MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS TABLE 249C-ONTENTS

T OF RESPONDENT

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DIANA

IN THE MATTER OF –

PUBLIC INTER LITIGATION No._________/2021

FREEDOM FOR ALL ……………………. PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF DIANA AND STATE OF ARIANA …………. RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
I
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF C ONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................... V

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... XVI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................. XVIII

SUMMARY OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ XIX

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... XXI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... XXII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................... 1

ISSUE (1): THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY FREEDOM FOR ALL UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF DIANA IS MAINTAINABLE? ........................................................................ 1

A. THE PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI ..................................................................... 1

B. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATE REMEDIES ............................... 2

C. THE PETITIONER HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BACKING .......................................................... 2

ISSUE (2): THE EAA, 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIANA ... 3

A. THE EAA, 2021 MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEST OF PROPORTIONALITY 3

1. THE ACTION IS SANCTIONED BY LAW ............................................................................. 3

2. THE ACTION IS NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY FOR A LEGITIMATE AIM.......... 5

3. EXTENT OF INTERFERENCE IS RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO THE LEGITIMATE AIM ...... 6

4. THERE IS NO EQUALLY EFFECTIVE, LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE AND

THE ACTION IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE AIM .......................................................................... 8

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
II
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. THE AMENDMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER ART. 21 . 10

C. THE EAA, 2021 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 .................................................. 11

D. LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE EA, 1897 .................................................................... 12

ISSUE (3): THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE STATE OF ARIANA IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
INTRA VIRES TO THE EA, 1897................................................................................................ 14

A. THE SAID REGULATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POWERS ACCORDED TO THE
STATE LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................ 14

1. THE SAID REGULATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AND NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE
CONSTITUTION ....................................................................................................................... 14

2. THERE ARE SUFFICIENT PRECEDENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY

VACCINATION NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY .......................................................... 16

B. THE SAID REGULATION IMPOSES REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO

MOVEMENT AND TRADE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 19 .................................................... 17

C. THE SAID REGULATION SATISFIES THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF DIANA .................................................................................................... 19

1. THE CLASSIFICATIONS CREATED BY THE STATE ARE REASONABLE ............................. 19

2. THE SAID REGULATION IS PROPORTIONAL AND NOT ARBITRARY OR EXCESSIVE ........ 20

D. THE SAID REGULATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF DIANA .................................................................................................... 22

1. ENSURING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF THE MAJORITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE

GOVERNMENT ........................................................................................................................ 23

2. THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY

LAW 24

E. THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ..... 24

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition III
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. XXIV

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition IV
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT CASES

Abdul Hakim Quraishi v State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448. _________________________ 5

Abhudhya Sanstha v Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145. ____________________________ 2

Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246. _________ 5

Anita Kushwaha v Pushpa Sadan, AIR 2016 SC 3506. ____________________________ 23

Ankul Chandra Pradhan v Union of India, ( 1997 ) 6 SCC 1.________________________ 20

Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India & Ors, (2020) 3 SCC 637. _______________________ 9

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union Of India & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 454 _____________ 25

Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 _____________________ 1

Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents & Ors. v Union Of India,
(2019) 8 SCC 607. ________________________________________________________ 23

Balco Employees' Union v Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333 __________________ 1

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161. ________________________ 5

Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39. _________ 18

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni, (1983)

1 SCC 124 ______________________________________________________________ 23

Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India & Ors, (2012) 6 SCC 502. ________________________ 23

Budhan Choudhry And Ors v The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 __________________ 11

C.E.S.C. Ltd. Etc v Subhash Chandra Bose & Ors, (1992) 1 SCC 441 ________________ 24

Canara Bank v V. K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321. ________________________________ 8

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition V
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Chameli Singh v State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549 ________________________________ 23

Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118. _____________________ 18

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v The Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 ____________________ 11

Common Cause v Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 338 _____________________________ 25

Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v State of Nagaland, (2006)
1 SCC 496. _______________________________________________________________ 2

Consumer Education and Research Center v Association of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42. _____ 10

Cooverjee B. Bharucha v The Excise Commissioner & The Chief Commissioner, Ajmer &
Ors, AIR 1954 SC 220 _____________________________________________________ 18

CPIO v Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.____________________________ 8

Dalip Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114 ____________________________ 2

Devika Vishwas v Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726_____________________________ 24

Dr N.B. Khare v The State of Delhi; 1950 AIR SC 211 ____________________________ 18

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v Director, Cbi & Anr, (2010) 10 SCC 331. ________________ 21

Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, (1981) 1 SCC
608 ____________________________________________________________________ 23

Hamdard Dawakhana v Union of India And Ors, 1960 AIR SC 554. _________________ 12

Harnam Singh v RTA, 1954 AIR SC 190. ______________________________________ 20

Harshal N. Mirashi v The State of Maharashtra And Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1200/2000. _______________________________________________________________ 2

Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd v Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors, AIR. 2008 SC 913. ___________ 1

In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies And Services (2021) SCCOnline SC 411. ______ 13

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition VI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Janata Dal v HS Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305. __________________________________ 1

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.____________________ 3

K.D. Sharma v SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 _______________________________________ 2

K.R. Srinivas v R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620. ______________________________ 1

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42 _________________________ 24

Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1159. ________________________ 2

Kharak Singh v State of UP, (1994) 3 SCC 569. _________________________________ 24

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304. __________________ 21

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd v Employees State Insurance Corpn, (1996) 2 SCC 682._________ 10

Kushum Lata v Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180 ________________________________ 1

Laxmi Khandsari Etc v State Of U.P. & Ors (1981) 2 SCC 600. _____________________ 18

M. C. Mehta v Union of India & Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 395. ___________________________ 4

M. J. Sivani v State of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 289. ________________________ 23

M. Krishna Swami v Union Of India & Ors AIR 1993 SC 1407.______________________ 1

M.C. V. S. Arunachala Nadar Etc v The State of Madras & Ors, 1959 AIR SC 300.______ 18

M.J. Sivani & Ors v State Of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 289. __________________ 18

M/S. Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame & Ors (1990) 1 SCC 520. ________ 23

Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v State Of Maharashtra, 1979 SCR (1) 192. ___________ 24

Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 SC 634 ________ 18

Mahant Moti Das v S. P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 942. _________________________________ 9

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition VII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Maharashtra Land Development Corpn. & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Anr, (2011) 15 SCC
616. ____________________________________________________________________ 3

Maneka Gandhi v Union Of India (1978) SCC 1 248 _____________________________ 23

Milk Producers Association, Orissa & Ors v State of Orissa & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 229. ___ 24

Minerva Mills Ltd & Ors v Union of India & Ors, (1980) 2 SCC 591. _________________ 5

Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors v State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353. ____ 3

Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors v The State Of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731. _______________ 25

Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai, (1986) 3 SCC 20. __ 5

N.K.Bajpai v Union of India & Anr, (2012) 4 SCC 653. ___________________________ 17

Narendra Kumar & Ors v The Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1960 SC 430. ______________ 18

Olga Tellis & Ors v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, (1985) SCC 3 545 ________ 23

Om Kumar & Ors v Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386. ____________________________ 8

Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N, (2002) 3 SCC 533 ___________________________ 15

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37. _____________ 10

Prakash Nath Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 9 SCC 686 ____________ 15

Rajeev Suri v Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7. ___________ 2

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority of India & Ors, (1979) 3 SCC
489. ___________________________________________________________________ 19

Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 740 ________________ 24

Ramjas Foundation v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 ____________________________ 1

Ramji Lal Modi v The State Of U.P, AIR 1957 SC 620. ___________________________ 25

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition VIII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India, 5 SCC 1 (2012) ___________ 17

Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163. ______________________ 2

Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v The State Of Bombay & Ors, AIR 1954 SC 388 ___________ 25

re. Special Courts Bill 1978, (1979) 1 SCC 380 __________________________________ 19

Sachidanand Pandey v State of W.B., (1987) 2 SCC 295. ___________________________ 1

Saurabh Chaudhari v Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 __________________________ 20

Selvi & Ors v State Of Karnataka & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 263. _______________________ 24

Sharma Transport v Government of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188. _______________________ 21

Shayara Bano v Union of India & Ors, (2017) 9 SCC 1. ___________________________ 21

Sheela Barse & Ors v Union of India & Ors, (1986) 3 SCC 596 _____________________ 23

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v Union Of India, (1974) 1 SCC 468. ____________________ 18

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR SC 538. ___________ 12

SP Anand Indore v H.D. Deve Gowda & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 734. _____________________ 2

State of A.P. & Ors v McDowell & Co. & Ors, (1996) 3 SCC 709 ___________________ 21

State of Gujarat v Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd), (2013) 3 SCC 1. ____________ 15

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v Umed Ram Sharma & Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 602. _______ 4

State Of M.P v Rakesh Kohli & Anr (2012) 6 SCC 312. ___________________________ 21

State of Madras v V.G. Row, Union of India & State of Travancore-Cochin, 1952 AIR SC
196. ____________________________________________________________________ 6

State of Mysore & Anr v P. Narasinga Rao, 1968 1 SCR 407 _______________________ 20

State of Punjab & Ors v Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83 __________________ 10

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition IX
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

State Of Punjab & Ors v Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc, (1998) 4 SCC 117. ________________ 10

Sunil Poddar v Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326 ____________________________ 2

The State of Bombay v F. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 ___________________________ 11

The State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. ____________________ 11

Union of India v Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277. ___ 15

Vincent Panikurlangara v Union Of India & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 165. __________________ 4

STATUTES

Chennai Municipal Corporation Act 1919. _____________________________________ 16

Compulsory Vaccination Act 1892 ___________________________________________ 16

Disaster Management Act 2005, s 34. _________________________________________ 18

Drugs And Cosmetics Act 1940, s 26(b). _______________________________________ 11

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1977. ____________________________________ 16

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 2005. __________________________ 9

Punjab Vaccination Act 1953. _______________________________________________ 16

The Cantonments Act 2006. _________________________________________________ 16

The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. ____________________________________ 16

The Epidemic Diseases (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act 1984. __________________ 16

The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949. ______________________________ 16

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Art. 25(1). __________________________ 10

Vaccination Act 1880. _____________________________________________________ 16

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition X
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

HIGH COURT CASES

Anand Parkash v Bharat Bhushan Rai & Anr, AIR 1981 P&H 269. __________________ 12

Arjun Aggarwal v Union of India And Anr, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 642. _______________ 2

Dr. Raghava Menon v Health Inspector, Koduvayur, 1972 SCC OnLine Ker 115. _______ 25

J. Choudhury v The State, 1963 SCC OnLine Ori 25. _____________________________ 16

N. Prakash S/o. A. Narayana Rao v State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to

Government of Kerala & Ors 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1570. ________________________ 18

Saurabh Sharma v Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1530. _ 15

The State Of Bombay v Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84. _____________________ 25

CANADIAN CASE LAW

Her Majesty the Queen v David Edwin Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103. ____________________ 3

Schneider v the Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 112. ______________________________________ 4

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India Arts. 42 ________________________________________________ 14

Constitution of India, Art. 14. ________________________________________________ 6

Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(d) ___________________________________________ 17

Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g). ___________________________________________ 17

Constitution of India, Art. 19(5) ______________________________________________ 17

Constitution of India, Art. 21 ________________________________________________ 24

Constitution of India, Art. 21. ________________________________________________ 6

Constitution of India, Art. 245. _______________________________________________ 4

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Constitution of India, Art. 246. _______________________________________________ 4

Constitution of India, Art. 25. _______________________________________________ 25

Constitution of India, Art. 304. ______________________________________________ 17

Constitution of India, Art. 39(e). ______________________________________________ 5

Constitution of India, Art. 47. ________________________________________________ 5

Constitution of India, Art.19(6) ______________________________________________ 17

Constitution of India, Arts. 41 _______________________________________________ 14

Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List 2, Entry 6. _______________________________ 4

Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List 3, Entry 29. ______________________________ 4

ENGLISH CASE LAW

R. v Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 ______________________________ 2

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

Arvind P. Datar, Commentary On The Constitution Of India (2nd ed. 2007).____________ 11

Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India (14th ed. 2009). _____________________ 10

Francis Bennion, Bennion on Stautory Interpretation (Version 24, Vol 14, 2010) 442. ____ 15

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India (4th ed. 2010). _________________________ 17

Louis Lasagna, ‘The chilling effect of Product Liability on New Drug Development’ Peter
W. Huber and Ors (ed), The Liability Maze – The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and
Innovation (The Brookings Institution, 1991). ____________________________________ 7

UNITED STATES CASE LAW

Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). __________________________________ 17

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). ___________________________________ 17

Zucht v King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922). ___________________________________________ 17

ACADEMIC PAPERS

15th Finance Commission of India, ‘High Level Group on Health Sector’ (Report, 2019)
<https://fincomindia.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/fincom15/StudyReports/High%20Le
vel%20group%20of%20Health%20Sector.pdf> accessed 14 June 2021.________________ 4

Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge

University Press 2012) 436–437. ______________________________________________ 9

Aparna Chandra, ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?’ (2020) 3(2) University of

Oxford HRHJ <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/U-of-
OxHRH-J-Proportionality-in-India.pdf> accessed 12 June 2021. _____________________ 8

Australian Government Department of Health, ‘National Health Emergency Response

Arrangements’ (Nov 2011) ¶3.2,
<http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-response-arrangement-
nov11-l> accessed 14 June 2021. ______________________________________________ 4

David Bilchitz, ‘Necessity and Proportionality: Towards a Balanced Approach?’ (SSRN,

August 17 2012) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2320437> accessed
11 June 2021. _____________________________________________________________ 8

Evans G, ‘Vaccine injury compensation programs worldwide.’ (Oct 1999)

<https://europepmc.org/article/med/10559532> accessed 14 June 2021. ________________ 7

Guy Miller Struve, ‘The Less-Restrictive-Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process’
(2017) vol 80 no. 7 Harvard Law Review, 1463–1488 <www.jstor.org/stable/1339363>
Accessed 15 June 2021. _____________________________________________________ 9

Jennifer Keelan and Ors, ‘Designing a No-fault Vaccine-injury Compensation Programme for
Canada: Lessons Learned from an International Analysis of Programmes’ (Munk School
Briefings, University of Toronto, 2011) <https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/wp-

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XIII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

content/uploads/2012/07/Keelan-Wilson_NoFaultVaccine_CPHS_2011.pdf> accessed 15
June 2021. _______________________________________________________________ 7

Members' Reference Service Larrdis Lok Sabha Secretariat New Delhi, ‘The Epidemic
Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance’, (Legislative Note (Background) 2020)
<http://164.100.47.193/Refinput/New_Reference_Notes/English/10092020_114427_102120
5239.pdf > accessed 15 June 2021. ___________________________________________ 13

Public Health Service Act 1989, ‘Report of The National Commissions On Orphan Diseases’
103. ____________________________________________________________________ 7

Qiwei Claire Xue and Ors, ‘Innovation policy and the market for vaccines’, (2020) Vol 7
Issue 1 Journal of Law and the Biosciences <https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa026> accessed 13
June 2021. _______________________________________________________________ 7

Randy G. Mungwira and Ors, ‘Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation

programmes for vaccine injuries: a review and survey of implementing countries’ (PLoS
One, 2020) <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233334>
accessed 15 June 2021. _____________________________________________________ 7

Roy G. Spece Jr., ‘The Most Effective or Least Restrictive Alternative as the Only
Intermediate and Only Means-Focused Review in Due Process and Equal Protection’, (1998)
33 Vill. L. Rev. 111 Villanova Law Review
<https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol33/iss1/3> accessed 15 June 2021. _____ 9

Soren Holm, ‘Should persons detained during public health crises receive compensation?’
(2019) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225857483_Should_Persons_Detained_During_P
ublic_Health_Crises_Receive_Compensation> accessed 14 June 2021. _______________ 10

UN Economic and Social Council, (The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation
Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 28 September 1984)
¶22 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/4672bc122.html> accessed 10 June 2021. _________ 5

United Nations General Assembly, ‘The Future We Want’ (Resolution Adopted by the
General Assembly, 27 July 2012)

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XIV
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=%20A/RES/66/288> accessed 8
June 2021. _______________________________________________________________ 5

United Nations Human Rights, ‘Emergency Measures And Covid-19: Guidance’ (27 April
2020) <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf>
accessed 15 June 2021. _____________________________________________________ 5

World Health Organisation, ‘Health promotion in the SDGs Health for all and all for health’
(9th Global Conference on Health Promotion, Shanghai 2016)
<https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/ninth-global-conference>
accessed 11 June 2021. _____________________________________________________ 5

World Health Organisation, ‘Report of the WHO pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine
deployment initiative’ (Geneva 2012)
<https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/h1n1_deployment_report.pdf >
accessed 12 June 2021. _____________________________________________________ 6

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XV
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

¶ Paragraph
& and
A.I.R All India Reporter
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
All E.R. All England Report
Adm’r Administrator
Anr. Another
Art. Article

Ass’n Association
Auth. Authority
Bom. Bombay

Cal. Calcutta
Co. Company
Constr. Construction
Corpn. Corporation
Dec. December
Del. Delhi
Edn. Edition

Educ. Education
EA, 1897 Epidemic Act, 1897
EAA, 2021 Epidemic (Amendment) Act, 2021
Found’n Foundation
FFA Freedom For All
Gov. Government
Guj. Gujarat
H.C. High Court

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
XVI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Honourable

Ibid Ibidem
Int’l International
IPC Indian Penal Code
J&K Jammu and Kashmir
Kar. Karnataka

Ltd. Limited
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Mar March
n Supra
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

No. Number
Ors. Others
PIL Pubic Interest Litigation
P&H Punjab and Haryana
Pvt. Private
Raj. Rajasthan

s Section
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
UK United Kingdom
US United States
v. Versus

w.r.t. With Reference to

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XVII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 32 of the Constitution of Diana which reads as follows:

“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”

The Respondent maintains that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the instant case.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
XVI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
“Union of Diana” (‘Diana’), a democratic republic country in South Asia with 130 crore
people, is the world’s second most populous country. The Constitution of Diana safeguards the
interest of each of its ethnically and religiously diverse groups as it aims to treat everyone at
parity and promote fraternity among all.
1. A pandemic broke out in January 2020 because of the contagious virus called DARSCoV-2
or Doronavirus, referred to as DOVID-19 in humans. The first case of Dovid-19 was reported
in a country called Mandaria, a country that shares its borders with Diana. It quickly spread all
across the globe.
2. Diana witnessed a rapid increase of Dovid-19 cases, which swiftly spread within its States
causing varied but often serious symptoms, especially in people at risk such as the elderly and
the immunosupressed. The scientific community suggested the development of a new vaccine
to combat the spread of DOVID-19. All vaccines have been subject to a regulatory process and
have been administered only after approval.
INITIATION OF VACCINATION PROCESS
3. Diana, being one of the five largest producers of pharmaceuticals in the world by volume,
held a pre-eminent place in the race to manufacture vaccines. In order to meet the urgent
domestic and global requirements, Diana relaxed the regulatory approval process for vaccines
to foster development and distribution of the Dovid-19 vaccine at the earliest.
4. On 10th January 2021, the vaccination process started in Diana at select centres all over the
country. The vaccination process was managed by the Central Gov. which procured doses of
Hivovi from Myhealth Pvt Co Ltd. However, the vaccination was available for citizens only
above the age of 45 years.
5. During its first phase, one individual – Mr X – who was given a dose of the Hivovi vaccine
on 26th January, 2021 developed serious side effects immediately thereafter including nausea,
fever and headaches. He was hospitalised for 15 days and lost his memory partially. Thereafter,
on 18th February, 2021 he sued the vaccine manufacturer, Myhealth Pvt. Co. Ltd. for
compensation of one crore rupees in the civil court of Diana.
6. Vaccines of other private manufacturers were subsequently approved for emergency use in
Diana in the following months. By 1st March 2021, the Central Gov. of Diana had entered into
contractual obligations with various private manufacturers for the procurement of sufficient

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XIX
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF FACTS

vaccines so as to vaccinate its entire adult population by November 26, 2021, with the vaccines
being available for free.
AMENDMENT MADE TO THE EA, 1987
7. Vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop production of vaccines unless the Central Gov. of
Diana granted them immunity from prosecution against any adverse consequences of the
vaccination. The Central Gov. of Diana was of the view that it was essential to protect vaccine
manufacturers from frivolous claims. This was considered to be the only and most effective
means to solve the crisis at hand.
8. Subsequently, on 5th March 2021, the Central Gov. amended the EA, 1987 to grant
immunity to the vaccine manufactures and provide compensation to any individual who has
suffered loss because of the vaccination.
9. In March 2021 a more severe second wave of the pandemic struck Diana and there was a
sudden surge of Dovid-19 cases in different States. New variants of Dovid-19 virus were
suggested as one of the reasons for the same. In order to limit the second wave of cases, on
15th March 2021, the Central Gov. of Diana allowed vaccination of all citizens above the age
of 18.
REGULATION ISSUED BY THE STATE OF ARIANA
10. Diana witnessed a low turnout for vaccinations despite it being available to all adults.
Ariana, a State in the Union of Diana, recorded a constant surge of Dovid-19 cases the first
quarter of 2021, including higher deaths. On 30th March 2021, the Chief Minister of Ariana,
in a press conference, stated that herd immunity through vaccination was the only way to curb
the pandemic in Ariana and that his Gov. will ensure that the state’s population is vaccinated
at the earliest. Thereafter, on 03rd April 2021, the Gov. of Ariana issued a regulation under the
EA, 1987 making vaccination mandatory for performing major activities such as movement
and trade.
PIL FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
11. The aforesaid restrictions imposed by the Central Gov. of Diana and State of Ariana
resulted in huge public criticism. Following the new regulations issued by the Centre and the
State of Ariana, a NGO, “Freedom for All” filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of
Diana challenging the same. The Central Gov. of Diana and State of Ariana inter alia submitted
that they undertook these measures to improve public health and protect the fundamental right
to life and health of the people of Diana.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XX
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES RAISED

The following issues have been placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudicate upon:

~ ISSUE (1) ~

Whether the writ petition filed by Freedom for All under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Diana is maintainable?

~ ISSUE (2) ~

Whether the Epidemic (Amendment) Act, 2021 is violative of Part III of the
Constitution of Diana?

~ ISSUE (3) ~

Whether the regulation issued by the State of Ariana is unconstitutional and ultra vires
to the Epidemic Act, 1897?

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
XXI
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

~ ISSUE (1) ~

The writ petition filed by Freedom for All under Article 32 of the Constitution of Diana
is not maintainable.
It is humbly submitted that the Writ Petition filed by way of PIL by the NGO Freedom For All
is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Diana as the petitioner has no locus
standi. The main essence of a PIL is a violation of fundamental rights which has caused injury
to a party. However, in the present case there is no such violation as neither the Centre nor the
State are forcing people to get vaccinated, but are simply implementing reasonable restrictions
on the rights of the public. Further, there is no aggrieved party as well, especially with the
regulation passed by the State of Ariana which is not even in force yet. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands, but has filed the Writ
Petition to gain publicity. Moreover, the petitioner should have approached the High Court first
under Article 226 as they had a more suitable remedy available. Lastly, Freedom For All is not
well versed in matters of medicine and science and is not a suitable party to file the PIL.

~ ISSUE (2) ~

The EAA, 2021 is not violative of Part III of the Constitution of Diana.
It is submitted that the EAA, 2021 is not violative of Part III of the Constitution of Diana as it
satisfies the test of proportionality under Articles 14 and 21. The action has been implemented
for the furtherance of a legitimate aim with a rational nexus to objective sought to be achieved.
It is also sanctioned by law and there also exists no other equally effective less-restrictive
remedy available. It is further submitted that the EAA, 2021 has been implemented to safeguard
the right to health and life of the public under Article 21. The EAA, 2021 is neither arbitrary
or vague, but has created reasonable classifications. Lastly, it is submitted that the legislative
intent of the EA, 1897 is to give the executive as broad powers as it can. The EA, 1897 is based
on the principle that the public must have faith in the steps taken by the executive in times of
a pandemic, which must be recognized by the Court as well.

~ ISSUE (3) ~

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition
XXI
MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT XXIII SUMMARY of ARGUMENTS

The regulation issued by the State of Ariana is constitutional and not ultra vires to the
EA, 1897.
It is humbly submitted that the regulation issued by the State of Ariana is constitutional and
not ultra vires to the EA, 1897 as the legislation has simply been implemented by utilizing the
broad powers under the EA, 1897. The EA, 1897 accords the State complete discretion to take
steps as it deems fit to curb the pandemic. Further, there is sufficient precedents for mandatory
vaccinations in India and the world. Moreover, the regulation strengthens Article 21 by
promoting public health while imposing a reasonable restriction by the procedure established
by law. The rights to freedom of movement and trade have also been reasonably curtailed,
while the regulation also makes reasonable classifications under Article 14 and is neither
arbitrary nor disproportionate. Lastly, it is submitted that any concerns of violation of the right
to religion and conscience are invalid as they are subject to restrictions for public health.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XXIII
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE (1): THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY FREEDOM FOR ALL UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF DIANA IS MAINTAINABLE?

(¶ 1.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed
before the bench is not maintainable. This is because firstly, the Petitioner has no locus standi
[A]; secondly, the petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies [B]; and lastly, there is
no infringement of fundamental rights [C].

A. THE PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI

(¶ 2.) PIL is an avenue that must be utilized with great care and caution.1 Ordinarily, it is the
aggrieved person who approaches the Court unless they are unable to do so. 2 Further, PILs
have to be necessarily filed for some infringement of fundamental rights 3.
(¶ 3.) More importantly, the Petitioner must have clean hands4 and must be acting in a bona
fide manner in genuine public interest. PILs must not be utilized to generate publicity, or be
utilized for frivolous litigation for an oblique motive.5
(¶ 4.) It is submitted that in the present case, there have been no fundamental right violations.
Neither the State or Central laws challenged force anybody to take vaccination. The State of
Ariana’s regulation simply imposes a reasonable restriction on movement of people who refuse
vaccination6. Further, there is no aggrieved party as the regulation is not even in force.
(¶ 5.) Moreover, the NGO Freedom for All has instituted this PIL without clean hands in an
endeavour to generate publicity. This is evident from the fact that they immediately instituted
the PIL after the laws were enacted without even waiting for the connected subordinate
legislation to be introduced 7, which would give a clearer and more reasonable picture. It was
simply a race to file the PIL the earliest to gain publicity. Thus, they have no locus standi.

1
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd v Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors, AIR. 2008 SC 913.
2
M. Krishna Swami v Union Of India & Ors AIR 1993 SC 1407.
3
Balco Employees' Union v Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333; Sachidanand Pandey v State of W.B.,
(1987) 2 SCC 295.
4
Ramjas Foundation v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852; K.R. Srinivas v R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620.
5
Kushum Lata v Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180; Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC
349; Janata Dal v HS Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305.
6
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
7
Moot proposition ¶16.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 1
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

B. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATE REMEDIES

(¶ 6.) The power to grant writs under Art. 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands on
this Hon'ble Court. 8 It is a well settled proposition of law that existence of an alternative
adequate remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ petition. 9 The same has been
upheld in a plethora of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court. In the instant case, the
Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court directly under an Art. 32 petition in spite of
having an alternative remedy available in Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(¶ 7.) This Hon’ble Court has previously rejected a plea challenging the validity of The EA,
1897 stating the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Art. 226.10 Further, it held 11 that
writ petitions should be agitated at the first instance before the High Court of Judicature as it
is capable to exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution as there are a huge backlog
of cases anyway12. In the instant case, Freedom for All has directly approached the SC, 13
whereas the petitioner should have moved to the High Court under Art. 226. Further, the
regulation issued by the State of Ariana is a atter concerning one State only and should be
introduced under that specific High Court. This Hon'ble Court, must therefore, exercise its
discretion to quash the instant writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

C. THE PETITIONER HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BACKING

(¶ 8.) It is submitted that, the EAA, 2021 is the outcome of scientific deliberation from
technical experts in the field. 14 Courts are not well-equipped to indulge into such a domain and
as such, the statutory provision should be respected.15 Further, petitioners invoking the Court’s
PIL jurisdiction should not do so in areas where they are not well-versed.16
(¶ 9.) In the present case, scientists have accepted that vaccinations are the only way to combat
the virus.17 Additionally, an NGO dealing with Freedom for All will not be well-versed with a
complex medical situation like the one at hand, especially when the pandemic is caused by a
novel virus. Therefore, the PIL cannot be maintainable.

8
K.D. Sharma v SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Sunil Poddar
v Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326; R. v Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486; Abhudhya Sanstha
v Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145.
9
Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163.
10
Harshal N. Mirashi v The State of Maharashtra And Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1200/2000.
11
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496.
12
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1159.
13
Moot proposition ¶16.
14
Arjun Aggarwal v Union of India And Anr, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 642.
15
Rajeev Suri v Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7.
16
SP Anand Indore v H.D. Deve Gowda & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 734.
17
Moot proposition ¶ 4.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 2
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE (2): THE EAA, 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIANA

(¶ 10.) It is humbly submitted before the Apex Court that The EAA, 2021 issued by the
Ministry of Law and Justice of the Union of Diana (hereinafter referred to as “the EAA, 2021”)
is not violative of Part III of the Constitution of Diana. Therefore, the EAA, 2021, must be
declared as such because, firstly, the said EAA, 2021 meets the requirements of the test of
proportionality [A]; secondly, the EAA, 2021 is in pursuance of the Right to Health [B];
thirdly, the EAA, 2021 represents a reasonable classification under the conditions of Art. 14
of the Constitution of Diana [C]; and lastly, the EAA, 2021 is within the scope of the EA, 1897
[D].

A. THE EAA, 2021 MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEST OF PROPORTIONALITY

(¶ 11.) The doctrine of proportionality today constitutes the dominant “best practice” judicial
standard for resolving disputes that involve either a conflict between two rights claims or
between a right and a legitimate government interest. 18 In order to analyse whether impugned
provisions of a statute amount to reasonable restrictions and have been brought out in the
interest of the general public, the balancing of fundamental rights on one hand and restrictions
imposed on the other is essential. 19 This test has been implemented in a plethora of
judgements 20 and was pioneered by the Canadian Supreme Court in the R v. Oakes.21
(¶ 12.) The test of proportionality is a four- pronged judicially entrenched principle which
requires that firstly, the legislative action must be sanctioned by law [1], secondly, the action
be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim [2], thirdly, the action must be
rationally connected to the legitimate aim [3] and lastly, no other less-restrictive equally
effective alternative should be available and the action must be proportionate to the aim [4]. 22

1. THE ACTION IS SANCTIONED BY LAW

(¶ 13.) The pre-requisite of a law-based sanction for an action, exists as a corollary to Art. 21
and assumes a positivistic view in that, it is upon the State to take steps to ensure to the
individual a better enjoyment of life and dignity.23 Such steps have taken effect in the form of

18
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
19
Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors v State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.
20
Maharashtra Land Development Corpn. & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Anr, (2011) 15 SCC 616.
21
Her Majesty the Queen v David Edwin Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.
22
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
23
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 3
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

a variety of actions, such as improvement of public health,24 elimination of water and air
pollution 25 and improvement of means of communication.26
(¶ 14.) It is submitted that, the EAA, 2021 falls under the ambit of the powers provided to the
Parliament, by virtue of Art. 24527 and Art. 246 28 of the Constitution of Diana. Art. 245 vests
within the Parliament the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of the
State whereas, Art. 246 29 calls for a division of legislative powers between the Parliament and
the State Legislatures through creation of the lists.
(¶ 15.) While the public health is an item included under the State List, 30 through the Union
List the Parliament is given authority to legislate on special health matters such as an epidemic.
Item 81 of the Union List deals with inter- state migration and inter- state quarantine, both of
which are essential to maintain health during a pandemic.
(¶ 16.) Additionally, Item 29 of the Concurrent List allows the Parliament to make laws for
prevention of the extension from one state to another of infectious diseases affecting men. 31
The Finance Commission has also advocated for shifting public health entirely to the
concurrent list, considering the Centre’s active role during a pandemic.32 Lastly, foreign courts
have held that health as a subject should not be subject to specific constitutional assignments,
but should be addressed by both levels of government.33 The nature and scope of the problem 34
should be considered and if large scale, should be dealt with by cooperative mechanisms
between levels of government.35
(¶ 17.) In the present case, a pandemic caused due to the contagious virus DARS-CoV-2 has
broken out, which causes an infection known as Dovid- 19 in humans.36 Diana witnessed a
rapid increase in Dovid- 19 cases and it is spreading through states.37 The Parliament, in the

24
Vincent Panikurlangara v Union Of India & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 165.
25
M. C. Mehta v Union of India & Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
26
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v Umed Ram Sharma & Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 602.
27
Constitution of India, Art. 245.
28
Constitution of India, Art. 246.
29
Constitution of India, Art. 246.
30
Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List 2, Entry 6.
31
Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List 3, Entry 29.
32
15th Finance Commission of India, ‘High Level Group on Health Sector’ (Report, 2019)
<https://fincomindia.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/fincom15/StudyReports/High%20Level%20group%20o
f%20Health%20Sector.pdf> accessed 14 June 2021.
33
Schneider v the Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 112.
34
Schneider (n 33).
35
Australian Government Department of Health, ‘National Health Emergency Response Arrangements’ (Nov
2011) ¶3.2, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-response-arrangement-nov11-
l> accessed 14 June 2021.
36
Moot proposition ¶2.
37
Moot proposition ¶3.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 4
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

interest of public health, has promulgated the EAA, 2021 which provides immunity to vaccine
manufacturers from adverse side effects and other frivolous lawsuits.
(¶ 18.) Therefore, promulgation of the EAA, 2021 is within the powers vested to the Parliament
and as such, it is an action sanctioned by law.

2. THE ACTION IS NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY FOR A LEGITIMATE AIM

(¶ 19.) The expression ‘in the interest of general public’ is a wide concept comprehending
public order, public health 38 and even economic welfare of the community.39 Improvement of
public health is regarded as indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and
as such attention to the same has been rendered a priority.40
(¶ 20.) The State has been said to pursue a legitimate interest in analysing hospital records to
deal with public health epidemics such as malaria or dengue to obviate a serious impact on the
population41 implying that improvement of public health qualifies as a legitimate state aim.
International resolutions have held public health as a condition for sustainable development, 42
and that exceptional measures may be implemented for its improvement.43
(¶ 21.) It is submitted that, action taken to give effect to a DPSP is prima facie reasonable and
in public interest. 44 Additionally, Art. 21 derives its life breath from the DPSPs. 45 Art. 39(e) 46
and Art. 47 47 call for laws regarding the health of men and women and to improve public health
respectively. Additionally, the WHO holds legislation as an instrument for governments to
prevent disease and promote population health 48 and as such public health is a valid reason to
limit rights. 49
(¶ 22.) Therefore, improvement of public health, which has been established as the aim of the
EAA, 2021, 50 qualifies as a legitimate aim. In the present case, the Union of Diana is a

38
Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai, (1986) 3 SCC 20.
39
Abdul Hakim Quraishi v State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448.
40
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246.
41
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22).
42
United Nations General Assembly, ‘The Future We Want’ (Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, 27
July 2012) <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=%20A/RES/66/288> accessed 8 June 2021.
43
United Nations Human Rights, ‘Emergency Measures And Covid-19: Guidance’ (27 April 2020)
<https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf> accessed 15 June 2021.
44
Minerva Mills Ltd & Ors v Union of India & Ors, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
45
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
46
Constitution of India, Art. 39(e).
47
Constitution of India, Art. 47.
48
World Health Organisation, ‘Health promotion in the SDGs Health for all and all for health’ (9th Global
Conference on Health Promotion, Shanghai 2016) <https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-
wellbeing/ninth-global-conference> accessed 11 June 2021.
49
UN Economic and Social Council, (The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 28 September 1984) ¶22
<https://www.refworld.org/docid/4672bc122.html> accessed 10 June 2021.
50
Moot proposition ¶16.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 5
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

democratic republic country 51 and is currently witnessing an increase of Dovid-19, which is

rapidly spreading.52 The scientific community has suggested development of vaccines to
combat the disease 53 and the same has been accepted as the only way. 54 As such, the
government has signed contracts with vaccine manufacturers.55
(¶ 23.) It is submitted that, since vaccinations are the only medical option to prevent the virus
spreading and that the cases are rising each day, ensuring quick development of vaccines is a
necessity to ensure public health. As such, the Parliament has promulgated the EAA, 2021
which protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits,56 so as to encourage them to focus on
development of vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers have also claimed to stop production,
should such immunity from severe side effects and frivolous claims not be given.57 Therefore,
the EAA, 2021 is necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim.

3. EXTENT OF INTERFERENCE IS RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO THE LEGITIMATE AIM

(¶ 24.) This limb of proportionality encompasses Art. 14 58 as well as Art. 21. 59 The main aspect
of this limb is ensuring a rational nexus between the objective and the means adopted to achieve
it. 60 When a restriction is tested on the anvil of reasonableness and rationality, the underlying
purpose of the restrictions and prevailing conditions must be considered.61 The underlying
purpose of these restriction is improvement of public health.
(¶ 25.) The WHO has advocated for a framework to expedite legal agreements during a
pandemic,62 especially those for equitable compensation for vaccine injuries, without
litigation. 63 Additionally, 24 countries possess vaccine compensation systems 64 with 19

51
Moot proposition ¶1.
52
Moot proposition ¶3.
53
Moot proposition ¶4.
54
Moot proposition ¶5.
55
Moot proposition ¶11.
56
Moot proposition ¶12.
57
Moot proposition ¶12.
58
Constitution of India, Art. 14.
59
Constitution of India, Art. 21.
60
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22).
61
State of Madras v V.G. Row, Union of India & State of Travancore-Cochin, 1952 AIR SC 196.
62
World Health Organisation, ‘Report of the WHO pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine deployment initiative’
(Geneva 2012) <https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/h1n1_deployment_report.pdf >
accessed 12 June 2021.
63
Jennifer Keelan and Ors, ‘Designing a No-fault Vaccine-injury Compensation Programme for Canada: Lessons
Learned from an International Analysis of Programmes’ (Munk School Briefings, University of Toronto, 2011)
<https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Keelan-
Wilson_NoFaultVaccine_CPHS_2011.pdf> accessed 15 June 2021.
64
Randy G. Mungwira and Ors, ‘Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine
injuries: a review and survey of implementing countries’ (PLoS One, 2020)
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233334> accessed 15 June 2021.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 6
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

developed vaccine markets possessing no fault funds.65 Lastly, the International Federation of
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations has called for immunity from lawsuits for
vaccine manufacturers participating in pandemic responses.
(¶ 26.) A chain of causation between concern about liability and serious delays in product
development has arisen in the past. 66 Additionally, drugs have been taken off the market due
to the litigation threat to their manufacturers.67 Lastly, the consequences of litigation have been
seen to unfavourably effect the cost- return analysis of vaccine manufacturers. 68
(¶ 27.) It is submitted that, the EAA, 2021 has two objectives - a direct one and an inherent
one. The direct objective of the legislation is to encourage vaccine manufacturers to focus on
development and manufacturing of the vaccines 69 whereas, the inherent objective is to improve
public health, and protect the fundamental right to life and health of the people of Diana. 70 The
measures adopted have a rational nexus to both these objectives.
(¶ 28.) In the present case, vaccine manufacturers have been protected against lawsuits for
severe adverse effects or any frivolous claims.71 As such a rational nexus between development
and manufacturing of vaccines at a higher rate and provision of immunity from lawsuits is
clearly shown.
(¶ 29.) The inherent objective of the EAA, 2021 is improvement of public health of the people
of Diana. 72 The positive externalities of vaccines are conferred upon consumption and not upon
procurement,73 and so faster procurement would result in immunization of the citizens, at the
earliest. Vaccination of the citizens is the primary objective of the vaccination strategy 74 and
procurement for sufficient vaccines to carry this out is to be done by 26th November, 2021.75
(¶ 30.) Therefore, providing immunity to vaccine manufacturers would speed up the
development and manufacturing process and that would lead to improvement of public health.

65
Evans G, ‘Vaccine injury compensation programs worldwide.’ (Oct 1999)
<https://europepmc.org/article/med/10559532> accessed 14 June 2021.
66
Public Health Service Act 1989, ‘Report of The National Commissions On Orphan Diseases’ 103.
67
Louis Lasagna, ‘The chilling effect of Product Liability on New Drug Development’ Peter W. Huber and Ors
(ed), The Liability Maze – The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation (The Brookings Institution,
1991).
68
ibid.
69
Moot proposition ¶12.
70
Moot proposition ¶16.
71
Moot proposition ¶12.
72
Moot proposition ¶16.
73
Qiwei Claire Xue and Ors, ‘Innovation policy and the market for vaccines’, (2020) Vol 7 Issue 1 Journal of
Law and the Biosciences <https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa026> accessed 13 June 2021.
74
Moot proposition ¶13.
75
Moot proposition ¶11.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 7
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

4. THERE IS NO EQUALLY EFFECTIVE, LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE AND

THE ACTION IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE AIM

(¶ 31.) The above requirement does not secure proportionality by itself. 76 The test of
proportionality also mandates that no equally effective, but less restrictive alternative is
available.77 International courts have regarded it necessary, that the legislator choose a remedy
which is equally effective, but infringes on fundamental rights to a lesser extent, if available. 78
Additionally, the alternative’s efficacy must be measured on its ability to achieve the objective
in a real and substantial manner.79
(¶ 32.) The exercise of examining alternative remedies, is applied so that no right is restricted
to a greater extent than necessary to fulfil the legitimate interest of the countervailing interest
in question.80 The legislature is provided with discretion to implement a remedy, however the
decision of whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively rests with the Court. 81
(¶ 33.) The Court must balance the restrictions against the right restricted taking into
consideration the nature of the infringed right, purpose and urgency for the restrictions,
disproportion of the imposition and prevailing conditions of the time.82 The duty of the Court
is ensuring a proper balance between adverse effects on rights of people and the purpose which
any legislation is intended to serve is maintained.83
(¶ 34.) It is submitted that, any such alternative must be equally effective implying that a
regulation should not be invalidated because of an alternative that is ‘nearly as effective’ or
‘tolerably effective’.84 The appropriateness of such an alternative measure depends on its
implication upon the fundamental rights and the necessity of such measure.85
(¶ 35.) Additionally, it is not the responsibility of the Government to suggest equally effective
and less restrictive alternatives. The burden of proving that there is a less harmful alternative
to the infringing statute that complies with all these conditions rests on the party that challenges

76
Aparna Chandra, ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?’ (2020) 3(2) University of Oxford HRHJ
<https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/U-of-OxHRH-J-Proportionality-in-
India.pdf> accessed 12 June 2021.
77
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22).
78
Cannabis 9 March 1994, BVerfGE 90 (Federal Constitutional Court Germany).
79
David Bilchitz, ‘Necessity and Proportionality: Towards a Balanced Approach?’ (SSRN, August 17 2012)
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2320437> accessed 11 June 2021.
80
CPIO v Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
81
Canara Bank v V. K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321.
82
State of Madras v V.G. Row (n 61).
83
Om Kumar & Ors v Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
84
Guy Miller Struve, ‘The Less-Restrictive-Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process’ (2017) vol 80 no.
7 Harvard Law Review, 1463–1488 <www.jstor.org/stable/1339363> Accessed 15 June 2021.
85
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India & Ors, (2020) 3 SCC 637.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 8
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

the constitutionality of the statute in question. 86 Courts must believe that the legislature
understands the needs of its people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by
experience and as such, must sustain the presumption of constitutionality.87
(¶ 36.) Lastly, any proposed remedy must not be clearly more costly or burdensome than the
original remedy. If an alternative is equally effective but, also more expensive the State may
explicitly or implicitly reject it due to fiscal considerations.88
(¶ 37.) In the present case, vaccine manufacturers have urged the Central Government of Diana
to grant them immunity from prosecution against any adverse consequences of the vaccination,
otherwise they will have to stop the production.89 No alternative remedy that is less restrictive
and yet would entail continuation of manufacturing of the vaccines exists. Furthermore,
vaccination is the most effective way of curbing the spread of the pandemic.90
(¶ 38.) Therefore, it is clear that no less restrictive alternative is available and if the petitioners
believe such an alternative exists, the burden of proof lies with them.
(¶ 39.) Other countries have also accepted immunity through legislation as the appropriate and
least restrictive remedy available. The United States, in order to promote swift action by the
private sector conferred broad immunity to vaccine manufacturers during the pandemic. This
has been provided under the PREP Act 91 which protects manufacturers from federal and state
liability.
(¶ 40.) The compensation to victims of side-effects has also been addressed through the
Countermeasures Injury Compensation Programme in USA, which pays the amount from a
fund created by the Government as such, indemnifying the vaccine manufacturers. However,
both the immunity and compensation are provided for only if there is no wilful misconduct on
the part of the manufacturers. Therefore, the EAA, 2021 and its provisions have been accepted
as the most suitable remedy in other nations as well.
(¶ 41.) Keeping the situation in Diana as well as globally adopted practices in mind, it is
submitted that there is no other equally effective less-restrictive measure available.

86
Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge University Press 2012)
436–437.
87
Mahant Moti Das v S. P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 942.
88
Roy G. Spece Jr., ‘The Most Effective or Least Restrictive Alternative as the Only Intermediate and Only
Means-Focused Review in Due Process and Equal Protection’, (1998) 33 Vill. L. Rev. 111 Villanova Law Review
<https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol33/iss1/3> accessed 15 June 2021.
89
Moot proposition ¶11.
90
Moot proposition ¶15.
91
Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 2005.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 9
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

B. THE AMENDMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER ART. 21

(¶ 42.) The Right to Health has been regarded as the foundation for all human activities. 92 Full
enjoyment of the benefits of social welfare is essential to live a healthy life. 93 Everyone has the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well- being of himself and his family. 94
It has been held that development in a healthy manner is the minimum requirement which must
exist to enable human dignity.95
(¶ 43.) It is submitted that the maintenance and improvement of public health has been held as
a top priority since the very physical existence of the community depends on it. 96 It is settled
law that the right to health is integral to the right to life and the Government has a constitutional
obligation to provide health facilities. 97 Art. 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard
the life of every person, which includes the right to health. 98 Art. 21 is said to derive its life-
breath from the DPSPs and particularly Art. 39, 41 and 42 which include protection of health
of workers, men and women.99
(¶ 44.) Maintenance of the right to health requires an appropriate balancing of benefits and
burdens of social cooperation necessary to obtain good health.100 The primary duty of the State
is to maintain public health 101 which is done through running hospitals and providing medical
care to a person seeking to avail those facilities. 102 Additionally, the right to health is
maintained only if such measures are within the reach of the people. 103
(¶ 45.) The provision of medical aid to preserve human life is a constitutional obligation of the
Government in a welfare state. 104 Enforcement of production of qualitative drugs and
reasonable pricing falls under the ambit of governmental obligations.105 Additionally, the
Central Government may regulate the manufacture, sale or distribution of any drug that it

92
Vincent Panikurlangara (n 24).
93
Bandhua Mukti Morcha (n 45). Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India (14th ed. 2009).
94
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Art. 25(1).
95
Bandhua Mukti Morcha (n 45).
96
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit (n 40).
97
State of Punjab & Ors v Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83; Consumer Education and Research Center
v Association of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
98
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd v Employees State Insurance Corpn, (1996) 2 SCC 682.
99
Bandhua Mukti Morcha (n 45).
100
Soren Holm, ‘Should persons detained during public health crises receive compensation?’ (2019) Journal of
Bioethical Inquiry
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225857483_Should_Persons_Detained_During_Public_Health_Crise
s_Receive_Compensation> accessed 14 June 2021.
101
State Of Punjab & Ors v Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
102
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37.
103
Ram Lubhaya Bagga (n 101).
104
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (n 102).
105
Vincent Panikurlangara (n 24).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 10
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

believes is essential to meet the requirements of an emergency such as an epidemic, provided

it is in public interest. 106
(¶ 46.) In the present case, vaccines which are seen as the only way to combat the spread of
the virus,107 have been procured by the Central Government.108 This has been done by entering
into contracts with vaccine manufacturers,109 who have asked for immunity from adverse
consequences, barring which production will be stopped.110 These vaccines have then been
made available to the public for free 111 and easy access has been provided to them.112
(¶ 47.) It is submitted that, the Central Government has by providing medical aid in the time
of an emergency met its obligation under the right to health. Additionally, easy access has been
provided, which is an essential constitutional obligation. Lastly, immunity provided to the
manufacturers has also been done in pursuance of the right to health, in that production of
vaccines will continue and happen as soon as possible.
(¶ 48.) Therefore, the right to health has in fact been preserved and protected by the Gov. via
the EAA, 2021, fulfilling their obligations to the public.

C. THE EAA, 2021 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

(¶ 49.) A key principle of Art. 14 is that it does not forbid a reasonable classification for the
purposes of legislation. 113 However, the test of permissible classification has two pre-
requisites, firstly, that the classification be founded on an intelligible differentia and secondly,
that the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.114
(¶ 50.) . It has been held that a classification based on an occupational differentia is
valid.115Additionally, when an enactment is challenged, various factors such as history of the
legislation, the purpose thereof and the surrounding circumstances and conditions must be
considered.116

106
Drugs And Cosmetics Act 1940, s 26(b).
107
Moot proposition ¶5.
108
Moot proposition ¶10.
109
Moot proposition ¶11.
110
Moot proposition ¶11.
111
Moot proposition ¶11.
112
Clarification to the Moot Proposition ¶5.
113
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v The Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41; The State of Bombay v F. N. Balsara, AIR
1951 SC 318; The State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
114
Budhan Choudhry And Ors v The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191;Arvind P. Datar, Commentary On The
Constitution Of India (2nd ed. 2007).
115
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR SC 538.
116
Hamdard Dawakhana v Union of India And Ors, 1960 AIR SC 554.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 11
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 51.) It is submitted that in the present case, a classification by the EAA, 2021, is between
vaccine manufacturers and other companies, with respect to product liability. The objective of
the EAA, 2021 is to improve public health through procurement of vaccines. The surrounding
circumstances are that a pandemic is spreading across the nation117 and vaccine development
has been approved for emergency use 118 with limited regulatory approval.119
(¶ 52.) Additionally, vaccine manufacturers have lobbied for provision of immunity against
any side- effects, without which they will stop production.120 As such, in order to procure the
vaccines and improve public health, the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity.
Therefore, the classification implemented by the EAA, 2021 is a reasonable one.
(¶ 53.) Additionally, the EAA, 2021 is not vague in nature. Given the unpredictability of the
situation at hand and the potential side- effects that may occur, certain terms in the provision
have been given a wide import. Terms such as ‘serious physical injury’ have been added to
encourage potential victims of side-effects to approach the Central Government for
compensation, so that justice is done for all 121.
(¶ 54.) Lastly, the pursuit of a legitimate state aim ensures that the law does not suffer from
manifest arbitrariness. In the present case, as established the legitimate aim of public health is
pursued and as such, the EAA, 2021 is safe from manifest arbitrariness 122. Therefore, the EAA,
2021 cannot be struck down for vagueness or manifest arbitrariness.

D. LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE EA, 1897

(¶ 55.) The intention of the legislature is an essential aspect to determine the character of an
enactment.123 The Epidemic Act was the result of stringent measures taken by the British
Government during the bubonic plague.124 It was recognized that the powers mentioned in the
act were remarkable, but were the need of the hour and very necessary.125
(¶ 56.) Furthermore, it was held that during grave and critical circumstances like an epidemic
the people must trust the discretion of the executive in implementing measures.126 Actions
which earlier may have violated liberty may become absolutely essential in the times of a

117
Moot proposition ¶3.
118
Moot proposition ¶10.
119
Moot proposition ¶7.
120
Moot proposition ¶12.
121
Moot proposition Annexure A
122
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22).
123
Anand Parkash v Bharat Bhushan Rai & Anr, AIR 1981 P&H 269.
124
2020 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369] Issue 4 Vol 3.
125
2020 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369] Issue 4 Vol 3.
126
ibid.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 12
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

pandemic.127 Any efficient measures that were taken to guard against the disease, should
receive support from the educated classes and the masses.128
(¶ 57.) Additionally, the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 was passed which
prescribed more stringent punishments for violence against healthcare workers as compared to
violence against an ordinary citizen. This was because the Gov. deemed it necessary to ensure
the smooth functioning of healthcare workers, indirectly aiding public health. Thus, it is clear
that the intent of the Epidemic Act, 1987 is to ensure that the Gov. takes whatever steps it
deems necessary to either directly or indirectly preserve the health of the majority.
(¶ 58.) Similarly, the present EAA, 2021, by granting immunity to vaccine manufacturers, is
also aiding public health. In the present case, the EAA, 2021 has been implemented in order to
curb the spread of the virus. The act possesses a strong rational relation to the objective sought
and as such qualifies as a necessity.129
(¶ 59.) Therefore, it is imperative that for achievement of these objectives, faith in the
Government is retained.

127
In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies And Services (2021) SCCOnline SC 411.
128
Members' Reference Service Larrdis Lok Sabha Secretariat New Delhi, ‘The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment)
Ordinance’, (Legislative Note (Background) 2020)
<http://164.100.47.193/Refinput/New_Reference_Notes/English/10092020_114427_1021205239.pdf >
accessed 15 June 2021.
129
David Bilchitz, ‘Necessity and Proportionality: Towards a Balanced Approach?’ (n 79)

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 13
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE (3): THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE STATE OF ARIANA IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
INTRA VIRES TO THE EA, 1897

(¶ 60.) It is humbly submitted before the Apex Court that the regulation issued by the Public
Health Department of the Government of Ariana (hereinafter referred to as “the said
regulation”) is constitutional and not ultra vires to the EA, 1897.
(¶ 61.) The said regulation must be declared as such because, firstly, the said regulation is
within the scope of the EA, 1897 and other powers accorded to the State Legislature [A];
secondly, the said regulation imposes reasonable restrictions on the rights granted under Art.
19 of the Constitution of Diana [B]; thirdly, the said regulation does not violate the right to
life and personal liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Diana [C]; fourthly, the said
regulation satisfies the conditions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of Diana [D]; and lastly,
concerns regarding a violation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience are not valid
[E].

A. THE SAID REGULATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POWERS ACCORDED TO THE
STATE LEGISLATION

(¶ 62.) The State executive holds a complex role in the management of a pandemic, but has
“room for free play in the joints” while dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. 130 The Directive
Principles of State Policy provide that it is the responsibility of the government that the health
and well-being of the majority of the public is maintained. 131 The preservation of human life
in whatever way it deems fit is a constitutional obligation of the government. 132
(¶ 63.) The said regulation is within the powers of the State government because firstly, the
scope of the EA, 1897 is wide enough to cover the regulation [1]; and secondly, there are
sufficient precedents for the implementation of compulsory vaccination in Diana [2].

1. THE SAID REGULATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AND NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE
CONSTITUTION

(¶ 64.) Section 2 of the EA, 1897 states that whenever the State Government is satisfied that
there is a sufficient threat or effect of an outbreak of a disease, it may take whatever special
measures that it deems fit to prevent the outbreak or curb the spread of the disease. 133 The Act

130
Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services During Pandemic, 2021 SCCOnline SC 411.
131
Constitution of India, Arts. 41, Constitution of India Arts. 42, Constitution of India Arts. 47.
132
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (n 102).
133
EA, 1897, s 2(1).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 14
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

uses the term “such measures” and “temporary measures”134, clearly putting a wide range of
powers under the State government’s ambit by not specifying any particular courses of action.
(¶ 65.) Furthermore, Section 2(2) of the EA, 1897 gives the State government the power to
inspect travellers, but specifically mentions that it is “without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provision”.135 This clearly communicates in no uncertain terms that the foundation
of this Act is the accordance of an extremely broad scope of powers to the State government.
(¶ 66.) Further, legislative intent and the reasons for enactment of statutes are essential to
understand the scope and powers that a statute accords during interpretation.136 The primary
rule of the interpretation and construction of statutes is that the provisions of the statute must
be construed keeping in mind the purpose behind them.137 This is the paramount objective of
the Court while interpreting the scope of a statute. 138
(¶ 67.) It is submitted that the EA, 1897 was intended to accord the State governments with the
broadest possible scope to take whatever measures necessary to curb the pandemic. The Delhi
High Court has reaffirmed the extremely broad application of the Act in Saurabh Sharma v.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) and Others, where the Court held that Section 2 of the EA,
1897 gives complete discretion to the State government to take whatever steps are necessary
in their opinion to deal with the crisis. 139
(¶ 68.) During the deliberations before enacting the EA, 1897, John Woodburn – member of
the Indian Legislative Council – opined that in certain grave circumstances like an epidemic,
it is essential that the public place their trust in the executive. Other members also pointed out
that in the face of serious difficulties like an epidemic, the best course of action is to empower
the government to do whatever is necessary to resolve the crisis.140
(¶ 69.) In the present case, the said regulation – which restricts the movement of people who
refuse to take vaccination – has been implemented in exercise of the powers granted via the
EA, 1897 and does not exceed the scope due to the wide-ranging nature of the Act. Therefore,
the said regulation is not ultra vires to the EA, 1897.

134
ibid.
135
EA, 1897, s 2(2).
136
State of Gujarat v Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd), (2013) 3 SCC 1.
137
Prakash Nath Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 9 SCC 686; Padma Sundara Rao v. State of
T.N, (2002) 3 SCC 533; Francis Bennion, Bennion on Stautory Interpretation (Version 24, Vol 14, 2010) 442.
138
Union of India v Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277.
139
Saurabh Sharma v Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1530.
140
Members' Reference Service Larrdis Lok Sabha Secretariat New Delhi, ‘The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment)
Ordinance’ (n 128).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 15
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2. THERE ARE SUFFICIENT PRECEDENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY

VACCINATION NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY

(¶ 70.) It is submitted that in the history of the Union of Diana, there have been several cases
of implementation of mandatory vaccination through cases and statutes, making any current
challenge to the said regulation unnecessary.
(¶ 71.) In J. Choudhury v. the State, a doctor had challenged a regulation mandating
vaccination against cholera under the EA, 1897 by the State, claiming conscientious objections
against the order. The Court upheld the regulations and fined the doctor for voluntarily
violating the same, stating that he had undoubtedly contravened the provisions of the order. 141
(¶ 72.) The Compulsory Vaccination Act was implemented in 1892, making vaccination
compulsory against small pox to reduce the spread of the epidemic. Further, the Vaccination
Act, 1880 in its preamble itself states that the intention of the Act is to make inoculation and
vaccination of children compulsory.142
(¶ 73.) Various State Acts such as The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949143, the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 144, Chennai Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 145,
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1977146 among various other such acts have specific
provisions for the enforcement of compulsory vaccination. Nearly all the municipal
corporations are empowered with the same. This clearly indicates the legality of mandatory
vaccination.
(¶ 74.) Further, the Punjab Vaccination Act, 1953 and Himachal Pradesh Vaccination Act,
1968147 makes primary vaccination and re-vaccination of children compulsory throughout
Punjab. The Cantonments Act, 2006 148 also permits enforcement of compulsory vaccination.
Himachal Pradesh has amended the EA, 1897 to explicitly bring vaccination within the power
of the State government to mandate under Section 2(2).149
(¶ 75.) Even globally, the concept of mandatory vaccinations has been upheld by various
statutes and courts. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts 150, the US Supreme Court upheld the power
of the government to mandate vaccinations when they are essential for public health and safety.

141
J. Choudhury v The State, 1963 SCC OnLine Ori 25.
142
Compulsory Vaccination Act 1892; Vaccination Act 1880.
143
The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949.
144
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957.
145
Chennai Municipal Corporation Act 1919.
146
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1977.
147
Punjab Vaccination Act 1953.
148
The Cantonments Act 2006.
149
The Epidemic Diseases (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act 1984.
150
Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 16
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Further, in Zucht v King 151, the US Supreme Court held that students who refuse to get
vaccinated could be excluded from attending schools. These principles were reaffirmed by the
US Supreme Court in Prince v. Massachusetts.152
(¶ 76.) Statutes such as the Quebec Public Health Act in Canada, The Social Services
Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act, 2015 in Australia and the Bases Health Act,
1944 (till 1979) in Spain are just a few examples of international precedent for mandatory
vaccination.
(¶ 77.) It must be noted that the said regulation does not even mandate vaccinations – it simply
restricts the movement of those who refuse to get vaccinated. Therefore, it comfortably falls
within the threshold of past precedents.

B. THE SAID REGULATION IMPOSES REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO

MOVEMENT AND TRADE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 19

(¶ 78.) It is acknowledged that Art. 19 of the Constitution of Diana guarantees all citizens
certain fundamental freedoms. Art. 19(1)(d) ensures that all individuals may freely move about
within the territory of India, while Art. 19(1)(g) provides that individuals have the right to
practice any profession or carry out any trade of their choice.153
(¶ 79.) However, it is important to note that Under Arts. 19(5) and 19(6), the government is
empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on the aforementioned freedoms if they are in
public interest and to maintain public order and health.154 Further, Art. 304 of the Constitution
of Diana enables the State to impose restrictions on trade and commerce if it deems it fit in
public interest. 155 The term “public interest” is of a wide import, subsuming public health and
morality. 156
(¶ 80.) The liberty of an individual to do as he pleases is not absolute must always yield to the
common good.157 Further, if the restrictions are in accordance with the Directive Principles of
State Policy, they must be upheld.158
(¶ 81.) When matters of public interest and health are concerned, the State is certainly free to
restrict trade, as no individual has the inherent right to carry out trade that is against public

151
Zucht v King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922).
152
Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
153
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(d), Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g).
154
Constitution of India, Art. 19(5), Constitution of India, Art.19(6); Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary,
Union of India, 5 SCC 1 (2012); H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India (4th ed. 2010).
155
Constitution of India, Art. 304.
156
N.K.Bajpai v Union of India & Anr, (2012) 4 SCC 653.
157
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39.
158
Laxmi Khandsari Etc v State Of U.P. & Ors (1981) 2 SCC 600.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 17
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

interest. 159 In trade and commerce, the mere fact that a certain section will incur a loss cannot
render the restriction unreasonable, as businesses regularly go through periods of prosperity
and adversity.160 The Court while examining these restrictions must keep in mind the
circumstances that they have been enacted under, as well as the extent and urgency of the
crisis. 161
(¶ 82.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even a complete
prohibition of any particular trade is not violate of Art. 19 if it is done by the State in public
interest, which includes public health.162The Kerala High Court has expressly held that curbing
the movement of people in a pandemic is a reasonable restriction to curb it. 163
(¶ 83.) Further, the District Authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 also has the
power to restrict movement, both into and out of the State.164 The curbing of movement must
be based upon a rational nexus to the final objective sought to be achieved and must satisfy the
basic condition of not being arbitrary. Should the restriction do so, it is reasonable.165
(¶ 84.) In the present case, the said restrictions have been imposed purely keeping in mind the
preservation of the public health of the majority. The ultimate objective sought to be achieved
is to completely curb the spread of the disease in the State of Ariana. 166 The Hon. Chief
Minister has clearly stated that the only way to do so is by achieving herd immunity via
vaccination.167 Therefore, the said regulation imposes a reasonable restriction as provided for
by the Constitution as the restrictions of movement and trade have a direct nexus to this
objective.
(¶ 85.) Further, it must be noted that preservation of public health is an important aspect of the
Directive Principles of State Policy. The said regulation, being in line with the same, must be
classified as reasonable. Moreover, the situation in Ariana is extremely critical, as the State has
the highest number of cases and is reeling from a surge in deaths.168 Keeping in mind the extent
of the crisis and the urgency of the situation, the said regulation is absolutely essential.

159
M.J. Sivani & Ors v State Of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 289.
160
Laxmi Khandsari Etc (n 158); Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v Union Of India, (1974) 1 SCC 468.
161
State of Madras v V.G. Row (n 61); Dr N.B. Khare v The State of Delhi; 1950 AIR SC 211; Chintaman Rao v
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118.
162
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v The Excise Commissioner & The Chief Commissioner, Ajmer & Ors, AIR 1954 SC
220; Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 SC 634; Narendra Kumar & Ors v
The Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1960 SC 430.
163
N. Prakash S/o. A. Narayana Rao v State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to Government of Kerala &
Ors 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1570.
164
Disaster Management Act 2005, s 34.
165
M.C. V. S. Arunachala Nadar Etc v The State of Madras & Ors, 1959 AIR SC 300.
166
Moot Proposition, Annexure B.
167
Moot Proposition.
168
Moot Proposition.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 18
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 86.) Lastly, it must be noted that the restrictions on movement and trade are not arbitrary or
excessive. Movement is permitted to all individuals who consent to vaccinate, whereas trade
has only been prevented in places at a high risk of transmission such as offices and factories
that involve daily interaction between employees.169 Further, there is absolutely no obstacle to
any people desirous of carrying out their trade via a work-from-home method instead of using
offices.170
(¶ 87.) Therefore, the said regulation imposes extremely reasonable restrictions on rights
granted under Art. 19 of the Constitution of Diana.

C. THE SAID REGULATION SATISFIES THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF DIANA

(¶ 88.) In order for legislation to be within the boundaries of Art. 14 of the Constitution of
Diana, it is required that it is rational, non-arbitrary and adequately directed towards a specific
objective sought to be achieved.171
(¶ 89.) There is an inherent presumption of constitutionality in favour of an enactment and it
must be assumed that the authorities are aware of the best needs of the people - classifications
made by the government must be considered as based on adequate grounds unless proven
otherwise 172. The law is empowered to make and set apart classes under Art. 14 if the
exigencies of the circumstances demand it.173
(¶ 90.) The said regulation is in accordance with Art. 14 of the Constitution of Diana because
firstly, the classifications created by it are reasonable [1] and secondly, it suffers is neither
arbitrary nor excessive [2].

1. THE CLASSIFICATIONS CREATED BY THE STATE ARE REASONABLE

(¶ 91.) The Hon’ble SC has laid down in a catena of judgments that in order for a legislation
to abide by Art. 14, it must satisfy the ‘reasonable classification’ test, which states –
“(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and,
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question” 174

169
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
170
ibid.
171
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority of India & Ors, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
172
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (n 115).
173
re. Special Courts Bill 1978, (1979) 1 SCC 380; Anwar Ali Sarkar (n 113).
174
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (n 115); Saurabh Chaudhari v Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146; State of Mysore
& Anr v P. Narasinga Rao, 1968 1 SCR 407; Anwar Ali Sarkarhabib, (n 113).

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 19
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 92.) The government has an “elbow room” while making classifications, subject to the
context and objective for the enactment.175 Any legislation cannot be struck down as making a
discriminatory classification if the surrounding state of facts may be reasonably conceived to
justify it. 176
(¶ 93.) In the present case, the classification has been made between people who have
consented to vaccination and people who have refused the same. 177 This classification is based
on a definite intelligible differentia. More importantly, this differentia has a direct nexus to the
objective sought to be achieved.
(¶ 94.) The objective of the said regulation is to curb the spread of and ultimately eradicate the
virus within the State of Ariana 178, which can only be done by creating herd immunity via
vaccinations as stated by the Hon. Chief Minister. 179 As the only way to attain the goal is via
vaccinations, the differentia made has a direct and rational nexus to the objective. Further, as
the country was witnessing a very poor turnout in vaccines despite it being essential to fight
the pandemic 180, the said regulation creates carefully thought out classifications to motivate
people to get vaccinated.
(¶ 95.) The surrounding circumstances are urgent enough to enable the State government to
use the reasonable “elbow room” that they posses to ensure that the aforementioned
classification must be implemented. In light of the facts, the classification made can certainly
be justified.

2. THE SAID REGULATION IS PROPORTIONAL AND NOT ARBITRARY OR EXCESSIVE

(¶ 96.) . For any law to be constitutional it must pass the test of arbitrariness and proportionality
as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court181. Laws made are considered constitutional if
they don’t meet the high threshold of being “palpably arbitrary” 182 Further, the word
“arbitrary” cannot be just used in isolation to strike down a law, there must be some other
constitutional infirmity proven 183.

175
Ankul Chandra Pradhan v Union of India, ( 1997 ) 6 SCC 1.
176
Harnam Singh v RTA, 1954 AIR SC 190.
177
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
178
ibid.
179
Moot Proposition ¶15.
180
ibid.
181
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (n 115); Saurabh Chaudhari (n 174); State of Mysore (n 174); Anwar Ali
Sarkarhabib (n 113).
182
re. Special Courts Bill 1978 (n 173).
183
State of A.P. & Ors v McDowell & Co. & Ors, (1996) 3 SCC 709; State Of M.P v Rakesh Kohli & Anr (2012)
6 SCC 312.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 20
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 97.) Delegated legislation cannot be struck down for being simply arbitrary – it must be
manifestly arbitrary which is a higher criterion to satisfy 184. Manifest arbitrariness means an
act done “capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principles.185”
Furthermore, to adjudicate whether a law is arbitrary, the surrounding circumstances must be
taken into account as well if they prove that the government’s actions were based on certain
principles that are not irrational or unreasonable 186.
(¶ 98.) The word ‘arbitrarily’ has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to mean “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 alone.” 187
(¶ 99.) Further, the Apex Court has also established the Principle of Proportionality under Art.
14. This principle establishes four tests which, if satisfied, qualify a law as proportional and
within Art. 14. These tests are:
a) The measure taken must have a legitimate goal
b) The measure must be suitable to achieve the goal
c) There must not be a less restrictive yet equally effective measure available
d) The measure must not be disproportionate or excessive compared to the objective sought
to be achieved 188.
(¶ 100.) The Petitioners may argue that the said regulation has been implemented arbitrarily
and disproportionally. These claims hold no merit. It is submitted that the said regulation has
been implemented keeping in mind valid principles and objectives, while addressing the urgent
circumstances surrounding it.
(¶ 101.) Firstly, the said regulation is not arbitrary as it makes a clear distinction between those
who have consented to be vaccinated and those who have not.189 This is a clear determining
principle that is a result of medical study and research. It makes rational exemptions to the
restrictions laid down, such as people availing of emergency medical services190 and those
involved in the manufacturing of essential commodities like rice, dal and medicines 191. This
shows that it has been well outlined and is not an irrational, blanket, unreasonable regulation.

184
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304.
185
Shayara Bano v Union of India & Ors, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
186
Ramana Dayaram Shetty (n 171); Dr. Subramanian Swamy v Director, Cbi & Anr, (2010) 10 SCC 331.
187
Sharma Transport v Government of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188.
188
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) (n 22), Modern Dental College & Research Centre (n 19).
189
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
190
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
191
ibid.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 21
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 102.) Secondly, the surrounding circumstances are one of extreme urgency where the
situation in the State of Ariana is critical. 192 These exigencies have made it necessary for the
government to take this action and the restrictions are therefore not capricious.
(¶ 103.) Thirdly, the restrictions come into effect only from 15th May 2021 – nearly a month
after the regulation has been passed.193 This gives enough time for the implementation of
vaccination and is also a reasonable period given to people to make their decisions. The said
regulation, being a product of delegated legislation, has to establish that it is not manifestly or
palpably arbitrary. As established, the restrictions are not capricious, irrational or baseless.
Therefore, they satisfy the tests of arbitrariness under Art. 14.
(¶ 104.) The said regulation is proportional as well. Firstly, it has a clear legitimate goal of
completely eradicating DOVID-19 from Ariana.194 This satisfies the first test of
proportionality.
(¶ 105.) Secondly, the said regulation has been enacted to motivate people to take vaccinations
and boost the poor turnout in Ariana 195, which is an effective and suitable way of fighting a
pandemic of this nature. This satisfies the second test of proportionality.
(¶ 106.) Thirdly, the third test of proportionality is also satisfied as it has been established that
the only way of curbing and eradicating DOVID-19 from Ariana is by achieveing herd
immunity through vaccinations.196 This shows that while there may be innumerable
miscellaneous less-restrictive measures, none are equally effective to the said regulation.
(¶ 107.) Lastly, the said regulation is not excessive, satisfying the last test of proportionality.
The said regulation does not force people to take vaccines – it simply imposes a restriction on
the movement of people who refuse to take it. 197 Thus, there has been no overreach of executive
power. Therefore, the said regulation is neither arbitrary nor disproportional, satisfying the
criteria of Art. 14.

D. THE SAID REGULATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF DIANA

(¶ 108.) The Right to Life and Personal Liberty as provided in Art. 21 of the Constitution of
Diana is a broad term that is intended to encompass a wide range of rights that are instrumental

192
Moot Proposition ¶15.
193
Moot Proposition Annexure B.
194
ibid.
195
Moot Proposition ¶15.
196
ibid.
197
Moot Proposition Annexure B.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 22
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

for the enjoyment of a dignified and free life. 198 The expansive interpretation accorded covers
a range of essential issues such as the right to a clean environment199, shelter 200, livelihood 201
and trial 202 among numerous others.
(¶ 109.) The said regulation preserves the Right to Life because firstly, providing adequate
medical supplies and ensuring the right to health of the majority is the responsibility of the
Government [1]; and secondly, right to life and personal liberty is subject to procedure
established by law [2].

1. ENSURING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF THE MAJORITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE

GOVERNMENT

(¶ 110.) One of the primary responsibilities of the Government is to give priority to the health
of the public at large 203. The maintenance and improvement of public health and ensuring their
physical betterment – as a society – is essential. 204 The same has been echoed in the Directive
Principles of State Policy 205.
(¶ 111.) Ensuring the health of the majority is considered a key aspect of social justice done
by the government.206 The private interest or health of an individual is subordinated to the
larger public good in this endeavour.207 Further, providing all the requisite medical facilities
and ways of treatment is also subsumed under Art. 21.208
(¶ 112.) It is submitted that the said regulation has been enacted to safeguard the health of the
majority of the public by providing the public with the requisite medical facilities in the form
of vaccinations. It is to motivate the public to take vaccines despite the poor turn out. 209 The
State Government is satisfied that the only way to eradicate the virus is by achieving herd

198
Olga Tellis & Ors v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, (1985) SCC 3 545; Maneka Gandhi v Union Of
India (1978) SCC 1 248; Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, (1981) 1
SCC 608; Anita Kushwaha v Pushpa Sadan, AIR 2016 SC 3506.
199
M. C. Mehta v Union of India 2016 8 SCC 509.
200
Chameli Singh v State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549; M/S. Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame & Ors
(1990) 1 SCC 520.
201
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124; M. J.
Sivani v State of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 289.
202
Sheela Barse & Ors v Union of India & Ors, (1986) 3 SCC 596; Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India & Ors,
(2012) 6 SCC 502.
203
Ram Lubhaya Bagga (n 101); Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (n 40); Association of Medical Super
Speciality Aspirants & Residents & Ors. v Union Of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607.
204
Vincent Panikurlangara (n 24).
205
Constitution of India, Art. 47.
206
Devika Vishwas v Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726; C.E.S.C. Ltd. Etc v Subhash Chandra Bose & Ors,
(1992) 1 SCC 441
207
Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants (n 203); Milk Producers Association, Orissa & Ors v State
of Orissa & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 229.
208
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (n 102); Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (n 98).
209
Moot Proposition ¶15.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 23
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

immunity through vaccination.210 Therefore, the said regulation preserves the life of the people,
making it within the boundaries of Art. 21.

2. THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

(¶ 113.) . In arguendo, even if the said regulation is said to curtail the right to life and liberty,
it is doing so via a procedure established by law. Art. 21 guarantees each individual the right
to life and personal liberty. However, the same is subject to any procedure established by
law. 211 If a person’s fundamental right under Art. 21 is supposedly infringed upon, the
Government can justify such an infringement by relying upon a law. 212
(¶ 114.) As long as the procedure established by law is just, fair and reasonable, the law made
must be held as constitutional.213 Simply because a certain section of people disagrees with the
course of action taken by the government, judicial review cannot be resorted to by this section
unless it is proven that the procedure established by law has not been followed. 214
(¶ 115.) In the present case, the said regulation has been implemented by strictly following the
procedure established by law under the EA, 1897. Furthermore, it has been enacted keeping in
mind the interpretation of the EA, 1897 by the Courts of law. 215
(¶ 116.) Further, the procedure established by law is fair and just. It must be noted that the right
to consent for medical treatment216 and the right to privacy – as established by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court – have been preserved and not infringed upon. The said regulation only restricts
the movement of people who refuse vaccination, but does not force vaccination. 217
Therefore
Art. 21 has been subjected to reasonable procedure established by law.

E. THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS

(¶ 117.) . Art. 25 of the Constitution of Diana guarantees every individual the right to freedom
of religion and conscience,218 subject to restrictions imposed for public health and morality 219.
All actions made in pursuance of a religion are subject to conditions laid down by the State as

210
Moot Proposition ¶15.
211
Constitution of India, Art. 21; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42; Madhav
Hayawadanrao Hoskot v State Of Maharashtra, 1979 SCR (1) 192.
212
Kharak Singh v State of UP, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
213
Maneka Gandhi (n 198); Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 740; Selvi & Ors
v State Of Karnataka & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
214
Rajeev Suri (n 15).
215
Saurabh Sharma (n 139).
216
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union Of India & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 454; Common Cause v Union of India,
(2014) 5 SCC 338
217
Moot Proposition Annexure B
218
Constitution of India, Art. 25.
219
Constitution of India, Art. 25.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 24
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

it deems fit. 220 As matters of religion frequently have a direct impact and bearing on the
maintenance of public order, such restrictions are essential. 221
(¶ 118.) Especially when it comes to vaccinations, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that
concerns of violations of religion and conscience do not constitute a valid objection and excuse
to refuse vaccination.222 Simply because a certain religious group has an objection, the entire
law cannot be struck down as it must yield to the higher societal requirements 223.
(¶ 119.) The said regulation has been enacted keeping in mind public health. Therefore,
concerns of violation of conscience and freedom are not valid.

220
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v The State Of Bombay & Ors, AIR 1954 SC 388; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors v
The State Of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
221
Ramji Lal Modi v The State Of U.P, AIR 1957 SC 620.
222
Dr. Raghava Menon v Health Inspector, Koduvayur, 1972 SCC OnLine Ker 115.
223
The State Of Bombay v Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84.

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition 25
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Diana may be pleased to:

i. To dismiss the Writ Petition by way of PIL and declare it not maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Diana; OR
ii. To declare that the Epidemic (Amendment) Act, 2021 is constitutional and not
violative of Part III of the Constitution of Diana; AND
iii. To declare that the regulation issued by the State of Ariana is constitutional and
not ultra vires to the EA, 1897.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, The Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray

Sd/- _______________________

Counsel for the Respondent

1st NLUO PHFI Public Health Law National Moot Court Competition XXIV