and (iii) National Level Games. It is most humbly submitted that the Bolam
Community have produced the most number of accomplished wrestlers over the years who
have represented Nahira in every kind of National and International Games. Inspite of this,
there is not even a single person representing Bolam Community in the management of
National Wrestling Board of Nahira. It is therfore submitted that this is clear violation of
Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of Nahira.
[3.2.6] In the case of Charan Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors 28, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court stated:
"Article 21 of the Constitution assures right to life. To make right to life meaningful and
effective, this Court put up expansive interpretation and brought within its ambit right to
education, health, speedy trial, equal wages for equal work as fundamental rights. Articles
14, 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination and accord equality. The Preamble to the Constitution
as a socialist republic visualises to remove economic inequalities and to provide facilities
and opportunities for decent standard of living and to protect the economic interests of the
weaker segments of the society…… Providing adequate means of livelihood for all the
citizens and distribution of the material resources of the community for common welfare,
enable the poor, the Dalits and Tribes, to fulfil the basic needs to bring about a fundamental
change in the structure of the Indian society which was divided by erecting impregnable
walls of separation between the people on grounds of caste, sub-caste, creed, religion, race,
language and sex. Equality of opportunity and status thereby would become the bedrocks for
social integration. Economic empowerment thereby is the foundation to make equality of
status, dignity of person and equal opportunity a truism. The core of the commitment of the
Constitution to the social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the
fundamental rights and directive principles as supplementary and complementary to each
28
Charan Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors, (1997) 1 SCC 151

other. The Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles - the trinity - are the
conscience of the Constitution. Political democracy has to be stable. Socio-economic
democracy must take strong roots and should become a way of life.
The State, therefore, is enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor, weaker
sections of the society, the Dalits and Tribes and to distribute material resources of the
community to them for common welfare etc.”
[3.2.7] It is humbly submitted that in the matter of Sanghar Umar Ranmal and Anr v.
State of Saurashtra29, a law of Saurashtra was under consideration which restricted the
movement of certain communities by insisting on their reporting to the police daily. Hon’ble
High Court of Saurashtra held it to be invalid because it was a discrimination based on race.
[3.2.8] It is humbly submitted that as per Article 16 of the Constitution of Nahira, There
shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State. Also, it provides that No citizen shall, on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be
ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the
State.
[3.2.9] It is humbly submitted that in the matter of Sachin Kumar and Ors v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board and Ors 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “A
fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of
opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable
process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public
employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire
process becomes illegitimate.”
[3.2.10] It is humbly submitted that in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India31, the
Supreme Court held as follows: “17. While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is
the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service
in the Police Department, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment on
the children or wards or other relatives of the police officers either in service or retired
merely because they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such police
officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity to get into public
service should be extended to all the citizens equally and should not be confined to any exient
to the descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the State or who has
29
Sanghar Umar Ranmal and Anr v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCC ONLINE GUJ 86
30
Sachin Kumar and Ors v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and Ors, (2021) 4 SCC 631
31
Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 631

retired from the service.”

[3.2.11] It is submitted that in a similar case of Dilip v. State of Maharashtra32, the
Supreme Court held that “We are of opinion that the claim made by the appellants for the
relaxation of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be the wards on children or
relatives of the police officers has got to be negatived since their claim is based on 'descent"
only, and others will thereby be discriminated against as they do not happen to be the sons of
police officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment off the grounds of
descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional. The appellants have not shown that they
were otherwise eligible to be recruited as Constables in the absence of the order of
relaxation on which they relied. Hence, they cannot succeed."
[3.3] Absence of proper governance in the National Wrestling Board of Nahira
[3.3.1] It is humbly submitted there is a complete lack of proper governance currently in

the National Wrestling Board of Nahira and due to this, rights of wrestlers from different
ethnic groups are being violated.
[3.3.2] It is humbly submitted that in an article titled Need for an Independent
Regulatory Authority in Sports (Sports Regulatory Authority of Nahira) 33, it was stated
that, “The Nahiran Olympics Association has been a sports organization in Nahira, which
was in the news as its constitution was not complying with the provisions of the Sports
Development Code of the lo government. Similar goes for the National Wrestling Board of
Nahira (NWB) and some other sports boards which have been recently in news for lack of
proper governance. The question which is raised by this news is could this have been avoided
or at least tackled efficiently by a regulatory authority of sports whose primary role is
governing sports in India.”……… “Recently what happened with the National Wrestling
Board of Nahira, where the issues were not properly dealt with and our athletes had to take
this as a protest instead of getting a just and proper procedure. Though the issue was finally
settled when Delhi police acknowledged and registered the chargesheet against ex- NWB
chief but they will never forget how they were treated by the administration which furthers
our need for a new sports governance model for Nahiran sports.”
[3.3.3] In the case of Bharatpur District Wrestling Association v. Chairman,
Rajasthan State Sports Council34, dispite the order of the court, illegal elections were being
32
Dilip v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 Mh.L.J
33
Aditya Singh Raghav, Need for an Independent Regulatory Authority in Sports (Sports Regulatory Authority
of Nahira), 3.1 GSPR (2023) 35, 35-36, 41 (2023).
34
Bharatpur District Wrestling Association v. Chairman, Rajasthan State Sports Council, 2015 SCC ONLINE
Raj 6227

conducted in a state wrestling association and National Wrestling Board of Nahira were
allowing those persons to be the representatives of that state wrestling association.
PRAYER
Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the light of facts and circumstances
of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent prays
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following:
1. That to hold that the writ of mandamus is maintainable on the merits of the case and is
valid under Article 32 of The Nahiran Constitution.
2. That the specialised company Catcher Pvt Ltd. is a private entity performing public
functions and hence has an appropriate authority to exercise writ jurisdiction against.
3. That NWB has acted in the express violation of the powers conferred on it and hence
has caused violation of fundamental rights of players from Bolam community.
AND
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
All of which is most respectfully prayed and humbly submitted.


Alliance University Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alliance University Moot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alliance University Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-25

JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE NATIONAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF NAHIRA

MR QUANKAR BOLAM AND ORS

MR ORRY NAKU (PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WRESTLING BOARD) AND

CIVIL WP- /___/24

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

S.NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG.NO.

[1.4] Test Of ‘Reasonable Restriction’ 18

[2.3] Maintainability of writ against private entity. 19

WHETHER HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ZAHURA ERRED IN

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

2. A.I.R. All India Reporter

6. Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure

7. Cri.LJ Criminal Law Journal

10. Guj. Gujarat

11. HP Himachal Pradesh

13. ILR Indian Law Reporter

14. IPC Indian Penal Code

15. Comm’n Commission

17. Crim. Criminal

18. Doc. Document

21. Econ. Economic

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

22. Edn. Edition

23. No. Number

24. Pat. Patna

25. Pg. Page No.

26. r/w Read with

28. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

30. Tri. Tripura

32. Id. Ibidem

33. u/s Under section

34. Intl. International

35. UOI Union of India

36. No. Number

37. Ors. Others

38. UP Uttar Pradesh

39. Para. Paragraph

40. Vol. Volume

41. r/w Read with

42. Rep. Report

44. Sess. Session

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

45. TC Trial Chamber

47. WADA World Anti-Doping Agency

48. U.N.T.S. United Nations Treaty Series

49. u/a Under article

50. u/s Under Section

51. UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights

52. UN United Nations

53. UNCAT United Nations Convention Against Torture

58. UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution

59. VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

2 HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. V. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA AND ORS

3 RAMDAS ATHAWALE V. UNION OF INDIA

4 STATE OF MADRAS V. V.G. ROW

5 BODHISATTAWA V. SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY

6 FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION (REGD.) SINDRI V. UOI