COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2020.

AMCC 22

Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot Court

Competition, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _/2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DINDA)

THE MONITOR SOCIETY…………………………………………… PETITIONER

~Versus~

UNION OF DINDA…………………………………………………......
RESPONDENT
AND
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO._/2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DINDA)

CENTRE FOR HEALTH AND HYGIENE (CHH)…………………….. PETITIONER

~Versus~

UNION OF DINDA………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

UPON HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

JUSTICE OF DINDA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
MEMORIALforPETITIONERS Page |i
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. LIST OF CASES
II. LIST OF STATUTES
III. LIST OF BOOKS CITED
IV. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES
V. LIST OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…
ISSUE I:WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA?
ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DUE TO THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE CHH?
ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE WAS DENIAL OF ACCESS OF HEALTH CARE
LEADING TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH WHICH IS FUNADAMENTAL TO
ANY HUMAN BEING?
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE MONITOR SOCIETY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
TARGETTED FOR THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 VIRUS AND THERE IS A MALICE IN
STATE’S ACTIONS?
ISSUE V: WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE MONITOR SOCIETY
AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?
PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIO EXPANSIONS
NS
& And
¶ Paragraph Number
A.C Appeal Cases
AIR All India Reporter
C.B.I Central Bureau of
Investigation
Co. Company
LJ Law Journal
LR Law Report
Ltd. Limited
M.P Madhya Pradesh
NCT National Capital Territory
P.I.L Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
SCC Supreme Court Cases
CHH Centre for Health and Hygiene
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. LIST OF CASES

SL. NAME OF THE CASE CITATIONS

NO.
1950 SCR 88: AIR
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
1950 SC 27
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. (2001) 2 SCC 62:
2. 2000
Naydu
Supp (3) JT 322
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West
3. (2004) 3 SCC 349
Bengal
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
4. AIR 1984 SC 802
India

5. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 1988 Supp. (1) SCC 1

6. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 SCC 722

7. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1336

8. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. (1986) 4 SCC 753

9. BholanathTripathi v. State of U.P. (1990) Supp. SCC

151

Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh

10. 1990) 4 SCC 449
Samiti v. State of U.P.
AIR 1951 SC 41:
11. Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India 1950
SCR 869
Common Cause, a Registered Society v.
12. (1999) 6 SCC 667
Union of India
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen
13. (2006) 8 SCC 399
Association v. Union of India
Consumer Education & Research
14. Centre (1995) 3 SCC 42

v. Union of India
15. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305

16. D.T.C v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101

17. Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363

18. Gauri Shankar v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 349

19. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148

20. Kusum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180

21. Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil AIR 1988 SC 1274

Nadu
M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India &
22. (2006) 8 SCC 212
Ors.
23. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086:

Maharashtra University of Health

24. (2010) 3 SCC 786
Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal

25. Mahon v. Air New Zealand [1984] AC 808

Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of
26. AIR 1952 SC 27
Punjab
27. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Nareinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of
28. (2002) 2 SCC 210
India

29. Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614

30. Omkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673

People’s Union for Democratic Rights
31. v. AIR 1982 SC 1473

Union of India
32. Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1733
Rajasthan State Road Transport
33. (2009) 4 SCC 299
Corporation v. Bal MukundBairwa (2)

34. Ranji Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 658

35. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124

AIR 1982 SC 149:
36. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
1981 Supp. SCC 87
(2005) 5 SCC 665:
37. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India AIR
2005 SC 2920
38. Shabnam v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 702

39. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

AIR 1986 SC 1773:
40. Sheela Barse v. Union of India
(1986) 3 SCC 59
Society for Unaided Private Schools of
41. (2012) 6 SCC 1 (32)
Rajasthan v. Union of India
42. State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. (2000) 9 SCC 572
Civil Appeal Nos.
43. State of Kerala v. B.Surendra Das
3196- 98/ 2014

44. State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh (1967) 2 SCR 454

45. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83

State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal
46. AIR 1954 SC 92
Bose

47. Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682

AIR 1987 SC 990:
48. Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of
India (1987) 2 SCC 165
 AIR 1989 S.C.
49. Parmanand Katara v Union of India 2039

(1996) AIR 
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity v. SC 2426/ 4 SCC
50.
State Of West Bengal & Anr 37
AIR 1995 SC 922
51. Consumer education and research
centre vs Union of India
28 January, 2000- 2
52. The Chairman, Railway Board & Others vs SCC 46
Mrs. Chandrima Das & Others

Manipur Human Rights Commission vs

53.
State Of Manipur And Ors.
II. LIST OF STATUTES

III. SL. STATUT

NO. ES
LIST
1. The Constitution of India, 1949 OF
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The National Security Act, 1980
4. Disaster Management Act, 2005
5. Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

BOOKS
SL TITLE OF BOOK AUTHOR EDITION YEA
. R
N
O.
1 Principles of M.P. Jain &
. 6th Edition 2015
Administrative Law S.N. Jain
2 Indian Constitutional M.P. Jain 7th Edition 2016
. Law
3 Commentary on the Dr.Durga
. Das 8th Edition 2010
Constitution of India
Basu
4 Constitutional Law of
. H.M. 4th Edition 2015
India Seervai
5 Constitution of India V.N. Shukla 12th Edition 2013
.
6 Constitutional Law of Dr. Subhash
. C. 2nd Edition 2015
India
Kashyap
7 Shorter Constitution of Dr.Durga
. Das 14th Edition 2015
India
Basu
SL. ONLINE DATABASES
NO.
2. Indian Kanoon https:(//indiankanoon.org/)
3. SCC Online (www.scconline.in)
4. Wikipedia( https://www.wikipedia.org/)
5. The Judgement Information System (http://www.judis.nic.in)
IV. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES

V. LIST OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

SL. TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

N
O.
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. International Health Regulations, 2005
 STATEMENT OF

THE MONITOR SOCIETY V. UNION OF DINDA

It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 321 of the Constitution of Dinda.

CENTRE FOR HEALTH AND HYGIENE (CHH) V. UNION OF DINDA

It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 321 of the Constitution of Dinda.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted and clubbed all the above petitions and the
same is listed for hearing.

Article 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part:(1) The right to move the Supreme
1

Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or 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 clauses (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

I. EXORDIUM

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute

respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first known case was identified in the
city of Chugian in December 2019. The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an
ongoing pandemic. Chugian, a city in Chang, failed to share any details of the virus with the
outside world and asserted that there was no evidence of its human-to-human transmission. In
the Capital of Chang, local authorities started reporting few cases and its neighboring countries
started reporting cases of COVID-19 after which they were forced to go under a lockdown.
On 11th March 2020, WHO declared it to be a pandemic. About 1.5 million people were
infected and 85,000 lost their lives to the pandemic, by the 1st week of April 2020. With no
vaccine in place, the world economy had crippled due to the lockdown that had to be imposed
across countries.

II. THE MONITOR SOCIETY V. UNION OF DINDA

The Monitor Society an independent minority religious institution conducted an event of

almost 2000 people within their own premises on 13th of March, 2020 at a time when the
government of Dinda had started cancelling all activities in mass gathering. It was reported
across national media that it appeared that The Monitor Society’s members were spreading
the virus in the country as there were instances of them defying the lockdown and also non-
declaration of travel history. An FIR is filed against Ross, the head of the monitor society,
and 7 others leaders under The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 3 and Dinda Penal
Code, 1860, Ss. 269, 270, 271 and 120B. Also, relevant provisions of the National Security
Act, 1980 were invoked against the members as it was alleged that they were non co-
operative with the state departments and health officials. Resultantly, they created terror by
contributing to the spread of disease to remote areas of the State and thus infecting more
people.
Times of Dinda, one of the most circulated newspaper of the country claimed in its report that
it had traced links of the monitor society with terror activities in the past and flouting the visa
guidelines. Members of the monitor society filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court
stating that this is discrimination.
 III CENTRE FOR HEALTH AND HYGIENE (CHH) V. UNION OF DIDNA

The second wave of the pandemic hit the country while the Government of Dinda was projecting
that it has tackled the first wave of the pandemic successfully and is creating robust infrastructure
to tackle the second wave of the pandemic. The pandemic crumbled the existing healthcare system
and exposed the reality. There was a lack of beds in the hospitals, no adequate infrastructure for
hospitals, patients and doctors, lack of national hospital admission policy, scarcity of oxygen in
hospital leading to thousands of deaths, unavailability of vaccines.
Centre for Health and Hygiene (CHH), a non-governmental organization conducted a study on
violation of health and labour rights during the pandemic. Based on its study, CHH raised concerns
about the violation of human and labour rights during the lockdown and pandemic, it filed a Public
Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court to act for such strict measures adopted by the
government challenging the constitutional validity of the Order and the subsequent actions by the
government which imposed the nationwide lockdown and denied better access to healthcare and
medication inter alia on the following grounds and also requested the Supreme Court of Dinda to
issue directions to the government of Dinda to release the Monitor Society members and workers
who have been in police custody and to direct payment of compensation to the families of those
workers who died while travelling back to their hometowns or died while in police custody.
 PRERORATION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted and clubbed all the above petitions and the same is listed for
hearing.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

DUE TO THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE CHH?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THERE WAS DENIAL OF ACCESS OF HEALTH CARE LEADING

TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ANY
HUMAN BEING?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE MONITOR SOCIETY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TARGETTED

FOR THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 VIRUS AND THERE IS A MALICE IN
STATE’S ACTIONS?

ISSUE V

WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE MONITOR SOCIETY

AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?
 Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA?

The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ means a legal action initiated in a Court of law
for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. A right without a remedy does not have much substance. The Fundamental
Rights guaranteed by the Constitution would have been worth nothing had the Constitution
has not provided an effective mechanism for their enforcement. In the first matter, there was
unreasonable discrimination against the petitioner thus violating their Article 14. In the
second matter, there were several violations of fundamental rights enshrined under Part III
of the Constitution. The third matter concerns the violation of right to health as envisaged
under Article 21 and thus all the petitions are maintainable.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS DUE TO THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE CHH?

The object of Art. 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the State save in
accordance with law, and incompliance with the provisions thereof. Before a person is
deprived of his life and personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly
followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. The right
to free movement is a fundamental right enshrined to the citizens under part III of the
constitution of Dinda. Article 19 provides the right to citizens of Dinda, under (1)(d):”to
move freely throughout the territory of Dinda”.Imposing violation on citizens under Article
19(5) citing general public interest as reason is abstract in nature. It is always better to leave
the discretion upon the citizens and legitimately ask them to refrain from freedom rather
than forcing it upon them by law. Article 19 is coextensive with Articles 14 and 21, and
violation of one leads to the violation of the other two.

SACSC
 Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE WAS DENIAL OF ACCESS OF HEALTH CARE

LEADING TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL
TO ANY HUMAN BEING?

The Constitution incorporates provisions guaranteeing everyone’s right to the highest

attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen. The Supreme Court has held that the
right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, derives from the directive
principles of state policy and therefore includes protection of health. Further, it has also been
held that the right to health is integral to the right to life and the government has a
constitutional obligation to provide health facilities.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE MONITOR SOCIETY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN

TARGETTED FOR THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 VIRUS AND THERE IS MALICE IN
STATE’S ACTIONS?
Article 14 of the Constitution of Dinda reads as under: “The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Even though similar violations were reported from other parts of the country by members of
other social, political, and religious groups, NSA was not invoked in those cases and that this
seems to be discriminatory and hints the malice in the State’s action.

ISSUE V: WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE MONITOR

SOCIETY AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?

Art.14 strikes at arbitrary state action, both administrative and legislative. Article 14
protects us from both legislative and administrative tyranny of discrimination. A basic and
obvious test to be applied in cases where administrative action is attacked as arbitrary is to
see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so,
does it really satisfy the taste of reasonableness. Actions taken against the monitor society
were without any evidence and proof. The only source which was relied upon was the
national media and the Times of Dinda, one of the most circulated newspaper of the country
which claimed that it had traced links of the monitor society with terror activities in the past
and flouting the visa guidelines. This cannot be based upon to take the actions of arresting
its members and impose NSA

SACSC
 Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF DINDA?

It is the humble contention on behalf of the petitioner that the clubbed petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Dinda are maintainable. The petitioners respectfully submit
the following to affirm the maintainability of the cases before the Court, that:-

{I.A.} The petitioner possesses the required locus standi to file the instant petition.
[1.] The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ means a legal action initiated in a Court of law
for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected.2 The judiciary has now make it clear3, that a writ petition may be moved not
only by an aggrieved individual but also by a public spirited individual4 or a social action
group, for the enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights. 5 Even where no particular
person has been legally injured but a public injury has been caused by the violation of a
constitutional principle6, any person who is likely to be affected by such public injury would
be allowed to complain of such violation. 7This Hon’ble Court in a plethora of cases, 8 has
observed that, “any member of public acting bona fide and having interest can maintain an
action for public wrong or injury to put judicial machinery in motion.”

2
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West
Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, 356: AIR 2004 SC 280; Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614, 619; Dr. B.
Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, 371: AIR 2004 SC 1923.
3
State of H.P. v. A parent of a student of Medical College, Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910: (1985) 3 SCC 169; D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130: (1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 (1) LLJ 104; Confederation of Ex-
Servicemen Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399: AIR 2006 SC 2945.
4
UpendraBaxi v. State of U.P., (1981) 3 SCALE 1136 (SC): (1983) 2 SCC 308; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,
AIR 1982 SC 149: 1981 Supp. SCC 87; Fertilizer Corporation, Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
344: (1981) 1 SCC 658: 1981 (1) LLJ 193; Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773: (1986) 3 SCC
596; Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579: (1987) 1 SCC 378; Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of
India, AIR 1987 SC 990: (1987) 2 SCC 165; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086: (1987) 1 SCC
395; People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi, (1989) 4 SCC 730.
5
BholanathTripathi v. State of U.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 151; Shenoy K. Ramdas v. Chief Officer, Town
Municipality Council, Udipi, AIR 1974 SC 2177: (1974) 2 SCC 506.
6
R. Varadarajan v. Salem Municipality, AIR 1973 Mad. 55: (1972) 2 Mad LJ 485.
7
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149: 1981 Supp. SCC 87; BanwasiSeva Ashram v. State of U.P.,
AIR 1987 SC 374: (1986) 4 SCC 753.
8
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149: 1981 Supp. SCC 87;
.

[2.] The Court can itself take cognizance of the matter and can proceed suo motu or on a
petition of any public spirited individual or body.10 A PIL would only be entertained if a

SACSC
 Alliance University’s- Justice N. Santosh Hegde, National Moot
segment of the public is interested, and the petitioners is not aggrieved in his individual
capacity alone.11The Court would not take the matters in a narrow or technical manner. 12The
Court cannot close its eyes and persuade itself to uphold publicly mischievous actions which
have been so exposed and advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public
mischief are the paramount considerations.13
[3.] The grievance in a public interest action is about the content and conduct of Government
action in relation to the constitutional or statutory rights of segments of society and in certain
circumstances the conduct of Government policies. To facilitate filing of such cases by public
minded citizens, the Court has lowered the “locus standi threshold.”14 The proceedings in
PIL are not adversarial but are of cooperation and collaboration between the State and the
15
Court. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public
interest litigation will certainly have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out
violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions.16

[4.] In the instant cases, there is an unreasonable discrimination against the Society of
preachers therefore, they possess the required locus standi. As, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has suo moto converted the letter into a writ petition, CHH, has the required locus standi and
in the third case, as it is a matter of public concern and the petitioner is a NGO, it works for
public good and therefore, has the required locus standi.

[I.B.] There is utter violation of fundamental rights.

[5.] A right without a remedy does not have much substance. The Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution would have been worth nothing had the Constitution has not
provided an effective mechanism for their enforcement. The Supreme Court has figuratively

10
BodhisattwaGautam v. Subbra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SC 490; Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das,
2000 (2) SCC 465.
11
GuruvayoorDevaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546.
12
Mohd. Islam v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 1,8.
13
Chaitanya Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 825; Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala, (2007) 4
SCC 1, 15: AIR 2007 SC 2891.
14
Ranji Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 658; Chairman & M.D., BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, (2003) 8
SCC 567.
15
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 114 (para 51).
16
DattarajNathujiThaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590;

SACSC
 17
characterized this role of the Judiciary as that of a “sentinel” on the “qui vive”. The
Supreme Court under Article 32(1) can, while considering a petition for the enforcement of a
Fundamental Right, declare an act to be ultra vires, if it adversely affects a Fundamental
Right.18

[6.]Any person who complains of the infraction of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution is at liberty to move to the Supreme Court. The right to apply under
article 32 arises not only where a fundamental right has been actually infringed but also
where a serious threat to infringe it has been offered by the State. Hence it is not necessary to
prove that the petitioner has actually been prejudiced.19A petition under Article 32 will be
entertained if the petitioner can make out a prima facie case that his fundamental rights are
either threatened20 or violated; it is not necessary for him to wait till the actual threat has
taken place.21 Right of access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a fundamental right
itself.22

[7.]In the case of RomeshThappar23, it was held that the Supreme Court is constituted as he
protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights, and it cannot consistently with the
responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain application seeking protection against
infringement of such rights. Supreme Court has characterized the jurisdiction conferred on it
by Article 32 as an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution
because it is meaningless to confer Fundamental Rights without providing an effective
remedy for their enforcement, if and when they are violated. Right without a remedy is a
legal conundrum of a most grotesque kind.24 Violation of a Fundamental Right is sine qua
non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32.25

In the first matter, there was unreasonable discrimination against the petitioner thus violating
their Article 14. In the second matter, there were several violations of fundamental rights
enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The third matter concerns the violation of right to
health as envisaged under Article 21 and thus all the three petitions are maintainable.

17
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196: (1952) SCR 597.
18
Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532: (1959) 1 SCR 265.
19
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531: 1988 Supp. (1) SCC 1.
20
Tata Iron and Steel Company v. S.R. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65 (68): 1961 (1) SCR 379.
21
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261: AIR 1971 SC 1731.
22
Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922,926: 1996 (1) SCC 490; Common Cause, a Registered
Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC at 3020: (1999) 6 SCC 667.
23
RomeshThappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 1954.
24
The Fertilizer Corporation Case, AIR 1981 SC 344,347: (1981) 1 SCC 568.
25
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2544: (2000) 6 SCC 715.

SACSC
 ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DUE TO THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE CHH?

It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that there has been a violation of the Fundamental
rights due to the actions of the Government:-
{II.A} There has been a violation of Article 21 of Constitution of Dinda.

[8.] Life or personal liberty includes right to live with human dignity. 55 It would include all
those aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful 56, worth-living57 and complete.
58
There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. 59It is
the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by taking positive
steps in that direction.60 The object of Art. 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty
by the State save in accordance with law, and incompliance with the provisions thereof. 61 Before
a person is deprived of his life and personal liberty the procedure established by law must be
62
strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. 63
The migrant workers were left to their own means without ensuring their whereabouts and
public good. Millions of migrant workers were affected by the closure of industries and
workplaces, which resulted in the loss of income, food shortages, and uncertainty about their
future. Many of them, as well as their families, starved to death.

53
Mahon v. Air New Zealand, [1984] AC 808, p. 821.
54
M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 212.
55
Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761;
SCC 545; D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101: 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600; Khedat
Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v State of M.P., (1994) 6 SCC 260; Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union
of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
56
State of Karnataka v. State of A.P., (2000) 9 SCC 572.
57
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Naydu, (2001) 2 SCC 62: 2000 Supp (3) JT 322; Chhetriya
Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 2060: (1990) 4 SCC 449;
58
Bd. of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v. Nadkarni Dilip Kumar Raghavendra, AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1
SCC 124.
59
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631, 637: AIR 2005 SC 402.
60
M. Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

SACSC
 {II.B} There has been a violation of Article 19 of Constitution of Dinda.
[9.] It is humbly submitted that the rights contained in Art. 19(1) are those great and basic
rights, which are recognized as the natural rights of every citizen. 64 It is a settled principle of
law that, when violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1) is challenged, the
onus of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the restriction is reasonable lies upon the
state.65

[10.] The right to free movement is a fundamental right enshrined to the citizens under part
III of the constitution of Dinda. Article 19 provides the right to citizens of Dinda, under (1)
(d):”to move freely throughout the territory of Dinda”.Imposing violation on citizens under
Article 19(5) citing general public interest as reason is abstract in nature. It is always better
to leave the discretion upon the citizens and legitimately ask them to refrain from freedom
rather than forcing it upon them by law. Article 19 is coextensive with Articles 14 and 21,
and violation of one leads to the violation of the other two.

61
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88: AIR 1950 SC 27
62
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 368: AIR 1952 SC 27.
63
Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106: 1952 SCR 395.
64
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92.
65
Mohd. Faruk v. State of MP, (1969) 1 SCC 853,

SACSC
 ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE WAS DENIAL OF ACCESS OF HEALTH CARE
LEADING TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL
TO ANY HUMAN BEING?

It is hereby argued that there was denial of access of Healthcare leading to violation of right to
health which is fundamental to any human being and is violating right to life under article 21 
{III A.} There was a denial of Healthcare.

[11.] A large scale unavailability and lack of health infrastructure would amount to denial of
Healthcare specially when it has been very optimistically eloquated on the part of the state that
it is prepared for second wave of the pandemic.66
So clearly quoted in para 13 and 14 of the facts, the union gave instructions to develop
infrastructure and claim to have achieved adequate level of testing surveillance and risk
communication and communicating the prevention measure.
The failure of the state also clearly stated in the report of CHH in para 15 shows inadequacy in
the preparation of the state and hence due to the scale at which it affects the people it can be
termed as denial of Healthcare.67
[12.] In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity v. State Of West Bengal & Anr68, the
Supreme Court of India opined that failure on the part of a government to provide timely
medical treatment to a person in need results in a violation of his right to life guaranteed under
Article 21. The court further stated that the government should ensure the availability of beds
in the hospital in an emergency. There is a tacit constitutional obligation upon the government
to ensure that no person succumbs to death due to lack of oxygen or other indispensable
medical facilities.

66
.  Parmanand Katara v Union of India AIR 1989 S.C. 2039
67
Vincent Panikurlangara vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 March,1987 AIR 990, 1987 SCR (2) 468
68
 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity v. State Of West Bengal & Anr (1996) AIR
SC 2426/ (1996) 4 SCC 37

SACSC
 {III.B} Violation of Right to health which is a fundamental right

[13.] The Constitution incorporates provisions guaranteeing everyone’s right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen. The Supreme Court has held that the
right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, derives from the directive principles
of state policy and therefore includes protection of health.69 Further, it has also been held that
the right to health is integral to the right to life and the government has a constitutional
obligation to provide health facilities.70
[14.] There was a lack of beds in the hospitals, no adequate infrastructure for hospitals,
patients and doctors, lack of national hospital admission policy, scarcity of oxygen in hospital
leading to thousands of deaths, unavailability of vaccines, the production capacity of vaccines,
vaccine pricing and supply of essentials drugs were all in question. There was rampant
hoarding of essential medicines, black marketing of essential drugs and supplies further
degraded the scenario.71

{III C} Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[15.] According to Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other
lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”.72
69

 Paschim Banga Khet Mazoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37
70
Consumer education and research centre vs Union of India AIR 1995 SC 922,
71
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anor.1996 AIR SC 2426/4 SSC 37
72
The Chairman, Railway Board & Others vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Others 28 January, 2000- 2 SCC 46 ;
Manipur Human Rights Commission vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 23 January, 2007

[18.] In a similar case of Tablighi Zamat, many High Courts Acquitted the members of
SACSC
 ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE MONITOR SOCIETY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
TARGETTED FOR THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 VIRUS AND THERE IS MALICE
IN STATE’S ACTIONS?

[16.] The members of Monitor society have been targeted for the spread of covid-19. The
facts of the case clearly states that in spite of many similar incidents and Mass organised
congregations taking place only members of monitor society were booked. Please refer to
Para 11 of the facts which says:even though similar violations were reported from other parts
of the country by members of other social, political, and religious groups, NSA was not
invoked in those cases and that this is discrimination.

[17.] The action of state seems to be clearly motivated by media report and in the case of
Lakshmi Raj Shetty vs state of Tamil Nadu SC said that judicial notice of the facts stated in
news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless evidence proved by
evidence aliunde and there are no proof supporting those media reports and hence they cannot
be considered reliable.
There was a malice state's action the very fact as stated in para 11 of the facts that member of
other such congregation was not book and that of monitor society were, hints a
discriminatory action on the part of state and hints malice.

religious organization and the SC of India appreciated those decisions and stated that, there
should be no inconvenience caused to members of those religious groups and they should be
assisted by state to return to their native place.

SACSC
 ISSUE V: WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE MONITOR
SOCIETY AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?
It is humbly argued that the actions taken against THE MONITOR SOCIETY were
discriminatory and unreasonable violating their rights enshrined under Art. 14 under Part III
of the Constitution.

{V.A} The actions taken against the monitor society were manifestly arbitrary and led to
unreasonable discrimination.

[19.] Rule of Law which permits the fabric of Indian Constitution excludes arbitrariness.
Every state action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable, otherwise, the court would strike it
down as invalid.26 The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights
chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule
of law would violate Article 14.27 The decision making process should be transparent, fair and
28
open. Reasonableness and fairness are the heart and soul of the Article 14 of the
Constitution.29 Reasonable and non-arbitrary exercise of discretion is an inbuilt requirement
of law and any unreasonableness or arbitrary exercise of it violates Article 14. 30 Any action
taken against a person without application of mind involving Fundamental Rights will be
annulled as an arbitrary exercise of power.31

[20.]Art.14 strikes at arbitrary state action, both administrative and legislative. 32 Article 14
protects us from both legislative and administrative tyranny of discrimination. 33 A basic and
obvious test to be applied in cases where administrative action is attacked as arbitrary is to
see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so,
does it really satisfy the taste of reasonableness. 34 It is now considered that non-compliance
35
with the rules of natural justice amounts to arbitrariness violating Art.14. In fact, the
concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades through the entire constitutional

26
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
27
ShayaraBano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
28
Dutta Associates Private Limited v. Indo Merchantiles Private Limited, (1997)1 SCC 53.
29
Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672, 692.
30
ShrilekhaVidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 : AIR 1991 SC 537.
31
OmkarLal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673.
32
BashesharNath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 528.
33
State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh, (1967) 2 SCR 454.
34
Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437: AIR 2003 SC 3983.
35
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Bal MukundBairwa (2), (2009) 4 SCC 299, 317; 2009 2 JT 423.

SACSC
 scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the
Constitution.36
[21.] In ShayaraBano v. Union of India &Ors.,37 the Hon’ble Court held: “The expression
‘arbitrarily’ means; in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure,
without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not
done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will done.” If that
correlation is not established, surely the rule will suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, and
therefore will be hit by Art.14.38
In the instant case, it is humbly submitted that, even though similar violations were reported
from other parts of the Country by members of other social, political, religious groups, NSA
was not invoked against them and actions were not taken which shows that there was an
unjustified discrimination as to why only against THE MONITOR SOCIETY, such actions
were taken.
{V.B} The actions taken against THE MONITOR SOCIETY violated their rights
under Article 14
[22.] Article 14 prescribes equality before law. Right to equality has been recognized as a
basic feature of the Constitution.39 Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection
of the law doesn’t mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to
all persons in spite of difference in circumstances or conditions. 40 The principle of equality of
law thus means not that the same law should apply to everyone but that a law should deal
alike with all in one class; that there should be an equality of treatment under equal
circumstances. It means that equals should not be treated unlike. The authorities are required
to act fairly and strictly in terms of the norms laid down and their action in this behalf must
satisfy the tests of Article 14 and 21.41 Article 14 essentially requires the observance of the
principles of natural justice.42
[23.] All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and
liabilities imposed.43The principle of equality of law means that the law should deal alike
with all in one class; that there should be an equality of treatment under equal circumstances.
It means that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not be treated alike.

36
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248: (1978) 2 SCR 621, RamanaDayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628: (1979) 3 SCC 489: (1979) 3 SCR 1014,
D.T.C v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101: 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: (1990) Supp 1 SCR 142.
37
(2017) 9 SCC 1.
38
State of Kerala v. B.Surendra Das, Civil Appeal Nos. 3196- 98/ 2014.
39
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1: (2006) 8 SCC 212.
40
ChiranjeetLal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41: 1950 SCR 869.
41
Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar ,(2003) 2 SCC 721 : AIR 2003 SC 858
42
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398: AIR 1985 SC 1416.
SACSC
 43
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902: (2003) 6 SCC 611.

SACSC
 Likes should be treated alike.44 It is pledge of protection of equal rights, that is, laws that
operate alike on all persons under like circumstances.45
[24.] In the instant matter, an arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination shall attract the vice
of Article 14 as the said article ensures the clause of equality before law and equal protection
of law which has not been followed in the instant matter.
{V.C} The newspaper report is a piece of hearsay evidence.
[25.] Judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay
secondary evidence, unless evidence proved by evidence aliunde.46 Newspaper reports by
47
themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. A newspaper is not one of the
documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872.48 Statements attributed
based on the newspaper report are mere hearsay and the presumption of genuineness attached
to a newspaper cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein as a statement of a fact
contained in a newspaper is only hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence. 49 It is too
much to attribute authenticity or credibility to any information or fact merely because it found
publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication, as
though it is gospel truth. It needs no iteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute
50
legally acceptable evidence. Newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their
authenticity do not constitute evidence.51
[26.] Actions taken against THE MONITOR SOCIETY were without any evidence and
proof. The only source which was relied upon was the national media and the Times of
Dinda, one of the most circulated newspaper of the country which claimed that it had traced
links of the THE MONITOR SOCIETY with terror activities in the past and flouting the visa
guidelines. This cannot be based upon to take the actions of arresting its members and impose
NSA.
{V.D} The actions taken violated “wednessburry unreasonableness” and “doctrine of
guided power.”

[27.] In the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury

Corporation,52 wherein it was held that the Court has all the power to examine whether the

44
Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 349.
45
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682.
46
Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274: (1988) 3 SCR 706 (735): 1988 Cr LJ 1783.
47
Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1733.
48
Act (1) of 1872.
49
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 Punj 215: (1961) 1 Cr LJ 710: 63 PLR 794.
50
Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1923: 2004 AIR SCW 1494: (2004) 3 SCC 363.
51
KusumLata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180; Holicow Pictures (Private) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra,
(2007) 14 SCC 281.
52
[1948] 1 KB 223.
SACSC
 authority while taking any decision has taken into account those facts which ought to have
been considered for a reasoned and coherent decision. Justice Diplock while delivering the
judgment of the Privy Council in Mahon v. Air New Zealand, while answering a question
relating to the quality of material to support a finding by an authority, held that a finding must
be based on some material which tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent
with the finding.53
[28.] Equality is not violated by mere conferment of discretionary power. It is violated by
arbitrary exercise by those on whom it is conferred. This is the theory of “guided power”.
This theory is based on the assumption that in the event of arbitrary exercise by those on
whom the power is conferred, would be corrected by the Courts.54

SACSC
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:

1. That the present Writ Petitions are maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Dinda;

2. That, there has been a discrimination against Society of Preachers and thus set aside all
the actions taken against them;

3. That, there has been violation of Fundamental rights as a result of the lockdown, and
therefore issue a writ in favour of the CHH;

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the
petitioners shall be duty bound as ever pray.

Place: S/d

Date: COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

SACSC