TEAM CODE: VAAGAI

THE INTER-COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION (2022-2023)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF YAVANA

UNDER ARTICLE.32 IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2022

DIGNITY ASSURANCE FOR YAVANINANS …………………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF YAVANA ………………………….. RESPONDENT

AND

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ………………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF YAVANA ………………………… RESPONDENT

AND

MRS.MERSINA & 3 OTHERS ……………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF YAVANA ……………………… RESPONDENT

AND

SENGAI VALLEY DWELLER’S SOCIETY ………………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF YAVANA ………………………… RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF YAVANA
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………… II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….…… III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………….…… IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………… V

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………..……….……… VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… VII-VIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………… 1-23

1. WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL

SCAVENGER AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT, 2013
ISCONSTITUTIONALLY VALID ? 1-5

2. WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS

INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS? 6 -11

3. WHETHER THE DEPENDANTS OF THE DECEASED WERE

ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION? 12-17

4. WHETHER THE BIO-MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

REGULATIONS ARE FULFILLING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATES? 18-23

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………. IX

I
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

LIST OF ABBBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honorable

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SCC Supreme Court Cases

A.I.I.M.S All India Institute of Medical Science

UOI Union of India

Vs/ v. Versus

Ors. Others

DAY Dignity Assurance for Yavanians

WHO World Health Organization

GHS Global Healthcare Service

SECC Socio Economic and Caste Census

IR Indian Railways

CERD Convention on Elimination of Racial

Discrimination
CEDAW Convention for Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ILO International Labour Organization

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

T.N Tamil Nadu

II
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES
1. A.I.I.M.S Students Union vs. A.I.I.M.S, AIR 2001 SC 3262
2. A.P. Pollution Control Board II v Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retired.), (2001) 2 SCC 62
3. Balasaheb Rangnath Khade v The State of Maharastra, Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2011
4. Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. Chandrima Das on 28 January 2000
5. Change India v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition No.25726 of 2017
6. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959 AIR 648,1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8
7. Francis Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
8. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee VS C.K. Rajan, Appeal (civil) 2148 of 1994
9. Hari Singh vs Sukhbir Singh, 1988 AIR 2127
10. Haynes Vs. Harwood, (1935), 1 KB 146
11. In re special courts bill, AIR 1979 SC 478,(1979) 1 SCC 380,1979 2 SCR 476
12. Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition(Civil) 135 of 1970
13. Khatri & Ors vs. State of Bihar, 1981 SCR (2) 408, 1981 SCC (1) 627
14. Krishna Sharma v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 Cal, 58CWN 659
15. M.C. Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
16. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others, 1 2002(2) SCR 963
17. Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009
18. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
19. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa, 1993 AIR 1960, 1993 CR (2) 581
20. P.P.M. Thangaiah v. The Government of T.N (29-09-2006)
21. Parmanand Katara vs. UOI, 1989 SCC (4) 286
22. People Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568(1997) 1 SCC 301
23. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279
24. Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar, 1983 (4) SCC 141, 1983 AIR 1086
25. Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187
26. Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Others, 1987 AIR 1109 1987 SCR (2) 223
27. Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 224,
28. Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1027-1028 of 1992
29. Sher Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Application No.237(THC)/2013 (CWPIL No.15 of 2010)
30. State of Punjab vs. M.S. Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225
31. Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar and others, 1991 (1) SCC 598
32. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1979)
33. Tasleema Nasreen vs NCT of Delhi, 2009 ILR 6 Delhi 486
34. Union of India vs Prabhakaran vijay kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527
35. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others, 1995(5) SCC 647
36. Vimla Govind Chorotiya and 2 Others vs. State Of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (L) NO. 15651 of 2021
37. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

III
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Yavana has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Yavana which reads as follows:

Article 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.

IV
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Union of Yavana is the second most populous Nation in the World. The Yavanian
Constitution is the finest and lengthiest Constitution in the World and it describes the
human dignity of an individual at the core of its heart.
2. Dignity Assurance for Yavanians (DAY), a Non-Governmental Organization is working
for maintenance of Dignity in various sectors in the Yavana. When the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 was enacted, DAY
had vigorously criticized that the Act was not adequate enough to curb the evil of
inhuman approach in Scavenging. They had filed public interest litigation in the Supreme
Court to challenge the constitutionality of the the Act which is against the purpose of the
Act.
3. Global Healthcare Services (GHS) is a Multi-National Company situated in a commercial
complex in Maruvai. GHS had a contract with “Navila Multi-Services” (NMS) a
sanitation service, who do septic and sewage tank cleaning operations. On that day, the
NMS was not available even after continues calls. GHS was failed to get the services
from NMS and other similar service provider too. They hired Mrs. Mangai Selvendiran,
Mr. Selvendiran, and Mr. Arivu, for manual scavenging. They were offered to pay Rs.
600 per head per day.
4. Selvendiran and Arivu first stepped inside the tank to clean it, but they couldn’t tolerate
the smell and fell unconscious. Ms. Jonila, a Utopian citizen, is a research scholar who
visited Yavana to conduct a field survey on the stratification of Yavana on manual work.
On that fateful day, when she was conducting her research in the Maruvai, she witnessed
the struggle of Mangai and moved forward to give her hands, but losing her balance she
fell inside the septic tank and consequently died along with the other three.
5. The Maruvai police registered a case under Section 304 read with Section 107 and
Section 109 of Yavanian Penal Code and they was arrested the General Manager of GHS.
Subsequently, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Yavana took suo
moto cognizance on the issue. Later understanding the severity of the case NHRC decides
to move the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Yavanian Constitution.
Mrs. Mersina mother of Jonila rushed to Yavana and filed an Intervention Application to
implead in the case along with the relatives of deceased for claiming compensation for the
sewer deaths. The Apex court admitted the application.
6. GHS also owns a huge plant of incinerator for medical waste in suburban of Maruvai
which is adjacent to the “Sengai Valley” gated community consist of 500 residents. Of
late the residents experienced throat infection, lung problems, headaches, fainting,
eyesight problems, nausea and even coughing blood and there are several cases reported
in Sengai Valley hospitals. Society approached the GHS as their incineration producing
noxious fumes in the vicinity of Sengai Valley, the situation was totally ignored by GHS.
Society approached the State Pollution Control board (SPCB) of Poigai. Since, there is no
satisfactory actions on the part of SPCB of Poigai, the Society filed a writ petition in the
Apex Court of the Union of Yavana.
7. The Apex Court of Yavana integrated all the above petitions and scheduled the matter for
a hearing.

V
THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL

SCAVENGER AND THEIR REHABILIATION ACT, 2013 IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS

INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE DEPENDANTS OF THE DECEASED WERE ENTITLED

TO CLAIM COMPENSATION?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE BIO-MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS ARE

FULFILLING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES?

VI
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabilitation

Act, 2013 is constitutionally valid?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 violates the Right to
Life and Personal Liberty and the Right to Equality which is enshrined under Article 21 and
14 of the Constitution of Yavana. Hence it is pleaded before the Hon’ble Court to direct the
Central Government to repeal the Act which violates the people’s right to equality and right
to life .

2. Whether Government has complied with its International Commitments?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the Government
has not complied with its International Commitments and as a result the Right to Life of
both the citizens and non – citizens are affected. Hence it is pleaded before the Hon’ble
Court to direct the Government of Yavana to comply with the International Commitments.

VII
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

3. Whether the dependents of the deceased were entitled to claim compensation?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the dependents
of the deceased are entitled to claim the compensation in the light of decision Safai
Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India and Victim Compensation Scheme in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is pleaded before the Hon’ble Court to direct the Government of
Yavana to give compensation for the dependents of the deceased.

4. Whether the Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Regulations are fulfilling the

Constitutional mandates?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the Bio-Medical
Waste Disposal Regulations violates the Article 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution
of Yavana. It is further submitted that the Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Regulations are
contradictory to its parent Act i.e. the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Hence it is
pleaded to struck down the Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Regulations.

VIII
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGER

AND THEIR REHABILIATION ACT, 2013 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the petition
filed by the Dignity Assurance for Yavanians (DAY) is challenging the constitutional validity
of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
2. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
consists of 39 Section and 8 Chapters.
3. This petition has been filed to issue direction to the Central Government to repeal the Act
which violates the people‘s right to equality and right to life.
[1]
4. It is submitted that the Article 14 states ―The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India‖. It is well
settled principle that Article 14 is applicable to all the people which includes foreigner.
[2]
5. It is submitted that Section 2(g) provides that a person engaged or employed to clean
excreta with the help of such devices or using such protective gear, as the Central
Government may notify in this behalf, shall not be deemed to be a manual scavenger. This
provision of 2013 Act violates the right to equality.
6. It is submitted that in Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay [3] it was held that the statute is invalid unless it comply the reasonable classification
test. Here statute itself fails to meet the test, hence this enactment is itself violates the Article
21 and 14.

The legal system and legislations of India are in pari material with that of Yavana.
1
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
2
Section 2 clause (g) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
3
AIR 1974 SC 2009

1
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

7. In re special courts bill[4] which explained the principles enshrined in Article 14 is in

support of principles that legislations can be declared invalid or unconstitutional only on two
grounds ;
a) Lack of legislative competence
b) Violation of any fundamental rights or any provision of the constitution.

As the enactment[5] itself is having provisions which may indirectly cause the manual
scavenging, the aim of this enactment is to completely prohibit the manual scavenging, not
permit manual scavenging by express provisions which will obviously lead to violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17,21,14 which is provided in Part III.

[6]
8. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar , the Government cannot deprive any person
from equality before law and equal protection of the laws within the territories of India.
9. There can be no dispute that manual scavenging is most inhuman, barbaric practice which
infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. If any citizen is forced to do
manual scavenging, it will be a gross violation of their fundamental right conferred under
Article 21 of the Constitution of Yavana.
10. Francis Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi[7] The Supreme Court held that the right to
live is not restricted to mere animal existence it means something more than just physical
survival . The right to ―live‖ is not confined to the protection of any faculty or limb through
which life is enjoyed or the soul communicates with the outside world but it also includes ―the
right to live with human dignity‖.
11. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that 'Right to health forms an indispensable
part of Right to life. ―Parmanand Katara vs. UOI‖[8] is a landmark judgment that upholds
the preservation of life and considers the right to life to be of utmost significance.
12. The manual scavenging also affects the health of manual scavengers according to WHO.
Average life expectancy of a sanitation worker is only 50 years old. Workers and their
families face many diseases throughout their lives. [9]

4
AIR 1979 SC 478,(1979) 1 SCC 380,1979 2 SCR 476
5
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
6
1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279
7
1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
8
1989 SCC (4) 286

2
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

13. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1979), the Supreme Court held that the right to life
included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their
prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person‘s tradition, culture,
heritage and all that gives meaning to a man‘s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to
sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.
14. In the case, State of Punjab vs. M.S. Chawla[10], the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 in
broad manner , stating that right to health is integral part of the right to life. The government
has mandatory constitutional obligation to provide health facility to the society.
15. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in this landmark judgement in, ‗Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
[11]
India , has widened the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus made
India a welfare State. After this judgement, Article 21 protects all citizens not only from the
executive action but also from the legislative action. Human dignity is an inalienable right
which forms a part of the fundamental right to life (Article 21) as per the Constitution of
India. ‗Dignity‘ has been construed to include equal treatment and protection of the law, and
equal respect. It is a unanimously world-wide accepted right, validated by Articles 1, 22, and
23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
16. It is submitted that in Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India [12], the Supreme Court
noted that the official statistics issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for
the year 2002-2003 ―puts the figure of identified manual scavengers at 6,76,009. Of these,
over 95% are Dalits (persons belonging to the scheduled castes), who are compelled to
undertake this denigrating task under the garb of ‗traditional occupation‘. The manual
scavengers are considered as untouchables by other mainstream castes and are thrown into a
vortex of severe social and economic exploitation.‖ Where such persons belong to the
scheduled castes (SC) or the scheduled tribes (ST), the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 might get attracted.

9
Subhomay Saha, Vikas Upadhayay, ―The missing manual scavengers of India‖, published Monday 18 January
2021, Accessed on 2.54 p.m. Nov 11,https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/waste/manual-scavenging-a-stinking-
legacy-of-suffocat ion-and-stigma-61586
10
AIR 1997 SC 1225
11
AIR 1978 SC 597
12
Writ petition (Civil), Number 583 of 2003,(2014) 11 SCC 224, ILDC 2829 (IN 2014), 27th March 2014.

3
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

[13]
17. It is submitted that in Chapter III of the Constitution, Article 17 abolished untouchability
which states as follows: ―Abolition of Untouchability: ―Untouchability‖ is abolished and its
practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of
―Untouchability‖ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.‖
18. Article 17 of the Constitution was initially implemented through the enactment of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Section 7A[14] provides that whoever compels any
person on the ground of untouchability to do any scavenging shall be deemed to have
enforced a disability arising out of untouchability which is punishable with imprisonment.
19. It is submitted that under Article 13(2)[15] that the state shall not make any laws which takes
away or abridges the rights conferred by part III and any law made in contravention of this
clause shall, to the extend of the contravention be void.
[16]
20. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional
law made under Article 13(2) which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity from its
inception and is till-born law. It is void ab initio.
21. Article 38[17] in part IV permits the state to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare
of the people and under Article 42[18], the state must endeavour for securing just and humane
conditions of work. The public health and sanitation comes under entry 6 of the State List.
Article 47[19] of the Constitution of Yavana states that the state is under an obligation to
endeavour to improve the standard of living of its people.
22. It is submitted that the provisions of 2013 Act is lacking in the following areas:
 Sections 5 to 8[20] cannot be implemented unless those who are employed or engaged
in manual scavenging are identified, insanitary latrine are identified and the insanitary
latrines are either demolished or converted into sanitary latrines.
 Section 4(2), every Local Authorities are under an obligation to construct adequate
number of sanitary community latrines within three years from the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, as the appropriate Government may, by a

13
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
14
Section 7A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
15
Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution, 1950
16
1959 AIR 648,1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8
17
Article 38 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
18
Article 42 Ibid
19
Article 47 Ibid
20
Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

4
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

notification, specify so as to eliminate the practice of open defecation in their

jurisdiction in fact, the practice of open defecation must be stopped or eliminated
immediately. It is an important step towards eradication of Manual Scavenging. But,
this cannot happen unless the Local Authorities construct adequate number of
sanitary community latrines and maintain the same clean and hygienic.
23. Fact and Statistics :

 Based on the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011 (SECC-2011), data of manual
scavengers was released by the Ministry of Rural Development in 2015. As per SECC-
2011, there were 1,82,505 manual scavengers in only the rural areas of the country. It
should be noted that the SECC-2011 data is based on respondent input as revealed by the
households to the enumerator. Census 2011 revealed that there were 26 lakh insanitary
latrines in the country which requires human excreta to be cleaned or handled manually.
 To identify the number of manual scavengers in the country, two surveys have been
conducted by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment during the years 2013 and
2018 in which 14,812 and 48,251 manual scavengers were identified respectively giving
a total of more than 63,000 manual scavengers in the country. However, the 2018 survey
was conducted only in a total of 18 states & 170 districts[21].
 Indian Railways (IR) is the largest user of dry toilets in India, IR has 296,012 dry toilets,
which require manual cleaning, making it the biggest violator.
 Manual scavenging invites not only caste-based discrimination & social inequality but
also is hazardous with severe health implications for those involved. According to a
Parliament response from Dec 2021, a total of 58,098 manual scavengers have been
identified as per the criteria laid down in the 2013 act. Of these, caste-related data is
available for 43,797 manual scavengers, 97.25% of who belonged to Scheduled
Castes. [22]
24. Thus the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabiliation Act, 2013,
violates 14, 21 so it may be declared as invalid and unconstitutional.

21
Pavithra K M, ―The curious case of data on manual scavengers‖, published on Jan 8 2022, https://factly.in/the-
curious-case-of-data-on-manual-scavengers/, Accessed on 3.22 p.m Nov 11 2022
22
Bharini Saraf, Siddharth Verma, ―Transforming denial into deliberation: The case of manual scavenging,
published on 15 Jan 2022,https://theprint.in/opinion/transforming-denial-into-deliberation-the-case-of-manual-
scavenging/803599/, Accessed on 9.40 a.m Nov 15 2022

5
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS INTERNATIONAL

COMMITMENTS?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the
Government has not complied with its International Commitments.
2. This petition has been filed to direct the Government of Yavana to comply with the
International Commitments.
3. Article 51[23] of the Constitution provides that in the promotion of International Peace and
Security, the State shall endeavour to ● Promote international peace and security ●
Maintain just and honourable relation between nations ● Foster respect for international
law and treaty obligation in the dealings of organized people to one another ● Encourage
settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[24](para 3 line 3 pg no. 4) In this case of sexual
harassment of women at workplace, the court used international law to find the meaning
of domestic law and also held that international laws which consistent to it should be
taken in to consideration for enlarging the meaning and content of the domestic law.
5. In this case of Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala[25] Honorable Chief Justice Sikri
said that in situation where the language of municipal law is not clear or contrary then the
support of international law may be taken.[26]
6. Article 253[27] gives power to the parliament of our country to make laws for giving effect
to international treaties and conventions.
7. It is submitted that there are various international conventions and covenants to which
Yavana is a party, which guaranteed certain rights. Eg. Convention on Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention for Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The legal system and legislations of India are in pari material with that of Yavana.
23
Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
24
AIR 1997 SC 3011
25
Writ Petition(Civil) 135 of 1970
26
Gaqurangi Mehrotra, ―International law enforcement in India‖,https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
7803-international-law-enforcement-in-india.html, Accessed on 13 Nov 2022
27
Article 253 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

6
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

8. International principles like Polluter Pays Principle, Principle of Sustainable

Development, Precautionary Principle are also incorporated in Yavana.
9. It is submitted that in International Convention on the Elimination Racial
Discrimination[28] :
 Article 2(1)(c) provides that the States parties condemn racial discrimination and
undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating
racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and
to this end: Each State party shall take effective measures to review governmental,
national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations
which have the effect of creating on perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.
 Article 3 provides that the States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and
apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in
territories under their jurisdiction.
 Article 5 states that in compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article
2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial
discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction
as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the
enjoyment of the following rights:
o The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable condition
of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just
and favourable remuneration;
o The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;
 Article 6 provides that the States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction
effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other
State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights
and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from

28
Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1969.

7
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a
result of such discrimination.[29]
10. In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee VS C.K. Rajan[30] (para 2 line 2 pg no. 12)
the court said that it will not hesitate to invoke international conventions on human rights to
protect group rights of people.
11. It is submitted that according to International Dalit Solitary Network Data, 95% of
workers who clean insanitary latrines are women.
12. Article 5(a) of CEDAW [31](Ratification date for India - 09 Jul 1993) provides that States
Parties shall take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of
conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and
customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the
superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
13. Article 26 of ICCPR[32] (Ratification date for India - 10 April 1979) provides that All
persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal
protection of the law.
In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal
and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status.[33]
14. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa[34], (para 4 pg no. 3) the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court of India granted compensation for custodial death and it has justified the
decision based on the Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).

29
UN General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-
convention-elimination-all-forms-racial
30
Appeal (civil) 2148 of 1994
31
Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979.
32
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
33
General assembly resolution2200 A(XXI), ―International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-
rights
34
1993 AIR 1960, 1993 CR (2) 581

8
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

15. It is submitted that International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights[35](Ratification date for India - 10 Apr 1979):
 Article 6
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes
the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses
or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full
realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training
programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural
development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding
fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.
 Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and
through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to
the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights
enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as
to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
16. ILO Convention :
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). [36]
 Article 1 . For the purpose of this Convention the term discrimination includes—
○ (a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex,
religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect
of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or
occupation;

35
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
36
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100 _ILO_CODE:C111

9
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

○ (b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of
nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or
occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with
representative employers' and workers' organisations, where such exist, and with
other appropriate bodies.
 Article 2 provides that Each Member for which this Convention is in force
undertakes to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods
appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and
treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any
discrimination in respect thereof.
17. Article 27 of Vienna Convention: Internal law and observance of treaties -
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty.
18. In the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. Chandrima Das, the Court
while interpreting the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and referred to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to provide protection to foreign rape victim. In
this case the court has observed that ―the application of UDHR, and principles thereof
may have to be read, if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence.‖
19. It is submitted that Universal Declaration of Human Rights [37]:
 ―Article 1 of UDHR provided ―All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights‖.
 Article 2(1) of UDHR states that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set
forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, national or social origin, birth or other status.
 Article 23(3) of UDHR states that everyone who works, has a right to just and
favourable remuneration enduring for himself and his family an existence worthy of
human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.‖
[38]
20. Krishna Sharma v. State of West Bengal In this case Court stated that in case of
dispute between international law and domestic law, courts should restore harmony in the

37
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
38
AIR 1954 Cal, 58CWN 659

10
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

two and must examine interpretations of international instruments including treaties,

conventions, and declarations.
21. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India in 1996, the Supreme Court has
laid down that ―once these principles are accepted as part of customary International law,
there should be no difficulties in accepting them as part of our Domestic law. It is almost
an accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary International law, which are not
contrary to the Municipal Law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the Domestic
law and shall be followed by the court of law.‖
22. The Honourable Supreme Court decided in the same manner in the case of People Union
for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India[39]. Hence we can come to an understanding that
the Courts in India has interpreted and applied the International Law if it is not
inconsistent with the Domestic Law and if is there any inconsistency between the
International Law and Domestic Law, the Courts have construed harmoniously.[40]
23. Thus the Government has not complied with its International Commitments.

39
AIR 1997 SC 568(1997) 1 SCC 301
40
Abul Kalaam Azad, ―All you need to know about International Treaties and agreement‖, Aug 12
2017,https://blog.ipleaders.in/international-treaties/,Accessed on 14 Nov 2022

11
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

WHETHER THE DEPENDANTS OF THE DECEASED WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM

COMPENSATION?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the petition
filed by the dependents of the deceased is to claim compensation.
2. It is submitted that the dependant of the foreigner rushed to Yavana and filed an Intervention
Application to implead in the case along with the relatives of the other three deceased for
claiming compensation for sewer deaths. It is submitted that the Apex Court admitted the
application.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner have the jurisdiction in Supreme Court for seeking
compensation as the Supreme Court or the High Court may render compensatory justice by
awarding reasonable monetary compensation under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the injury - mental, physical, fiscal suffered by the individual for violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
4. It is submitted that granting compensation for violation of fundamental rights is not expressly
mentioned in the Yavanian Constitution though it finds mention in many international human
rights instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
(ICCPR)[41].
5. The Supreme Court recognised the right to seek compensation for the first time in the Khatri
& Ors vs. State of Bihar [42], and ordered compensation for violation of basic human rights.
[43]
6. In Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar , the court has established the validity of compensation
jurisprudence for violations of the constitution‘s fundamental rights on an ad hoc basis
without any structured formulation.

The legal system and legislations of India are in pari material with that of Yavana.
41
Article 9(5) states: ‗anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right
to compensation.‘
42
1981 SCR (2) 408, 1981 SCC (1) 627
43
1983 (4) SCC 141, 1983 AIR 1086

12
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

7. In Smt. Nilabati Behara Alias Lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court of
Yavana has granted compensation for custodial death.
[44]
8. It is submitted that the Article 14 states ―The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India‖. This
fundamental right considers every individuals to be equal before the eyes of law and provides
protection to everyone, against deprivation of life and liberty by the state.
9. In this present case, the fundamental right conferred in Article 14 and 21 (of the deceased
people) are violated.
10. It is submitted that in the landmark judgement Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union Of
India[45],the Supreme court of India give direction as, the manual scavengers entering the
sewer lines without any safety gears should be a crime and for each such sewer deaths,
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs should be given to the family of the deceased.
Also, Supreme Court directed identification of families of all persons who had died in
sewage work ( manholes, septic tanks ) since 1993 and to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs
for each of such death to the family members, further observing that rehabilitation must be
based on the principles of justice and transformation.
11. In Vimla Govind Chorotiya and 2 Others vs. State Of Maharashtra[46] the court referring
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India
reported in (2014) 11 SCC 224, it is stated that Government Resolution dated 12/12/2019 has
been issued by the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Government of
Maharashtra. As per the said Government Resolution in case of death of manual scavengers
in private sector, compensation of Rs.10 lakhs has to be paid by the concerned head of the
private sector/area to the families of the victim. A principle for compensation was also
established by the court — Rs 10 lakhs was payable for each and every case of sewer death
since 1993 – and the state is responsible for payment of compensation regardless of whether
or not the worker had been employed or contracted by the state.
12. Change India v. Government of Tamil Nadu[47] In a PIL seeking to enforce the 2014
Judgement, the Court establishing that the directions, not only applied to manual scavengers

44
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
45
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 583 of 2003
46
Writ Petition (L) NO. 15651 of 2021
47
W.P.No.25726 of 2017

13
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

engaged by the state, but also the those employed by private entities falling under the
jurisdiction of a municipality. It stated the State‘s duty to prohibit manual scavenging. It
further said that this liability to compensate for the lives of the manual scavengers lost cannot
be avoided by the State by reason that it is not able to put an end to manual scavenging.
In this petition seeking interest due to delayed payment of the compensation to the family of
the worker by the state, the same to be levied from the day of the death of the worker, the
Court rejecting this ordered the State to pay the interest at 8% annum from October 1, 2014
till the Rs. 10 lakhs were paid to the heirs of the manual scavengers who lost their lives
during the process of manual Scavenging[48].
13. It is submitted that the compensation for sewer death may be increased from 10 lakhs to 15
lakhs as the cost of living has drastically increased in the recent years.
14. In the case Supreme Court referred to and relied upon its earlier decision in Union of India
[49]
vs Prabhakaran vijay kumar where the supreme court had held that when activities are
hazardous and if they are inherently dangerous the statute expects highest degree of care and
if someone is injured because of such activities, the State and its officials are liable even if
they could establish that there was no negligence and that it was not intentional.
15. It is submitted that the Right to life under Article 21 of the Yavanian Constitution is available
to both citizen and non - citizens.
16. In Chairman, Raliway Board vs Chandrima Das[50],(para 5 line 3 pg no.11) were a
Bangladeshi national was gang-raped by the railway employees, the Supreme Court extended
the right to seek compensation even to foreign nationals holding that right under Article 21 is
available to all persons. It confirmed the order of the Calcutta High Court which awarded a
sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs compensation to the victim.
17. In Tasleema Nasreen vs NCT of Delhi[51], the Delhi High Court awarded compensation of
Rs. 2,70,000 to Bangladeshi nation Tasleema Nasreen on the account of her son suffering
mental torture at the hands of the police.
18. Rescue Cases: Exception to the maxim - Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

48
Manav Bhatt, ―The manual scavengers Act: Jurisprudence son far‖, 9 Feb 2022, https://cjp.org.in/the-manual-
scavengers-act-jurisprudence-so-far/, Accessed on 2.00 p.m 16 Nov 2022
49
(2008) 9 SCC 527
50
AIR 2000 SC 988
51
2009 ILR 6 Delhi 486

14
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

When the plaintiff suffers and injury as a result of him doing an act which he knows is likely
to cause harm to him but it is an act to rescue someone, then this defence will not apply and
the defendant will be held liable as in the case of Haynes Vs. Harwood[52].
19. The victim protection jurisprudence developed in United Nations General Assembly
(UNGA) 1985 by adopting a ‗Declaration of The Basic Principles of Justice for The Victims
of Crime and Abuse of Power‘, which was ratified by a substantial number of countries
including India, was a landmark in boosting the pro-victim movement. In which
comprehensive definition of victim was given and it included, the immediate family
members as well as it applied to everyone irrespective of race, religion, nationality, language,
age, colour, cultural belief.
20. The word "victim" is defined in Section 2(wa) by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2008 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which means ―a person who has suffered
any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has
been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir‖.
21. A victim of crime thus is a person who suffers any loss or injury as a result of the crime.
Although the expression "any loss or injury" is an expansive expression, it appears that it has
been used in the context of the person whose suffering is the direct and proximate result of
the crime and includes the person who is near and dear killed or whose property is destroyed.
22. Section 357A[53] states that Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central
Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to
the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and
who, require rehabilitation[54].
23. It is submitted that the dependents means any person who wholly or mainly dependent on the
another person for their support and maintenance.
24. It is submitted that in the present case the deceased people comes under the definition of
‗victim‘ so it is crystal clear that the dependents of the deceased are entitled to Victim
Compensation under section 357 A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

52
(1935), 1 KB 146,
53
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
54
Raman Devgan, Updated on 31 Oct 2022, A Lawywes Reference,https://devgan.in/crpc/section/357A/, Accessed
on 10.35 a.m Nov 18 2022

15
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

25. In Hari Singh vs Sukhbir Singh[55], the court while discussing the scope of section 357 A of
CrPC held that this power of court to award compensation is ancillary to other sentences but
it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that
he\she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system.

26. In Balasaheb Rangnath Khade v The State of Maharastra[56], on 27 April, 2012 the court
observed:
 The criminal justice system has been designed with the State at the centre stage. Law
and order is the prime duty of the State. The rule of law is to prevail for a welfare
State to prosper. The citizens in a welfare State are expected to have their basic
human rights. These rights are often violated. The law and order is breached. A
citizen is harmed, injured or even killed as a result of the crime. He/she is a victim of
an act termed an 'offence' in the criminal justice system. He/she seeks recourse to law
and justice. Justice is given to him/her upon upholding the rule of law.
 The state of the victims in the discipline of victimology has gone far ahead in the
west. ―Compensation in proceedings under article 32 or 226 of the Constitution
seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public
law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong
on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizen.
27. UBI JUS IBI REMEBIUM rule also finds recognition in the declaration of human duties
and responsibilities Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors.57, the court
held that the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium is recognized as a basic principle of the theory
or philosophy of law. The Supreme Court also held that it is the duty of the courts to protect
and maintain the right of parties and help them instead of denying them relief.
28. In P.P.M. Thangaiah v. The Government of T.N (29-09-2006 ) survey of the entire
judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the other High Courts, on the question of award
of compensation for violation of the fundamental rights, the following principles were
deduced by the Madras High Court:

55
1988 AIR 2127
56
Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2011
57
Appeal (civil) 1027-1028 of 1992

16
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

(1) The constitutional mandate enjoins upon the State to protect the person and property of every
citizen and if it fails to discharge its duty, the State is liable to pay the damages to the victims.
(2) The failures or inactions on the part of the State which led to the violation of the fundamental
right more especially under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India should have been
direct nexus to the damage caused/suffered.
(3) It is not necessary that the victim should approach the Civil Court by invoking common law
remedy for claiming damages for violation of the fundamental rights. The option is left to the
victim to claim the damages by invoking either the constitutional remedy or civil remedy. Since
the constitutional remedy is a public law remedy, the actual victim need not approach the Court.
The relief can also be awarded either by exercise of suo motu power or in a public interest
litigation case.
29. Thus the dependants of the Manual Scavengers and Foreigner are entitled to claim
compensation.

17
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

WHETHER THE BIO-MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS ARE

FULFILLING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES?

1. It is most humbly submitted in the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Yavana that the Bio-Medical
Waste Disposal Regulations are not fulfilling the Constitutional mandates.
2. It is that submitted the waste generated by Hospitals, Nursing Homes, pathological labs etc.,
termed as Bio-medical Waste, is disposed in terms of the Rules framed by Government of
India, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sections 5, 8 & 25 of the Environment
Protection Act, 1996, known as Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. But the
public health and sanitation is under entry 6 of the state list.
[58]
3. It is submitted that, Rule 3 (f) defines ―Biomedical waste‖ as any waste , which is
generated during the diagnosis , treatment or immunisation of human beings or animals or
research activities pertaining thereto or in the production or testing of biological or in health
camps, including the categories mentioned in Schedule I appended to these rules.
[59]
4. It is submitted that , Rule 3 (l) defines ―management‖ which includes all steps required
to ensure that biomedical waste is managed in such a manner as to protect health and
environment against any adverse effects due to handling of such waste.
5. It is submitted that the process of biomedical waste management includes waste collection,
segregation, transportation and storage, treatment & disposal.[60]
6. Biomedical waste treatment technologies includes the method of treatment should be such
that waste is modified before reaching its ultimate resting place. There are various types of
treatment technology for each type of biomedical wastes. They include a) Incineration
method, b) Autoclave treatment, c) Hydroclave treatment, d) Microwave treatment,
e)Chemical disinfecting, f) Land filling, g) General waste handling. These methods were
used to treat the biomedical wastes.[61]

The legal system and legislations of India are in pari material with that of Yavana.
58
Biomedical waste management rules 2016
59
Ibid
60
Asst. Prof. of Law Aparajita Das , ―BIO- MEDICAL WASTE‖, https://www.iilsindia.com.
61
Supra note1

18
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

7. It is submitted that Incineration method is one of the method which is widely used to treat
the biomedical wastes.
8. It is submitted that the Right to Life and Right to Personal Life conferred under Article
21[62] which is a fundamental rights included in Part III of the Constitution is infringed to the
Sengai Valley residents in this present case.
9. It is submitted that Article 21[63] (Right to life) includes right to live healthy and pollution
free environment. It was recognized in the case of Rural litigation and Entitlement
Kendra vs. State[64] (popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case)
10. In M.C. Mehta v Union of India (UOI) and Others[65], the Apex Court noticing that there
has been accelerated degradation of environment, reiterated that the right to live is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment
of pollution free air for the enjoyment of life. It was further observed that the most vital
necessities such as air, water and soil having regard to the right of life under Article 21,
cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as to reduce the quality of life of others.
11. It is submitted that inspired by the Stockholm Convention, which was attended by the Prime
Minister of India at that time, Swaran Singh Committee recommended the creation of a
separate chapter on Fundamental Duties for environmental protection in the Indian
Constitution which included Art 48A and 51A(g)[66].
12. Article 48A puts a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and further to
safeguard the forests and wildlife. To enable this duty, wildlife and forests have been
inserted in the concurrent list so that both the Central Government and State Government
can fulfil their duty of protecting wildlife.[67]
13. It is submitted that Article 51A(g)68 puts a fundamental duty on the citizens to protect and
preserve the environment.
[69]
14. The Supreme Court in A.I.I.M.S Students Union vs. A.I.I.M.S held that the duty of
citizens under Article 51-A does not exclude the duty of the states.

62
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
63
Constitution of India, 1950.
64
AIR 1988 SC 2187
65
AIR 1987 SC 1086
66
Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
67
Constitution of India 1950
68
Supra note 17
69
AIR 2001 SC 3262

19
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

15. Further in Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Others [70] it was held that
whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, Art 48-A and 51-A(g) has to be
considered. The role of the judiciary was also discussed. It was emphasized by the Supreme
Court that the duties under Article 51-A, even though being a directive principle, shall not
be ignored by the court. The Court may examine whether appropriate considerations are
taken while developing a policy under Article 51-A.
16. It is submitted that under biomedical management rules 2018, the prescribed authority
means the State pollution control board in respect of State[71]. In this case the State pollution
control board have not taken necessary steps on the complaint made by the Sengai Valley
Dweller‘s Society.
17. The duties are embodied in the Schedule III[72] as
 Inventorisation of Occupiers and data on biomedical waste generation, treatment
& disposal.
 Action against health care facilities or common biomedical waste treatment
facilities for violation of these rules (rule 18).
It is submitted that the State Pollution Control Board failed to take appropriate action
against the MNC i.e. Global Healthcare Service (GHS) on the complaint made by Sengai
Valley Dweller‘s Society.
18. It is submitted that the Schedule I of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 are
inadequate (as it does not include all the wastes generated in hospitals) and adversely causes
the environmental pollution and as a result affects the fundamental rights under Article 21
and this rules are contradictory to its parent act i.e. Environment Protection Act, 1986.
19. It is submitted that the Sengai Valley Society peoples are affected by noxious fumes which
is the produced by incinerator plant.
20. It is submitted that Incinerator means a furnace or a container for burning waste material.
There are certain rules relating to incineration[73] which must comply to protect health and
environment :

70
1987 AIR 1109 1987 SCR (2) 223
71
Rule 3(o)
72
Biomedical waste management rules 2018
73
Ibid

20
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

 Rule 4(s) – it shall be the duty of every occupier to maintain all record for a
period of five years.
 Rule 4 (t) – it shall be the duty of every occupier ,existing incinerators to achieve
the standards for treatment and disposal of biomedical wastes specified in
schedule II for retention time in secondary chamber and Dioxin and Furans within
two years from the date of this notification.
 Rule 8 – every occupier or operator of a common biomedical waste treatment
facility shall not dispose of such plastics by incineration and the bags used for
storing and transporting biomedical waste shall be in compliance with the Bureau
of Indian Standards.
21. The incinerator should be situated 500 meters away from the residential area. If there were
no place for situation of plant, it should get permission from Central Pollution Control
Board and the occupier should comply certain mandates like:
 Adoption of best available technology
 Prescribing stringed standard for operation
 Adoption of zero liquid discharge.74
The Global Healthcare Service have not complied any of the mandates and as a result the
Sengai Valley residents have suffered from many health issues like throat infection, lung
problems, nausea and even blood coughing.
22. It is submitted that in SCHEDULE II[75] has standards for treatment and disposal of
Biomedical wastes , it follows :
 The occupier or operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall monitor
the stack gaseous emissions (under optimum capacity of the incinerator) once in three
months through a laboratory approved under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and
record of such analysis results shall be maintained and submitted to the prescribed
authority. In case of dioxins and furans, monitoring should be done once in a year.[76]
 The occupier or operator of the common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall install
continuous emission monitoring system for the parameters as stipulated by State

74
Central pollution board guidelines
75
Biomedical waste management rules 2016
76
Ibid ,note (h)

21
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

Pollution Control Committees in authorisation and transmit the data real time to the
servers at State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committees and Central
Pollution Control Board. [77]
23. It is submitted that the Multi National Company (GHS) haven‘t comply any of the above
rules. That is the reason the residents experienced throat infection, lung problem, headaches,
fainting, eye sight problems, nausea and even coughing blood and there are several cases
reported in and around Sengai valley hospitals which adversely affect the right of the
people.
24. The Biomedical waste disposal rule have not comply any of the international convention.
25. Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste is the most inclusive global environmental treaty on
hazardous and other wastes. It has 170 member countries, and its objectives are to protect
human health and the environment against the adverse effects resulting from the generation,
management, and disposal of hazardous wastes, specifically clinical wastes from health care
in hospitals, health centers, and clinics.
26. Stockholm Convention on POPs (the Stockholm Convention) is a global treaty to protect
human health and the environment from POPs (POPs – dioxins and furans). POPs are toxic
chemicals which accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and cause damage. These
chemicals are formed by medical waste incinerators and other combustion processes. The
guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best environmental
practices (BEF) were released in 2006. It deals with BEP including source reduction,
segregation, resource recovery and recycling, training, and proper collection and transport.
27. Minamata Convention on Mercury is a global treaty to protect human health and the
environment from the adverse effects of mercury. On October 10, 2014, in Japan, more than
90 nations signed the first new global convention on environment and health. This treaty
includes the phasing out of certain medical equipment in health-care services, including
mercury-containing medical items such as thermometers and blood pressure device.
28. In Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar and others[78] (page no.8 para2) the Supreme Court
observed that the right to live is a fundamental right which includes right to enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life and if anything endangers or impairs

77
Ibid, note (i)
78
1991 (1) SCC 598

22
 THE INTER – COLLEGIATE STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2022 – 2023)

the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.
[79]
29. In A.P. Pollution Control Board II v Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retired.) and others, the
Apex Court noted that the concept of healthy environment as a part of the fundamental right
to live developed by it was finding acceptance in various countries side by side with the
right to develop.
30. In Sher Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh on 2014[80], the National Green Tribunal
held that the State is under a constitutional obligation to protect and improve the
environment.
31. In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others[81], a Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court
held that Article 39(e), 47 and 48-A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State
to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the
environment.
32. It is also submit that it is state duty to take precautionary principle to protect the
[82]
environment. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others ,a
three Judges Bench of this Court referred to these changes, to the `precautionary principle'
and the new concept of `burden of proof' in environmental matters. Kuldip Singh, J. after
referring to the principles evolved in various international Conferences and to the concept of
`Sustainable Development', stated that the Precautionary Principle, the Polluter Pays
Principle and the special concept of Onus of Proof have now emerged and govern the law in
our country too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our Constitution.
33. It is submitted that the Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Regulations are not fulfilling the
constitutional mandates.

79
(2001) 2 SCC 62
80
Application No.237(THC)/2013 (CWPIL No.15 of 2010)
81
2002(2) SCR 963
82
1995(5) SCC 647

23
 PRAYER

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

1. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenger and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 is

constitutionally invalid.

2. The Government has not complied with its International Commitments.

3. The dependents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation.

4. The Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Regulations are not fulfilling the Constitutional mandates.

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND
EVER PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

-(P)

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

IX