TEAM CODE: G

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSLE - 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED BHARAT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 (PIL) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950

Mr. Vishwam Nath …Petitioner

Vs.
The Government of United Bharat …Respondent

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF UNITED BHARAT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 2]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS Pg. No.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6

4. Facts 7

5. Issues Raised 8

6. Summary of Arguments 9

7. Arguments Advanced:

(i). The present petition is not maintainable as a Public Interest 11

Litigation (PIL).

(ii). The dependents of deceased migrant workers are not entitled

13
to compensation.

(iii). The migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing

railway tracks for their travel to their hometown. 16

(iv). The right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under

Article 21 of the constitution, has not been violated during
18
Pandemic Covid-19.

8. Prayer 20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 3]

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. SHORT FORM FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Report

2. Anr. Another

3. CEC Central Empowered Committee

4. COVID Coronavirus

5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

6. Co. Company

7. HC High Court

8. Hon’ble Honorable

9. IPC Indian Penal Code

10. NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

11. No. Number

12. Ors. Others

13. PIL Public Interest Litigation

14. para Paragraph

15. pg. Page

16. r/w. Read with.

17. SC Supreme Court

18. ST Scheduled Tribe

19. U.O.I Union of India

20. vs. Versus

21. W.P. Writ Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 4]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. Indian Constitution, 1950
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
4. The Railways Act, 1989 (Act 24 of 1989)
5. The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions
of Service) Act, 1996 (Act No. 27 of 1996)
6. The National Disaster Management Act, 2005. (Act 53 of 2005)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. M. P. Jain, The Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexisNexis.
2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, Volume - 1,
LexisNexis.
3. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, Volume - 2,
LexisNexis.
4. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency.
5. Chris Turner, Unlocking Torts, 4th Edition, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London
& New York.
6. Prof. S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code with Criminal law (Amendment) Act, 2018, 21st
Edition, Central Law Publications.

ONLINE CITATION

1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.scconline.com/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/
4. https://www.casemine.com/
5. https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 5]

6. https://www.livelaw.in/
7. https://taxguru.in/

CASES CITED
Indian Cases
1. V.Annaraja vs The Secretary to the Union of India, [WP.No.3822 of 2019 and WMP
No.4247 of 2019].
2. State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., [Civil Appeal Nos.1134-1135 of
2002].
3. Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and Urban Planning
Department, Civil Secretariat & Ors., [Writ Petition No. 1093 (M/B) of 2006 (PIL)].
4. Pushpabai v. Ranjit. G. & P. Co., [AIR 1977 SC 1735].
5. Sk. Allah Bakhas & Ors. vs. Dhirender Nath Panda & Anr., [AIR 1983 Orissa 203].
6. Reepak Kansal & Ors. vs. U.O.I, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 554, 539 of 2021].
7. Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. vs Union Of India, [W.P.(C) 8528/2008].
8. Cherubin Gregory v. The State of Bihar, [AIR 1964 SC 205].
9. Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., [65 (1997) DLT 428].
10. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union vs. Delhi Administration, [AIR 1992
SC 789: (1992) 4 SCC 99].
11. Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, [(2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806].
12. IR Coelho vs. State of TN, [(2007) 2 SCC 1: AIR 2007 SC 861]

Foreign cases
1. London Borough of Southwark vs. Williams, {[1971] 2 All ER 175}, (United Kingdom).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 6]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It’s most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat that the counsel
on behalf of Respondent has approached this Hon’ble Court in response to the Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) applied by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
The counsel on behalf of Respondent humbly submits to dismiss this Petition, and the contentions
regarding the same will be presented before the Hon’ble Bench accordingly.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 7]

SUMMARY OF FACTS

United Bharat with 28 states and 9 Union Territories has the lengthiest constitution and has
most of the salient features that are unique in content and spirit.
On 30th January - Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, a pandemic disease
was reported in United Bharat, leading to a large disruption in economic activities and loss of
human life as well. To which, Section 144 CrPC curfew was declared and enforcement agencies
arrested and detained the violators, leading to lockdown in United Bharat.
Where one of the migrant worker named Mr. Ashish Baiga, who is a family man (poor ST
family) from State of Bangala working in State of Rashtra as construction building worker,
whereby losing his job due to lockdown, decided to travel with other 5 of his co-workers to Bangala
through train tracks assuming that there would be safer to evade police and a shorter route than
roadways. After two days of travel, the laborers faced fatigue and lethargy because of
sleeplessness, lack of rest and less food and water intake. In spite of all these hurdles, the poor
migrant workers moved forward with strong determination.
On 5th March 2020 at 7pm, a goods train ran over migrant workers, causing the death of 3
(including Ashish Baiga) and other 3 injured. This caught the attention of social media & raised
national concern for the plight for migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic. Assessment
report from NCRB regarding the accidents from January to December 2020, accounting to a
majority in migrant workers death.
Where the Indian Railways declared that it was “not railway accidents” or “untoward
incidents” and it was purely “trespassing”. Moreover they claimed that this to be a civic issue and
they took utmost efforts in sensitizing trespassers to avoid walking on tracks, hence they are not
negligent. The State Government provided meager compensation, but the Central Government
refused to pay compensation to those families during this disruptive economic issue during
Pandemic.
Mr. Vishwam Nath, a social activist took up initiative to file a suit as PIL before Hon’ble
SC of United Bharat under Article 32 of the Constitution of United Bharat to bring in to attention
the plight of migrant workers during COVID-19 and to direct Central Government to pay
reasonable compensation to the family of migrant workers who met with railway accidents. Now
the case is pending before the Hon’ble SC of United Bharat.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 8]

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

2. Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation?
3. Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks for
their travel to home town?
4. Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of constitution is
violated during Pandemic Covid19?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 9]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

The counsel on behalf of the Government of United Bharat (i.e., hereinafter the
Respondent), humbly submits that the present petition is not maintainable as a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL). As it’s clearly given in Compilation of Guidelines to be followed
for entertaining Letters/ Petitions received in this Court (Supreme Court) as Public Interest
Litigation, based on full court decision dated 1st December 1988 and subsequent
modifications. In which the point “Complaints against Central/ State Government
Departments and Local Bodies” will not be entertained as Public Interest Litigation and
they may be returned to the petitioners or filed in the PIL Cell. As in the given case the PIL
filed by the Petitioner is diverting the case away from the real incident.

2. Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation?

The counsel on behalf of the Government of United Bharat (i.e., hereinafter the
Respondent), humbly submits that the dependents of deceased migrant workers are not
entitled to compensation. As per Section 66 of National Disaster Management Act, 2005,
the State Government has provided the necessary compensation to the victims. But relying
on the compensation of the dependents of the deceased migrant workers from the Central
Government is not possible.

3. Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks
for their travel to hometown?
The counsel on behalf of the Government of United Bharat (i.e., hereinafter the
Respondent), humbly submits that the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” under
Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989, and also through torts, thereby choosing railway
tracks for their travel to hometown.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 10]

4. Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of

constitution is violated during Pandemic Covid19?
The counsel on behalf of the Government of United Bharat (i.e., hereinafter the
Respondent), humbly submits that the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the
Constitution, 1950 has not been violated during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Where the
essence of Article 21 is “Protection of Right to life”. Where this COVID-19 pandemic
results in disruption of economic activities as well as human life, creates a serious impact
on Protection of Life. Hence, announcing a curfew under Section 144 CrPC does not
amount to violation of Article 21, but an enhanced protection of the United Bharat Citizen’s
life.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 11]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

1.1. Petitioner has no locus standi to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
1.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner (i.e., Mr. Visham Nath) does not have locus standi
to file this PIL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The locus standi of a petitioner for filing
PIL is based on the following:
1) The bona fide aspect (have to be obtained from CEC);
2) Real and genuine public interest;
3) Sufficient interest in the proceedings;
4) Violation of fundamental right of Public at large;
5) Not having any personal gain, political motive or oblique consideration.
1.1.2. In the first instance, it is clear that there has “not” been any violation of Fundamental
Rights. The PIL filed by the Petitioner highlights on bringing attention towards the plight
of migrant workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic and reasonable compensation to be
sought by family members of the migrants who died in railway accidents. Where the fact
is clear that, it was not a railway accident or untowards incidents. Moreover, it's also clear
that the State Government has provided compensation to the victims.
1.1.3. In this the petitioner asking for reasonable compensation to the family members proves a
kind of Personal gain or Private profit in terms of publicizing his name as a Famous Social
Activist, covering the aspect of Publicity Interest Litigation as relied in the case
V.Annaraja vs The Secretary To The Union Of India1. This can be proved that, being a
social activist, it's inconsistent to state that he will be unaware of the COVID-19 Pandemic
and its disruption on the United Bharat, in economic terms.

1.2. This Petition is not maintainable:

1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that this PIL is not maintainable as there is a conflicting interest that
has to be balanced by court relying on the case State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh

1
V.Annaraja vs The Secretary To The Union Of India, [WP.No.3822 of 2019 and WMP No.4247 of 2019].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 12]

Chaufal & Ors.2, where “the court should ensure that there is no personal gain, private
motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The court should also
ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb
frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”
1.2.2. In the present case, the allegations set by the petitioner with respect to the compensation
action and plight of migrant workers is unjustifiable as the offense lies on the migrant
workers who have trespassed and hence their dependents are not eligible for compensation
accordingly.
1.2.3. It is further humbly submitted that in the cases of Departmental proceedings, initiated or
sought to be initiated by government in case of these functionalities during the emergency
period cannot be challenged as in the guise of Public grievance, the Court cannot encroach
upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution, to the Executive and the Legislature as relied.
In the case of Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and
Urban Planning Department, Civil Secretariat & Ors.3, it stated that “the Court will not
ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its
jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated”.
Where the compensation part and the related plights will be elaborated in the upcoming next issues.

2
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., [Civil Appeal Nos.1134-1135 of 2002].
3
Ajai Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Housing and Urban Planning Department, Civil
Secretariat & Ors., [Writ Petition No. 1093 (M/B) of 2006 (PIL)].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 13]

ISSUE 2: Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to

compensation?

2.1. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the dependents of the deceased are not entitled to compensation
as the State Government has already provided compensation to the victims even though
the negligence was on the part of migrants. Through the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur, that
during the Section 144 CrPC curfew of the Government Order, the migrants taking the path
of the railway tracks, is purely the fault of the migrants itself and not of the railway
authority.
2.1.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai v. Ranjit. G. & P. Co.4, accepted the aforesaid
statement of law and observed:
"The burden rests on the opposite party to prove the inevitable accident. To succeed in
such a defense, the opposite party will have to establish that the cause of the accident could
not have been avoided by exercise of ordinary care and caution."

2.1.3. It is further relied on the case Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.5, this Court
has explained the conditions required for the applicability of the principle of res ipsa
loquitur. The relevant passage from the said judgment reads as under:-
"Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of
negligence where
(1) It is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or omission
which set in train the events leading to the accident, and
(2) On the evidence as it stands at the relevant time it is more likely than not that
the effective cause of the accident was some act or omission of the defendant or of
someone for whom the defendant is responsible, which act or omission constitutes
a failure to take proper care for the plaintiff's safety.

4
Pushpabai v. Ranjit. G. & P. Co., [AIR 1977 SC 1735], para 5.
5
Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., [65 (1997) DLT 428]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 14]

There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. However, where the thing which causes
the accident is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his employees, and
the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have
the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. Three conditions
must be satisfied to attract applicability of rest ipsa loquitur:
(i) The accident must be of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence
of someone's negligence;
(ii) It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control
of the defendant;
(iii) It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part
of the plaintiff.
2.1.4. Through this it's clear to be proved by the railway authority that the accident could not be
avoided by exercise of ordinary care and caution because of the negligence by the Migrants.
2.1.5. It is further submitted by relying on the case Sk. Allah Bakhas & Ors. vs. Dhirender Nath
Panda & Anr.6, where the presumption of negligence was raised against the plaintiff, that
is the auto rickshaw driver. The same is relied on the present case, where the deceased
migrant workers are at negligence basis and they cannot entitle compensation from the
Central Government to their dependents.

2.2. Acts that represent no compensation to the Deceased migrant workers’ dependents.
2.2.1: National Disaster Management Act, 2005:
2.2.1.1.It is humbly submitted that through the sympathy basis the State Government through
Section 66 of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 has paid compensation as also
relying on the case of Reepak Kansal & Ors. vs. U.O.I7, where the ex-gratia compensation
being paid for migrant workers' death by each State Government as much as possible.

6
Sk. Allah Bakhas & Ors. vs. Dhirender Nath Panda & Anr., [AIR 1983 Orissa 203].
7
Reepak Kansal & Ors. vs. U.O.I, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 554, 539 of 2021].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 15]

2.2.2: Torts:
2.2.2.1.Where in India, the Doctrine of apportionment of Damages is carried on in case of
Contributory Negligence. Where in the Doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens could clearly
state that the Migrant workers are the sole reason for causation of negligence and on the
respondents part the good train ran on the railway tracks which is the property of the Indian
Railways. It is evident that the migrant workers only acted on the Doctrine of Volenti Non
fit Injuria basis and are responsible for their acts.

2.2.3: Indian Penal Code, 1860:

2.2.3.1.Moreover, it is humbly submitted that under Section 80 of IPC, 1860, the Accident in doing
a Lawful Act clearly states, without any wrongful intention any accident occurs is exempted
from the Accident and punishment for the same is under general exemptions.

2.2.4: Railways Act, 1989:

2.2.4.1.Therefore, by Chapter XII and Chapter XIII, of the Railway Act, 1989, the same would be
availing general exemptions towards the “dependents of the deceased” [Section 123(b)].
Where the compensation is only for the passengers and railway servants on duty [Section
124]. Moreover, this accident cannot be considered as “untoward incident” [Section
123(c)] nor compensation can be claimed for the same [Section 124A]

2.3. Thus humbly submitting that compensation will not be available even by any Industrial
dispute Act, 1949 covering the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, as the migrant workers lost their jobs,
and hence are not being covered under the said acts.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 16]

ISSUE 3: Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway
tracks for their travel to home town?

3.1. Railways Act, 1989:

3.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing
railway tracks for their travel to their hometown. Where it is clearly stated in Section 2(31)
with respect to “railways” and read with Section 147 stating the Trespass as any person
enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully
entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave. Through these
provisions it is evident that the trespass has been done by the migrant workers and the same
is liable for punishment in Section 147.
3.1.2. It is further humbly submitted that by relying on the case Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. vs
Union Of India8, its observed that, “5.3 That crossing or trespassing on railway tracks is
not only dangerous but also a punishable offense under Section 147 of the Railways Act,
1989”

3.2. Torts:
3.2.1. The rule of Necessity cannot be claimed and the same is relied on by the case London
Borough of Southwark vs. Williams9. Moreover the trespasser is not allowed to take
defense of “jus terti”. Where the general rule of “Necessity” must not act as a defense for
future crimes that might be committed. Moreover, it's clearly stated that under Section 144
CrPC the violators of the said curfew with regard to the COVID 19 Pandemic will be
arrested or detained. Knowing the same, the migrant workers to evade police force opted
for the railway tracks, which accounts to a criminal intent.
3.2.2. Also relying on the case Cherubin Gregory v. The State of Bihar10, where it is observed
that, “It is, no doubt, true that the trespasser enters the property at his own risk and the
occupier owes no duty to take any reasonable care for his protection, but at the same time
the occupier is not entitled to do wilfully acts such as set a trap or set a naked live wire

8
Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. vs Union Of India, [W.P.(C) 8528/2008].
9
London Borough of Southwark vs. Williams, {[1971] 2 All ER 175}, (United Kingdom).
10
Cherubin Gregory v. The State of Bihar, [AIR 1964 SC 205].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 17]

with the deliberate intention of causing harm to trespassers or in reckless disregard of the
presence of the trespassers. As we pointed out earlier, the voltage of the current fed into
the wire precludes any contention that it was merely a reasonable precaution for the
protection of private property”.

3.3. Report:
3.3.1. It is humbly submitted that Government of India - Ministry of Railways - Railways Board
in their report No. 2020/ Safety A&R/ 19/ 11 had provided measures regarding “Prevention
of unsafe working and trespassing of railway tracks” during the COVID-19 Pandemic, to
ensure the safety and measures to be taken accordingly. Where the same has been done
earlier in the case of Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors.11, (Supra) “In addition, the railway
authorities have been advertising extensively to educate people about the dangers of
trespassing on railway tracks”.

3.4. Hence, humbly submitting that the respondent had ensured that the necessary safety
measure to ensure that the tracks are not accessible in the normal course. The railway
authorities have been advertising extensively cautioning the public of the hazards of
trespassing on the railway tracks. The tracks also do not present a hidden trap. Thus, the
blame lies on the migrant workers who relied on the railway tracks to reach their home
town.

11
Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. vs Union Of India, [W.P.(C) 8528/2008].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 18]

ISSUE 4: Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of
constitution is violated during Pandemic Covid19?

4.1. Emergency provisions overtake the rights by declaring Curfew

4.1.1. It is humbly submitted that this Pandemic COVID- 19 is a Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome Coronavirus 2, which causes huge disruption on economic activities as well as
loss of life also. Therefore the Central Government of United Bharat declared curfew/
lockdown under Section 144 CrPC to control the loss of life. This is a kind of Global Health
Emergency announced by the World Health Organization to take necessary protocols in
each country accordingly. Therefore, this accounts to an emergency and relates to the
Emergency Provisions as laid down in the Constitution in Part XVIII (Article 352 to 360).
4.1.2. Where it is clearly stated from 44th Amendment that Articles 14, 20, 21 are alone not to be
infringed except to “reasonable restriction clauses” of the said Articles and the remaining
Articles of Part III of the Constitution can be curtailed as provided in the case IR Coelho
vs. State of TN12 under Article 359 of the Constitution of United Bharat. Under Article
250(2) of the Constitution, the life of law made by Parliament which it would not be
competent to enact, but for the issue of a proclamation of emergency, comes to an end to
the extent of the emergency on the expiry of 6 months after the proclamation of emergency
cases to operate, except for things done or omitted to be done before the expiry of this
period. Whereby the Centre becomes entitled to give directions to a State to the manner in
which it is to exercise its executive powers under Article 353(a).

4.2. Enhanced sight over the Article 21

4.2.1. It is humbly submitted that protection of right to life is enhanced with respect to Right to
health only emphasizing on the Article 21 of the Constitution. Where in the case Delhi
Development Horticulture Employees’ Union vs. Delhi Administration13, the SC has
stated that, “there is no doubt that broadly interpreted and as a necessary logical corollary,
right to life would include the right to livelihood and therefore, right to work. But this is in

12
IR Coelho vs. State of TN, [(2007) 2 SCC 1: AIR 2007 SC 861], at pg. 109.
13
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union vs. Delhi Administration, [AIR 1992 SC 789: (1992) 4 SCC
99].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 19]

the context of Article 21 which seeks to protect persons against deprivation of their life
except according to the Doctrine Procedure Established by Law. This does not obligate
the State to provide work or livelihood to the people. There is no such positive obligation
on the State. This matter falls under the Directive Principles of the State Policy in Article
41”. It is also to be noted that Right to Work has not yet been recognized as a fundamental
right as referred to in the case Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi14.
4.2.2. Moreover, with respect to the Scheduled Tribes point of view, according to Articles
366(25) r/w. 342(1), the President may notify what tribes are to be treated as ST with
respective State & Union Territories. A person belonging to a ST in one State cannot ipso
facto claim the same status in another State unless his tribe is declared to be a ST in relation
to that State. Therefore, claiming on the aspect of ST will also be not applicable in the
present instance.
4.2.3. Hence, humbly submitting that the plight of migrant workers in this COVID-19 Pandemic
is megre than the disruption caused by the pandemic and the concentration on those impacts
are to be considered at large and hence the compensation to the dependents of the deceased
cannot be entitled by the Central Government as the compensation is already provided by
the State Government to the Victims.

14
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 [Pg. No. 20]

PRAYER

Whereas from the facts stated, arguments advanced with the provisions and cases cited, the counsel
on behalf of the Respondent, humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench to adjudicate and declare
that,
1. The present petition is not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL);

2. The dependents of deceased migrant workers are not entitled to compensation;

3. The migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks for their travel
to their hometown;

4. The right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of the constitution, has
not violated during Pandemic Covid-19;

And to pass any other relief, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat may deemed fit and
proper in the interest of JUSTICE, EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE and for this act of
kindness, the Respondent and the counsel on behalf of Respondent shall duly bound to pray
forever.

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT