TEAM CODE: CM 16

CLEA MOOTING (SOUTH ASIA ROUNDS) COMPETITION -2022

MAR GREGORIOS COLLEGE OF LAW,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL

UNDER ARTICLE.32 IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2022

ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC ……………………………………. PETITIONER

RIGHTS

VERSUS

1. UNION OF ROSEHILL
…………………………………….
RESPONDENT(S)
2. STATE OF BRAAVOS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………… II-III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….…… IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………….…… V

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………… VI-VIII

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………..……….……… IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… X-XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………… 1-34

1 WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF

ROSEHILL DECLARING LOCKDOWN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID AND WHETHER IT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE 1-8
CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

2 WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF

BRAAVOS WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOURS LAWS,
VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR 9-12
ORGANISATION CONVENTION IS VALID?

3 WHETHER THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVO’S

SHARING OF THE PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED
PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE AND USE OF MYSTERIOUS DRONES 13-22
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

4 WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL
HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, 23-27
UNDER THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME
DURING THE POST COVID REGIME?

5 WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT

UNDER THE EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 MAKING VACCINATION
COMPULSORY VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS 28-33
CONSTITUTION?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………… XII

I
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honorable

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

ADR Association of Democratic Rights

NCRB National Crime Record Bureau

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights.
SLP Special Leave Petition

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

EDA Epidemic Disease Act

DMA Disease Management Act

PMMKBY Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana

NHRC National Human Right Commission

ARI Acute Respiratory Inspection

CMIE Centre For Monitoring Indian Economy

COVID-19 COrona VIrus Disease-19

UP Uttar Pradesh

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

II
 ILO International Labour Organisation

ESI Employee’s State Insurance

DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

MHA Ministry of Home Affairs

RTI Right To Information

NDMA National Disaster Management Authority

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization
PUCL People's Union for Civil Liberties

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights
IPC Indian Penal Code

III
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India 1981 AIR 298, 1981
SCR (2) 185
2. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO
3. Bantua Mukti Morsa v. Union of India A.E.A. 1984 Uni 812
4. BURRA BAZAR FIRE ORKS Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA
A.P.A. 1988-Stone,121
5. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1959 AIR 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8
6. Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996)
7. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Etc vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh 1959 AIR 1376, 1960
SCR (1) 580
8. Karan Dileep Nevatia vs The Union Of India. 2010
9. Kuldip Nayar V. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127
10. Lalit Kumar Modi -v- Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others reported in
(2011) 10 SCC 106
11. Madras v. V.G. Rows AIR 1951 Mad 147, (1951) IMLJ 628
12. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
13. Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra 23 March, 2007,
14. Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 Bom 121, 2007 (109)
Bom L R 844, 2007 (4) MhLj 573. 1
15. Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India 1998 AIR (SC) 431,
1997 (9) JT 431, 1997 (10)
16. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 1960 AIR 430, 1960 SCR (2) 375
17. Passim Banka Get Mazur Samiti v. West Bengal (1966) 4 Univ. 37
18. People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568, JT 1997 (1)
SC 288
19. Rajneesh Kapur v. Government of India A.E.A. 204 of 2007 M.P
20. Re Dinthar Incident Aizawl v State of Mizoram and Others WP(C)/37/2020
21. Section 2 of this Epidemic Disease Act, 1897
22. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1996) 113 PLR 499
23. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1996) 113 PLR 499
24. State of West Bengal v Committee (2010) 3 SCC 571
25. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409

IV
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rosehill has the jurisdiction in this matter under
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Rosehill 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.

V
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rosehill is a country in South Asia which is 7th largest by area & 2nd largest by

population.

2. Rosehill is committed to its constitution and it has parliament houses in state and union

guarantees fundamental rights and DPSP of the citizens. Its law is Pare-materia to Indian

law.

3. On 30/01/2020 WHO declared global emergency as death toll of Chinovia jumped to 170

with 7711 cases and also more than 7500 cases reported in 20 countries. On 11th march

WHO declared covid - 19 a pandemic.

4. To stop the spread of virus the MHA in its executive order dated 25/03/2020 laid a country

wide lockdown which closed all School, College, Office, Public Office and along with that

all form of Transports were also stopped till 14/02/2022.

5. As the factories were closed millions of migrant workers didn’t have income, food and so

they started travelling to their own place through roadways which demanded more than

100kms and 1000kms of walk. While walking to their places through road many were

assaulted & arrested by the law enforcement officials for violating the lockdown.

6. The rose hill govt on 10/04/2020 introduced a scheme (PMMKBY) to solve the distress of

public and part of that free food was given by PDS scheme to the “poorest of poor”, but

still criticized by media for many mishappening.

7. Meanwhile the SG of Braavos, capital of Rosehill passed an ordinance dated 25th April

suspended labour laws like (FACTORIES ACT, ID ACT, THE PAYMENT OF WAGES

ACT, MINIMUM WAGES ACT, BONUS ACT, ESI ACT) except the sec 5 of payment

of wages act for increasing the economy of the Government.

VI
8. During this pandemic state many dead bodies were abandoned and many dead bodies were

made floating in holy rivers. Even immediate family members of covid-19 didn’t get the

dead bodies to perform rituals.

9. Further to stop covid the CG introduced a Covi-Track app and made mandatory for all

citizens to use the app and demanded to furnish name, contact no, health etc and app sought

continuous “on state” of location to find out the social movement graph. The citizens were

angered on mandatory download of app since the govt kept quiet on addressing privacy

policies of app.

10. Also, the HEALTH & WELFARE DEPT of bravos published all the personal details

of 16910 pupil who were quarantined because of returning from abroad in official website

which includes the country they have visited recently which aggravated the privacy

concerns of public.

11. Another issue was usage of drone in bravos by executive official in park, beach to watch

out the pupil violating lockdown.

12. In June 2020 govt started developing the vaccine through a PPP. Reports stated that the

trails were conducted directly on the orphans as of though they are guinea pigs to test the

safety of the Vaccine. Also, it was reported many orphans were dead.

13. The govt spread massive awareness about the benefit of vaccine however the pupil avoided

vaccination due to reports states that the vaccine has side effects like blood clotting and

pulmonary vein issues.

14. The director of WHO addressed media insisting the need for vaccination and since the

covid -19 begun to increase the govt made vaccination certificate mandatory for inter-state

travel and pupil who work in Educational Institutions, Government offices, manufacturing

industries and factories which was addressed by public stating that this is in violation of

VII
 constitutional and human rights and infringes their right to life, personal choice and bodily

autonomy integrity.

15. Rosehill is a signatory to all international human right legal instruments.

16. The ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (ADR) has filed a writ petition before

the SC of Rosehill challenging the various actions of govt during covid period. The SC

allowed the petition and framed issues.

VIII
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND WHETHER IT

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS WHICH

SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOURS LAWS, VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE INTERNATIONAL

LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTION IS VALID?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVO’S SHARING OF THE

PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE AND

USE OF MYSTERIOUS DRONES VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE

GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH

ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID REGIME?

ISSUE V

WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER

THE EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 MAKING VACCINATION COMPULSORY

VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION?

IX
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND WHETHER
IT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

It is humbly contended that no right is absolute right and it is subjected to reasonable

restrictions. If a right runs counter to the larger public interest, then it is for this hon’ble court

to interfere in those matters and to safeguard the rights of the others. The State has a positive

obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to swing into action in the face of a public health

emergency such as the present pandemic to protect the lives of its people.

WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS WHICH

SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOURS LAWS, VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTION IS VALID?

It is humbly submitted that according to Article 254 (2) of Indian Constitution, any Bill

relating to a subject in the concurrent list, which may be repugnant to a Union law, needs

the approval of the President for its enforcement. This means that it has to be cleared by the

Centre, which would advise the President to give his assent. This applies to an ordinance as

well due to Article 213

WHETHER THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVO’S SHARING OF THE

PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE AND
USE OF MYSTERIOUS DRONES VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

It is most humbly submitted before the hon'ble supreme court of Rosehill that the application

CoviTrack , Bravoo's sharing of personal data of the quarantined person on the website and

X
usage of mysterious drones is not in violation of the right to privacy under Article 21of the

Indian Constitution

It is also clearly submitted that Right to privacy doesn’t stand a chance to prevails over the

right to health and test to proportionality can’t be taken into consideration here.

WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE

GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH
ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID REGIME?

It is humbly submitted that acts of both the Central Government of Rosehill and State

Government during the post covid regime has done in order with regarding to both enumerated

and unenumerated national and international human rights under the restrictions prescribed

under article 21, 14, 19 of the Indian Constitution.

It is also submitted that the act was done in favour of expections prescribed under many articles

under the ICCPR, ICESCR, UHRD

WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE

EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 MAKING VACCINATION COMPULSORY VIOLATIVE
OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted that the hon'ble supreme court of Rosehill that mandatory administration

of vaccine is violation of Right of choice under article 21.

It is also submitted that article 14 has nowhere gets connected to the concept of discrimination

of vaccinated and unvaccinated pupil. The government is really concerned in providing a safety

environment of pupil.

XI
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND WHETHER IT

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

1. It is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rosehill that the petition filed by the

Association of Democratic Rights (ADR) regarding the executive order of the Government

declaring lockdown on 25.03.2020 and the sudden imposition of Lockdown via the same has

not violates the Right to equality and Right to Life and liberty which is enshrined under Article

14 and 21 of the constitution of Rosehill.

2. The Order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA), Government of Rosehill, declaring

nationwide lockdown vide the executive order dated 25th March 2020, due to the outbreak of

novel Corona Virus (Covid 19) is constitutionally valid as there has been no violation of any

fundamental right as the government is empowered to put reasonable restrictions subject to law

and order, public policy, morality & decency for the exercise of fundamental rights enshrined

under Part III of the constitution of Rosehill.

3. It is submitted that Fundamental rights are not absolute; they are subject to reasonable

restrictions. It is stated that The Lockdown primarily affects two fundamental rights the right to

move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to practice any profession, or to carry

on any occupation, trade or business. These rights have been guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d)

and (g). However, a reading of Article 19 (5) and (6) make it clear that ‘reasonable restrictions’

can be imposed on these rights in the interests of the general public. The guidelines issued for

the lockdown order under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 totally qualifies as a reasonable

restriction under the said two Articles of the Constitution of India [1]

1
. Article 19 of Indian Constitution, 1949.

1
 4. It is submitted that this executive order has been promulgated by invoking section 6(2)(i) of the

Disaster Management Act, 2005, and section 36 of the DMA makes it obligatory on the central

government to comply with the orders of the National Disaster Management Authority set up

under the Act. Also, the section 72 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act, will have

an overriding effect on all other laws, and it is observed that in such a situation that the cases of

Covid 19 is increasing continuously and to stop this, lockdown is an appropriate step by which

social distancing can also be maintained and the same has been suggested by WHO.[2]

5. It is submitted that there is no vaccine available till date and the social distancing is the only way

in the country like Rosehill having second largest population in the world and considering the

existing panorama of the country it is reasonably understood that the executive order dated

25.03.2020 is apt and permeated with the idea of the safety of the citizens and reflecting a

responsible approach to tackle this pandemic. Hence it is necessary to impose lockdown

otherwise the number of patients will reach at their peak and then it will become dangerous for

all.

6. It is submitted that in this present time the Union government of Rosehill had imposed a pan

lockdown which is reasonable decision and taken with the view to serve the interest of the

country as well as for the public. It is the foremost duty of the government to provide safety to

the public and protection of them. Hence, the imposition of lockdown is reasonable and

consistent with the principle of intelligible differentia and the executive orders are not arbitrary

and are completely reasonable.

7. It is further submitted that Article 21 of Rosehill Constitution provides protection to life and

personal liberty. This right is provided to citizens as well as non-citizens. The imposition of

2
section 6(2)(i) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

2
 lockdown in Rosehill, in no case violates Article 21 and the imposition of lockdown does not

violate procedure established by law, as held in case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [3]

8. It is submitted that the imposition of lockdown is in accordance with the principle by SC in

Maneka Gandhi case that is ‘three-fold test’ in accordance with the ‘procedure established by

law’ (1) the law must prescribe a procedure (2) the procedure must satisfy the requirements of

Art 14 and 19 and (3) it should be just fair and fair and reasonable. The imposition of lockdown

is not arbitrary order and is clear observance of the principle of the natural justice in enforcing

the said orders.

9. Further, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in People’s Union of Civil Liberties

v. Union of India that any restrictions on fundamental rights to personal liberty can be imposed,

when there is grave danger to public safety arising due to sudden circumstances, and here the

situation of such nature has arisen which need to be taken into consideration with immediate

effect. Hence the national lockdown in no way violates article 21 of the constitution and is in

accordance with law. [4]

10. It is stated that Article 38 of the Constitution of India deals with the State securing social order

for the promotion of the welfare of the people. The state shall strive to promote the welfare of

the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as possible, justice; social, economic and

political. [5]

11. The State has the power to make laws to impose any reasonable restriction. Lockdown order was

a crucial decision to be taken to control the spread of Covid-19. To stop the community transfer,

such restrictions have to be imposed for the national interest and the welfare of people. Saving

the lives of the people from such a threat has to be the primary concern of the government.

3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
4
People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568, JT 1997 (1) SC 288
5
Article 38 of the Constitution of India, 1949

3
 12. It is submitted that the State has the power to order such a lockdown if it benefits the public at

large. This is in spite of the debilitating consequences it may have in the present and future. The

right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is the most sacrosanct fundamental

right. Without life, there can be no liberty. Thus, it paves the way for all other rights to exist.[6]

13. It is agreed that imposing lockdown and restriction on movement of people is taking away the

Right to personal liberty. But the right to life is equally important. The spread of Covid-19 is

life-threatening, and already it took thousands of lives in other countries. Therefore, the sudden

imposition of lockdown order will, in turn, save the lives of people. Article 21 is the heart and

soul of the Constitution. Safeguarding the health of the people is equally important, and it comes

under Article 21 of the Constitution.

14. The Fundamental Duties of the citizens in connection with our study are Article 51A(e) of the

Constitution of India. The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) stated that it was

also their duty to maintain peace, harmony and the spirit of brotherhood, especially during the

Covid-19 pandemic. The court further observed, “While this court expects effective measures

from the respondent state authorities and corporation, it also expects that citizens would remind

themselves fundamental duties and would discharge them to deal with the outbreak of Covid-

19 pandemic.” [7]

15. It is well settled in the case of Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [8],

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “Reference in this context may be made to Article 355 of

the constitution whereunder a duty has been imposed on the Union to protect every state against

external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every state is

carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In view of the said provision,

6
Article 21 of the Constitution 1949
7
Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India, 1950
8
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India 1998 AIR (SC) 431, 1997 (9) JT 431, 1997 (10)

4
 the Union government is under an obligation to take steps to deal with a situation of internal

disturbance in a State.[9]

16. The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, has interpreted Article 21 in a broad

manner, stating that “right to health is integral to the right to life. The government has a

constitutional obligation to provide health facilities.” Thus, the State has a positive obligation

under Article 21 of the Constitution to swing into action in the face of a public health emergency

such as the present pandemic to protect the lives of its people. [10]

17. In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that to determine the

reasonableness of a restriction, among other factors, it must consider the background of the

circumstances in which the order is issued and “whether the restraint caused by the law is more

than necessary in the interest of the general public.” [11]

18. It needs a special mention of the uncertain nature of the SARS CoV-2, its rapid spread and the

absence of a vaccine is compounded by the fact that the Indian health infrastructure doesn’t have

the capacity to handle a China/Italy/US/Iran like situation. A lockdown helps enforce social

distancing and isolation, which is essential to contain the virus spread. China has attributed its

successful recovery to its lockdown of Hubei province. While one may consider this kind of

restraint on our movement and profession extreme and unprecedented, it is not in excess of what

is required in the current predicament. It is necessary in the interests of the general public. Thus,

the Guidelines issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 will qualify as a reasonable

restriction under Article 19(5) and (6).[12]

19. It is submitted that Entry 81 of the Union List allows the Centre to make laws on inter-state

quarantine and quarantine of ports and ships. [13]

9
Article 355 of the constitution of India 1950
10
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1996) 113 PLR 499
11
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 1960 AIR 430, 1960 SCR (2) 375
12
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html
13
Entry 81 of the Union List in Indian Constitution 1949

5
 20. It is further submitted that the Centre has taken a different route to impose the lockdown, as

extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. COVID-19 has claimed almost 7711 cases

and has been classified by the WHO as a pandemic. To curb its deadly spread, the Government

has invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and permitted various Government Authorities

to take measures to effectively enforce social distancing. [14]

21. By terming COVID-19 as a disaster, the Government has rightly acknowledged the magnitude

of the problem. The Guidelines for social distancing have specifically been issued under Section

10(2)(l) of the Act by the National Executive Committee, which is constituted under the Act to

assist the NDMA in its efforts. It is also pertinent to note that the Disaster Management Division

comes under the aegis of the Ministry of Home Affairs, making the MHA the nodal ministry in

this crisis. Therefore, as far as the legal tenability of the lockdown us concerned, the Centre’s

actions are sound in law. [15]

22. It is observed in the case Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India that, A law made by the Parliament

under Article 245 [16] cannot be questioned based on an alternative present to it or more

reasonable view present. [17]

23. It is observed in the matter State of West Bengal v Committee validate the Central Government

to make laws and regulations during the lockdown. Central Government is given the power to

make laws for the national interest. The current situation was such that we needed the Central

Government to take preventive measures in the form of proper legislation to control the spread

of life-risking Coronavirus. [18]

24. It is stated in the landmark case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC [19] is known for

invoking the doctrine of necessity. The said doctrine was later modified into the Doctrine of

14
https://diplomatist.com/2021/01/29/extraordinary-times-need-extraordinary-measures-but-what-measures/
15
Section 10 (2) (l) in the Disaster Management Act, 2005
16
Articloe 245 of indian constitution 1949
17
Kuldip Nayar V. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127
18
State of West Bengal v Committee (2010) 3 SCC 571
19
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Etc vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh 1959 AIR 1376, 1960 SCR (1) 580

6
 Absolute Necessity through the case of Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam

Swamy (1996) wherein it was held by the court that the doctrine of necessity shall only be

invoked in the cases of absolute necessity. [20]

25. It is stated that Section 2 of this Epidemic Disease Act, 189721 says that temporary regulations

can be made by the State Government if the Government is satisfied that an outbreak of a disease

is of an epidemic nature. Such temporary regulations have to be followed by the people of the

country as they were made in order to prevent the spread of such an outbreak.

26. It is further stated that Section 2A of EDA states that if the Central Government is satisfied that

due to a pandemic or epidemic outbreak, an ordinary legal framework would not be able to run

the legislature the Central Government may make certain rules and prescribe certain regulations

to control the spread of such a disease.

27. In the case of the State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 21

of the Constitution of India in a broader sense where it is said that the Centre has the

constitutional obligation for providing certain health facilities to the common people. The Centre

has a full obligation to follow certain measures and declare a public health emergency under this

Article. [22]

28. In the case of Madras v. V.G. Rows, the test of reasonability regarding a restriction was laid

down. It stated that for deciding the reasonableness of a restriction, some factors have to be

considered. Such factors include – the underlying purpose of the restriction, disproportion of the

restriction, the extent and urgency of such restriction and the prevailing conditions at that time.[23]

20
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996)
21
Section 2 of this Epidemic Disease Act, 1897
22
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla (1996) 113 PLR 499
23
Madras v. V.G. Rows AIR 1951 Mad 147, (1951) IMLJ 628

7
 29. The Supreme Court, in the case of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, had further observed

that a reasonable restriction which is imposed in the State cannot be called unreasonable just

because it uses harsh measures for its application. [24]

30. By declaring an early lockdown, by the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 200525, India

has taken a great step to fight the coronavirus outbreak. The best weapon for India at this crisis

is social distancing and self-isolation of the people. By doing so, people minimize the chances

of catching the virus and passing it on to another person. Some people might not like the idea of

an all-India lockdown but the bitter truth is that the lockdown is the best possible way to fight

this pandemic as India does not have any cure for it.

31. It is well settled in Bhuddhan Chaudary v. State Bihar the Hon’ble Supreme Court provides the

following directions: - (a) The classification proposed in the legislation must be formed on

intelligible differentia and (b) There must be also nexus between the classification and the object

of the Act or rules.

32. It is submitted that the Union Government of Rosehill had imposed a pan lockdown which is

reasonable decision and taken with the view to serve the interest of the country as well as for the

public. It is the foremost duty of the Government to provide safety to the public and protection

of them.

*****************

24
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO
25
Disaster Management Act, 2005

8
 2. WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS WHICH

SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOURS LAWS, VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF WORKERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR

ORGANISATION CONVENTION IS VALID?

1. It is humbly submitted the Petition filed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rosehill regarding

the ordinance passed by the State of Braavos which suspended several Labour Laws, is not

violative of the fundamental right of the workers and subsequently it does not violate the

International Labour Organisation Conventions.

2. It is stated that Labour falls under the Concurrent List of Indian Constitution. Therefore, both

Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws regulating labour. Currently, there are over

100 state laws and 40 central laws regulating various aspects of labour such as resolution of

industrial disputes, working conditions, social security, and wages. A state may regulate

labour by: (I) passing its own labour laws, or (ii) amending the central level labour laws, as

applicable to the state.

3. It is submitted that the Governor can roll-out an ordinance for those matters on which state

legislature can make laws. According to Article 254 (2) of Indian Constitution [26], any Bill

relating to a subject in the concurrent list, which may be repugnant to a Union law, needs the

approval of the President for its enforcement. This means that it has to be cleared by the

Centre, which would advise the President to give his assent. This applies to an ordinance as

well due to Article 213 (1). [27]

26
Article 254 (2) of Indian Constitution
27
Article 213 of Indian Constitution

9
 4. It is to be noted that There are no circumstance or conditions given in statutes or the

Constitution regarding temporary suspension, in absence of imposition of National

Emergency, President’s rule or financial emergency.

5. It is further submitted that Article 254(2), provides an exception to Article 254(1) and provides

that the repugnancy can be cured if the assent of the President is received, and that law shall

prevail in the state once the President assents to the same.

6. The Doctrine of Repugnancy [28] has arisen here as there is a direct conflict between statutes

enacted by the Centre and the State on matters in the Concurrent List, and there is repugnancy

between them as held in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh [29].

7. Explaining the effect of 254(2), the Supreme Court said in the case of Hoechst Pharm Ltd. v.

State of Bihar, that the result of obtaining the assent of the president in respect to a state act which

was inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a concurrent subject would be that, the

the state law would prevail in that state and it would override the provisions of the Central act in

that state only.

8. In Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. the court said that a

state may legislate on an item in List III and such legislation will be perfectly valid if it does not

conflict with a piece of legislation of parliament or with existing law as defined by the

constitution. But as far as our case is concern there is the ordinances are valid as the assent of the

president has been taken.

9. It is further submitted that a national emergency is declared when there is a threat

to the country's security and such a threat arises due to war, external aggression or internal

disturbances.

28
https://indianlegalsolution.com/doctrine-of-repugnancy/
29
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1959 AIR 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8

10
 10. Mrs. Mookherji submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that doctrine of necessity has

emerged as a common law doctrine. This doctrine was considered as an exception to the principle

of natural justice but today this principle has been recognized as an alternate forum to protect the

principle of natural justice, wherever the statute is silent and the situation necessitates delegation

of powers. It is very well relied in the matter of Lalit Kumar Modi -v- Board of Control for

Cricket in India and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 106 [30] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that if a rule does not provide for substitution and it also does not also say that no

substitution shall take place, that is, if the rules are silent, then situations may arise that shall

necessitate such a substitution.

11. This suspension will help restart economic activity, attract investments, and in the long run create

more jobs by ushering in labor market flexibility. However, Trade Union act is not suspended,

hence the employees will can address their grievance in the TU

12. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [31]does not contain any provision for payment of wages in

case of extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic. Thus, the Act cannot ensure payment of

wages in the current circumstances which adds to the plight of the workers.

13. It is stated that the Hon’ble Bench of Supreme court in its order stated that, that Indian

Constitution is born from a "transformative vision" which aims to achieve social and economic

democracy and labour welfare is an integral element of that vision. “The need for protecting

labour welfare on one hand and combating a public health crisis occasioned by the pandemic on

the other may require careful balances. But these balances must accord with the rule of law"32

14. It further stated that the notifications in question legitimise the subjection of workers to onerous

working conditions at a time when their feeble bargaining power stands whittled by the pandemic

30
Lalit Kumar Modi -v- Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 106
31
The Payment of Wages Act, 1936
32
https://thewire.in/law/migrant-workers-supreme-court-gujarat-government

11
 15. This has been done with an aim to give curb the effects of lockdown on Indian economy and

provide employers with more flexibility to run their factories. This might give a much-needed

boost to the economy and benefit the employers but these have raised few concerns regarding

the safety and Security.

16. It is humbly submitted that the ordinance has been sent for approval to the central government,

since labour is on the concurrent list of subjects and achieved the same.

17. It is stated that when the treaty or agreement restricts or affects the rights of citizens or others or

modifies the law of India, it is necessary for Parliament to make a law in respect thereof under

Article 253 of the Constitution and not otherwise. In any case, it is open to Parliament to refuse

to perform such treaties. Karan Dileep Nevatia vs The Union of India. [33]

18. It is humbly submitted that there should be one labour code to pave the path for rapid economic

recovery and job creation, said Rituporna Chakraborty executive vice president and co-founder

of staffing firm. Further she added that the formal sector has progressed significantly in terms

of being complaint and hence exploitation is no the biggest challenge in the formal sector. Most

of the exploitation is around the informal sector where in case no labour laws applied in the past

and in won't in future.

19. It is published in the News Article named as Times of India; former Union Labour Secretary

Shankar Agarwal told " today the most urgent requirement is to create new jobs. this means

giving flexibility in hiring of workers while ensuring minimum wages, safety and security for

worker" without jobs, there is no point in talking about labour rights he stated further the states

are empowered to take action under the national disaster management act and are well within

their rights to change rules [34]

**************

33
Karan Dileep Nevatia vs The Union Of India. 2010
34
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/mostcommented.cms

12
 3. WHETHER THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVOS SHARING OF THE

PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE AND USE OF

MYSTERIOUS DRONES VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PPRIVACY?

1. It is humbly submitted that the application CoviTrack, Braavo’s sharing of personal data of the

quarantined persons on the website and use of mysterious drones is violative of the right to privacy

2. It is well settled that no right is absolute right and it is subjected to reasonable restrictions. If a

right runs counter to the larger public interest, then it is for this hon’ble court to interfere in those

matters and to safeguard the rights of the others.

3. It is further submitted that the right to privacy and confidentiality is one of the rights given to the

patient where the patient has the right to be free from public exposure. But are subject to certain

exceptions which are [35]

a. If the mental or physical condition is in question and the Court orders the patient to

surrender himself to a physical and mental examination by a physician or;

b. When the public health and safety demands or;

c. When the patient himself gives up his right in writing or;

d. It can be disclosed to the parents or the legal guardian of the patient where the patient

is not of legal age or mentally incapacitated; and if the patient is of legal age, then,

the information can be disclosed with his right to choose the person to whom the

medical information should be communicated

4. Citizens using CoviTrack app should always keep their location technology up to date. Does that

35
https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/protection-of-privacy-and-confidentiality-as-a-patient-right-physicians-
and-nurses-viewpoints.html

13
 definition affect the right to privacy?

5. It is submitted that Section 5(2) Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 [36] states Section

5(2) of the Act- provides that in case of any public emergency or in the interest of public security,

the Central or State Government or any officer specially empowered by them may intercept or

suspend messages and communications, etc., against the sovereignty and integrity of India and

the security of the country and friendly countries. Rule 419A under Section 5(2) governs

communication of messages and information etc Explains the methods by which interception and

suspension can be performed. "An accusation contrary to an act shall not be heard" "allegatio

contra factum mon est admitenda''

6. It is humbly submitted 'statutory preamble is based on these statutory preambles that an allegation

contrary to the lawful actions taken by the government to protect the public is not admissible.

7. We humbly request the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ' As the said Rosehill Government has ordered

the activation of the CoviTrack app, the app will automatically start working with the tracking

and location tracking function. But they have never been privacy-intrusive. And this corona virus

has spread in all the countries of the world. To prevent that, the respective countries are bringing

various types of app. Ours in return, even if a developed country does not act, the impact of this

action is somewhat less. Therefore, if our health is to be protected, for such small risks Not to be

listened to. All actions taken by the government are for the welfare of the people and nothing else.

Therefore, Citizens using CoviTrack apps for their location and short distances Always keep tools

that are used safely. The definition is without prejudice to the right to privacy and the right to

liberty. This location and short distances are not used for industrial use The definition of keeping

in condition is to preserve the oils in Tamil Violate their fundamental rights, prevent their

fundamental rights and not to track information

8. Similar to the above-mentioned app, Arogya Setu app was launched in India on 02.04.2020. How

the government manages users' information and data in the operator's terms of use. They clearly

36
Section 5(2) Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885

14
 state how they are protected and the penalties for data breaches. Similarly, as all laws of the

country of India are applicable to our country Rosehill, the concerns of the users of CoviTrack

App of our country similar to such Arogya Setu app. Arogya Setu Usage Guidelines Management

Directive No.2(10)/2020-Cyber Law and Electronic Security (CLeS) - Published on 11.05.2020.

Accordingly, about how the Central and State Governments manage the information of the users

of this Covitrack app, and the companies that manage the information of the said users, the

government cannot keep the information in their possession for more than 180 days and all the

above information will be permanently deleted. Further, Sections 51 to 60 of the Rosehill Disaster

Management Act, 2005 [37]mention the penalties for such breach of information.

9. It is humbly submitted that this location always on and there is no chance of user data breach.

Therefore, the right to freedom and privacy will never be affected in this definition. The above is

the key to the Rosehill Information Technology Act enacted in the year 2000 Objectives: Legalize

e-transactions, 0 provide legal authority for digital signatures for authentication, electronic

storage of data to facilitate e-filing of data and information allow, Authorize maintenance of books

of accounts in electronic form.

10. It is humbly submitted that more specifically, Section 69 [38] provides for the power to intercept

or monitor any information through any internet source or to give instructions for decryption. And

if the Central Government or the State Governments are specially authorized, the protection of

the country of Rosehill for such activity. Central, State Governments and agencies appointed by

them can also engage in information collection as per the said Act if it is in the interest of

sovereignty and international friendly relations etc. Pursuant to these Acts for stealing the

information of such individuals shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years under Section 66B of the Act and with fine

11. It is humbly submitted that the publishing of information about 16910 quarantined people on the

37
Sections 51 to 60 of Disaster Management Act, 2005
38
, Section 69 of Disaster Management Act, 2005

15
 website but still pupil has the right to seek the information and they have the right to know whether

any affected pupil is staying near them and so they can protect them from getting infected

themselves from the person and also their family. There is no bad intent for the government in

publishing the information all we possessed is that to protect the larger group of pupils.

12. It is also humbly submitted that the drones have been helpful in many ways. Since we don’t want

to use the pupil force to control the outbreak of covid.

13. It is humbly submitted to Hon'ble Rosehill Supreme Court that they will not be violated and all

such information will be kept safe with the said Health Officers. According to this law, the citizens

who use Covitrack app They use it regardless of their location and short distances Isolation is the

definition of keeping technology and technology always up to date Rights and freedoms are not

affected

20. It is humbly submitted that the right to health is very much superior compared to the right to

privacy. There must be a view that Drones are violating personal rights, the Government

perspective for the larger public interest, it will give the data to the Government to take further

steps for the protection of public.

21. It is humbly submitted to Hon'ble Rosehilla Supreme Court that it is important. In one case, A

opposite. B Hospital U.M.U. M.No. 4641 / 199839 In this case, the petitioner has HIV and is

being treated by a doctor. In the meantime, when the petitioner was about to get married, the

hospital disclosed the petitioner's illness to the petitioners' engaged partners, who on learning

this news called off the marriage. The petitioner sued the hospital management for breach of

patient privacy. It is clear that when two or more conflicts arise, the common interest will decide

the priority. Thus, the right to health is more important than the right to privacy. The right to

health was first enshrined in the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Accordingly,

the enjoyment of the highest attainable health is one of the fundamental rights of every human

being. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentioned health as part of the right

39
A opposite. B Hospital U.M.U. M.No. 4641 / 1998

16
 to an adequate standard of living (Article 25). [40] It was reaffirmed as a right in 1966 in the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [41]. Equal access is the legal

obligation of the state to provide basic determinants of health such as safe and portable water,

safe and portable water of adequate quality and at affordable prices. The World Health

Organization continues to clarify that. This right to health equates to housing, health information

and education, gender equality for all its people, and improving public health in Rosehill.

Rosehill is protected under the Constitution in several ways.

14. It is well settled in Rajneesh Kapur v. Government of India A.E.A. 204 of 2007 M.P [42] case the

Supreme Court did not accept the contention that the requirement to wear a headscarf interferes

with the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). [43] The primary objective of this

Act is to protect human life. Human It is mentioned that "free movement is not more important

than life". The Guiding Principles of Policy required the State among other duties. Under it: To

improve the welfare of the people. (Article 38) [44] Improving health and strength from abuse.

(Section 39E) Provision of public assistance in case of sickness, disability or incapacitating need.

(Article 41) [45]Ensuring just and humane working conditions and raising nutritional levels,

improving quality of life and health It should consider its duty to improve. (Article 47). [46]

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PART III The right to health is not expressly declared as a

fundamental right. However, by judicial interpretation it is fundamental to life and personal liberty

of the Constitution of Rosehill under Division of Rights! and is now considered an inalienable

part of the right to life.

15. It is well settled in Alaika Khosla v. Thomas Mathew (2002(62) IAE 851) case, it was held that

although the right to individuality is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of

40
(Article 25) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
41
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
42
in Rajneesh Kapur v. Government of India A.E.A. 204 of 2007 M.P
43
Article 19(1)(d) of Indian constitution 1949
44
(Article 38) of Indian constitution 1949
45
(Article 41) of Indian constitution 1949
46
. (Article 47 of the Indian Constitution 1949

17
 India, it cannot be treated as an absolute right. Proposition: "What is fitting and good It is the law

of laws" According to the maxim "acquum et bonum est lex legum" although individual right is

a fundamental right, right to health is not only a fundamental right. It is also the right to life.

16. It is submitted that in Bantua Mukti Morsa v. Union of India A.E.A. 1984 Uni 812 [47]case, the

Supreme Court held that government policies are not binding duties, but they have prescriptive

value. So, they should be properly implemented by the government. The court also held that

dignity and health fall within the ambit of protection of right to life and personal liberty under

Article 21.

17. It is well settled in Passim Banka Get Mazur Samiti v. West Bengal (1966) 4 Univ. 37 [48]the court

held that it is the responsibility of the government to provide and strive for adequate medical care

for every individual. Accordingly, the scope and public interest of Article 21 of the Constitution

was further expanded.

18. It is humbly submitted in the case that BURRA BAZAR FIRE ORKS Vs COMMISSIONER OF

POLICE CALCUTTA A.P.A. 1988-Stone,121 [49]Supreme Court in the case. 19(1)(g) does not

guarantee any health at the cost of protecting health of communities. And the right to peace and

health is part of the right to life. Hence the right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed to

every citizen of India under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Rosehill Supreme Court

has logically expanded the interpretation of the right to life to include the right to health through

a series of judicial precedents. Therefore, it is the duty of the government to take care of public

health at large. From this, it can be felt that right to health prevails over privacy.

19. It is submitted that to control the entry and spread of corona virus infection various measures of

the central government and various state governments are being taken properly and proactively.

Thus, "the right to health is superior to the right to privacy as a fundamental right"

47
in Bantua Mukti Morsa v. Union of India A.E.A. 1984 Uni 812
48
in Passim Banka Get Mazur Samiti v. West Bengal (1966) 4 Univ. 37
49
BURRA BAZAR FIRE ORKS Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA A.P.A. 1988-Stone,121

18
 20. It is further submitted that absolute privacy and confidentiality is not possible under the healthcare

sector because if the doctors start keeping all health records a secret or confidential, despite

knowing the fact that if such information is not communicated to the public then it will result in

the spread of a dangerous disease from his patient such as HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis etc. So,

sometimes in the interest for the public good, the patient’s data has to be communicated.

21. In Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra, [50]the Medical Council Code of Ethics and

Right to Information Act, 2005 was in conflict. In this case, it was questioned that making the

health records public, under the Right to Information Act would constitute a violation of the right

to privacy. So, in this situation, the Bombay High Court held that the Right to Information will

supersede the Right to Privacy and Confidentiality. As in this case, the petitioner was undergoing

the punishment imposed on him by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during which, he was admitted to

the hospital and he underwent surgery as he had been experiencing heart problems, low sugar and

blood pressure issues. Here, it was held that the medical records of a person who is sentenced or

convicted or is in the police or judicial custody and during that period such person is admitted in

the hospital or in any nursing home then, that information should be made available to the person

asking for the information but that hospital or the nursing home should be maintained by the State

or public authority or any other public body. Only in the exceptional cases, where the reason is

also a valid one, the information which is recorded in writing can be denied. So, the decision, in

this case, was that the Right to Information Act can supersede the Medical Council Code of Ethics.

22. It is further submitted that the right to information prevails over right to privacy if the matter

relates to public health and public morality.

23. It is further stated that right to privacy comes with permissible restriction. Intrusion into privacy

may be by- (1) Legislative Provision (2) Administrative/Executive order (3) Judicial Orders.

Legislative intrusion must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness as guaranteed by the

Constitution and for that purpose the Court can go into proportionality of the intrusion vis-à-vis

50
Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra 23 March, 2007,

19
 the purpose sought to be achieved. (2) So far as administrative or executive action is concerned it

has to be reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) As to judicial

warrants, the Court must have sufficient reason to believe that the search or seizure is warranted

and it must keep in mind the extent of search or seizure necessary for protection of the particular

State interest. In addition, as stated earlier, common law did recognize rare exceptions for conduct

of warrantless searches could be conducted but these had to be in good faith, intended to preserve

evidence or intended to prevent sudden anger to person or property.

24. It is further stated that there is a fine balance required to be maintained between right to

information and the right to privacy, which stems out of the fundamental right of life and liberty.

The citizen’s right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information

encroaches upon someone’s personal privacy. But where to draw a line is a complicated question.

25. It is further stated that right to privacy is an essential component of right to life and personal

liberty under Article 21. Right to privacy is not an absolute right; it is subject to reasonable

restrictions for prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of

rights and freedom of others. Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which

advances public morality and public interest prevails.

26. In an American decision, Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 US 113 [51]the Supreme Court of United

States said that : "Although the Constitution of the U.S.A. does not explicitly mention any right

of privacy, the United States Supreme Court recognizes that a right of personal privacy, or a

guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution, and that the roots

of that right may be found in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the

penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, and in the concept of liberty guaranteed

by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the "right to privacy is not absolute."

27. Reference may, at this stage, be made to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right

which defines this right us follows, "(1) Everyone has the. right to respect for his private and

51
Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 Bom 121, 2007 (109) Bom L R 844, 2007 (4) MhLj
573. 1.

20
 family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public

authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is

necessary in democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic

well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or

morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

28. Having regard to the fact that in order to curb the spread of the pandemic in the country, the

central Government mandate the citizen to download the CoviTrack application and Health and

Family Welfare Department of Braavos the datas of 16910 people who have been quarantined

because they had come from abroad in its official website would not be violative of Right of

Privacy as it help in curb the spread of the pandemic in the country and to save others from

infected with the dreadful disease.

29. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code
[52]provide as under:

"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - Whoever unlawfully or

negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to

spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description or a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - Whoever malignantly

does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the

infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

30. Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the

appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and another person’s right to lead a healthy life

which is his Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public

morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason

52
Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code

21
that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the judges are not expected to sit as mute

structures of clay, in the Hall, known as Court Room, but have to be sensitive, "in the sense that

they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day".

******************

22
 4. WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE

GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH

ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID REGIME?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Central Government of

Rosehill, has not violated any human rights both enumerated and unenumerated under the

national and international legal regime during the post covid regime.

2. As per the facts, On 30. 01. 2020, the World Health Organisation declared that coronavirus is a

global emergency of international concern as the death toll in Chinovia jumped to 170, with

7,711 cases reported in the country. At this point, more than 7500 cases were reported in 20

countries of the world. On March 11, The World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a

pandemic, which is defined “an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents,

and most people do not have immunity against it”. Every human person has the fundamental

right to health, which is guaranteed to them from the moment of conception. Health services are

currently seen as being the most important and are likely to be given top priority during this

pandemic's most critical period. To curtail the spread of the virus through social distancing,

‘Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) of Rosehill vide its executive order dated 25.03.2020

imposed countrywide lockdown

3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the lockdown imposed by the Central

Government is according to Section 2A of the Epidemic Act 1897 [53] and the Government has

done its rightful duty to protect its people while upholding the valid legal procedure as

established by law.

53
Section 2A of the Epidemic Act 1897

23
 4. It is submitted that Section 2A of the EPA Act defines the Powers of Central Government. When

the Central Government is satisfied that India or any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with,

an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease and that the ordinary provisions of the law for

the time being in force are insufficient to prevent the outbreak of such disease or the spread

thereof, the Central Government may take measures and prescribe regulations for the inspection

of any ship or vessel leaving or arriving at any port in 2 and for such detention thereof, or of any

person intending to sail therein, or arriving thereby, as may be necessary.

5. As per the facts of this case, many were arrested by law enforcement officials for violating the

lockdown, this arrest is justifiable under Section 188 of IPC, [54]“ Any person disobeying any

regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable

under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

6. It is humbly submitted that the Section 188 of IPC states that Disobedience to order duly

promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public

servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain

act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management,

disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction,

annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully

employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or

with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes

or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or

affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.

It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his

disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he

disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

54
Section 188 of INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

24
 7. It is humbly submitted that Rosehill is a member of the International Covenant on Economic,
55
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Art. 12 -The States Parties to the present Covenant

recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical

and mental health.

a) The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full

realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

b) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other

diseases;

Hence, the government should take a proper initiative for providing adequate health services of

superior quality and satisfactory medical care should be given to people to prevent threats to

public health.

8. It is humbly submitted that according to facts of the case “The Government of Rosehill on 10.4.

2020 came up with a new scheme called the Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana (PMMKY) to

address the distress of the public. The scheme included free food to the “poorest of the poor”,

income support to farmers and unorganized sector workers, as well as provision of free food

grains and other essential items through the Public Distribution System (PDS).

9. It is also humbly submitted that the Right to health is a fundamental right. It is indispensable part

of right to life so in this pandemic situation where life of pupil is threatened it is need of the hour

for govt to protect and preserve the rights of the pupil rather than other rights

10. It is also submitted that according to the facts of the case the State Government of Braavos has

published the details of 16,910 pupil in their official website who are quarantined including the

places that they visited last 30 days is in favor of the Article 19 of ICCPR [56]which states that

everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,

receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in

writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

55
Art. 12 of International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
56
Article 19 of ICCPR

25
 11. It is humbly submitted that right to movement as claimed by the petitioners in this instant case

under Art. 12 of ICCPR, the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the country. As

per 12.3[57], only exceptional circumstances can lead to restriction of this right, including

protection of public health.

12. It is humbly submitted that the Art. 12(3) states that the above-mentioned rights shall not be

subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect

national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and

are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

13. It is humbly submitted that the violation of privacy is already discussed in the issue III

14. It is further stated from the above that as one of the basic Human Rights, the right of privacy is

not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention

of Crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedoms of

others.

15. Most countries have statutes that allow for limitations to human rights in times of national

emergencies or major public health threats. According to international law (and in most

democratic states constitutional law), these limitations have to be necessary, proportionate, and

related to clear and lawful public aims. They also have to be implemented in accordance with

existing laws and the greatest measure of transparency.

16. In response to the coronavirus, emergency legislation in many countries (U.S., U.K., Canada,

or Australia) allows health departments and public health officials to impose a number of

measures that affect people’s lives and their human rights. These measures include detaining

people to be screened, collecting their health information, and putting them in isolation.

17. While these types of measures might be necessary during such emergencies, it is worth noting

that they do interfere with basic human rights, especially the right to liberty (UDHR Article 3

57
Article 12.3 of ICCPR

26
 [58]), protection from arbitrary detention (UDHR Article 9), right to privacy (UDHR Article 12),
59
and freedom of movement (UDHR Article 13 [60]).

18. Considering the significance of these rights and freedoms and the grave consequences that can

come from violating them, it is vital that government policies impede individual freedoms and

human rights as little as possible. Further, any interference on human rights has to be based on

strongest scientific evidence available.

**************

58
Article 3 of UDHR
59
Article 12 of UDHR
60
Article 13 of UDHR

27
5. WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE

EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 ON 15.07.2020 MAKING VACCINATION COMPULSORY VIOLATIVE

OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION?

1. It is humbly submitted that Right to life is always equal to Right to health: Right to Health is,

therefore, an inherent and inescapable part of a dignified life. Without life there is no other right

which can be inferred there from.

2. The Director General of WHO addressed the media where he stressed on the need to safely

achieve herd immunity, which can also be achieved through vaccination. Also, the Covid-19

cases burgeoned continuously and deaths were increasing exponentially. In this background, the

Government issued regulations under the Epidemic Act, 1897 on 15. 7. 2020.

3. It is humbly submitted that he right to the highest attainable standard of health” implies a clear

set of legal obligations on states to ensure appropriate conditions for the enjoyment of health for

all people without discrimination.

4. It is humbly submitted that the right to health is one of a set of internationally agreed human

rights standards, and is inseparable or ‘indivisible’ from these other rights. This means achieving

the right to health is both central to, and dependent upon, the realization of other human rights,

to food, housing, work, education, information, and participation.

5. It is humbly submitted that Right to health is always greater than the right of choice. The right to

health, as with other rights, includes both freedoms and entitlements:

a) Freedoms include the right to control one’s health and body and to be free from interference

(for example, free from torture and non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation).

b) Entitlements include the right to a system of health protection that gives everyone an equal

opportunity to enjoy the highest attainable level of health.

28
 6. It is submitted that in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India [61], the apex

court observed that the duty of maintaining public health is “indispensable”, going as far as to

say that it is a top priority of the state

7. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [62] the Supreme Court approved the above observations.

It held that the ‘right to life’ included the right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the

human body in their prime conditions.

8. As the petitioners in this instant case alleged that their right to carry on trade or profession is

violated, Article 19(6) places reasonable restrictions on 19(1)(g) the act of the government in this

pandemic fall within the scope of “‘interest of general public”. Article 19(6) in The Constitution

Of India 1949 states that “Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation

of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing,

in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred

by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation

of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or

carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of

any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of

citizens or otherwise

9. It is humbly submitted that in order to say an act is violation of article 14 it should clear the test

of fairness reasonable nexus and intelligible differentia. It is humbly submitted that the separation

of pupil into vaccinated and non-vaccinated satisfies the fairness test as below Equality before

the law means that amongst equals, the law should be equal and should be equally administered

and that like should be treated alike, the high court explained. [63]

61
In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India 1981 AIR 298, 1981 SCR (2) 185
62
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409
63
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/test-of-reasonable-classification-and-doctrine-of-arbitrariness/

29
 10. Classification of persons into groups for different treatment of such groups is permissible if there

is a reasonable basis for such difference, the high court held. Article 14 forbids class legislation

but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable grounds of

distinction. In other words, the classification must always rest upon some real and substantial

distinction bearing reasonable and just needs in respect of which the classification is made, the

judge explained.

11. It is humbly submitted that two conditions that must be fulfilled, namely, that

(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes

persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and

(ii) the differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by such

classification.

12. It is also submitted that in Re Dinthar Incident Aizawl v State of Mizoram and Others [64], the

High Court held that the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons would have to follow the COVID-

19 appropriate behaviour protocols as per the standard operating procedure (SOP), there is no

justification for discrimination and violation of Article 14.

13. It is most humbly submitted that the Article 19(6) defines reasonable restrictions for the ‘interest

of general public’ but this policy hampers the right to personal liberty and the right to make

choice freely. Though the State is trying to ensure rights for larger welfare of people by

compromising the rights of individuals. The court thinks that the procedure adopted is excessive

and arbitrary in nature.

14. It is stated that any step towards compulsory vaccination has to be premised on larger public

interest. While a person may feel confident about not requiring vaccination because she believes

she can fight off the disease, it will not stop her from infecting others who might be from high-

risk category. Thus, vaccination in relation to infectious diseases is not simply about choosing

64
Re Dinthar Incident Aizawl v State of Mizoram and Others WP(C)/37/2020

30
 what is good for one’s own body and can be construed as an obligation for the sake of

public health. [65]

15. It is submitted that as a legislative measure, Parliament and state legislatures can always enact a

specific law incorporating such an obligation. Something similar was done by the British

government to deal with the smallpox epidemic through the Compulsory Vaccination Act of

1892.

16. It is humbly submitted that if the Governments want to adopt an executive measure, there are

various existing laws that enable them to take such a step. The Epidemic Diseases Act of

1897 empowers state governments to take whatever measures necessary to prevent the outbreak

or spread of an epidemic disease. While the exercise of this power is subject to the state

government’s satisfaction that the existing laws are not sufficient to deal with the epidemic, it

would not be excessive for them to take such a step to deal with the biggest health crisis of

the century.

17. It is stated that the Epidemic Disease Act provides the government with powers to issue any and

all regulations/ take such measures that it feels are necessary. There are only 2 preconditions to

the use of this power - (1) the government (state/central) should be satisfied that it is threatened

by a dangerous epidemic disease AND (2) the government (state/central) should be convinced

that the present laws are insufficient.

18. This essentially means that it is possible for the Central Government to prescribe compulsory

vaccination under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to allow travel through the modes mentioned

above.

19. It is submitted that the National Disaster Management Act of 2005 vests wide powers with

the national authority and the national executive committee created under the Act. The range of

powers (section 6 and 10) is such that it would be possible for these authorities to mandate

65
https://theconversation.com/compulsory-vaccination-what-does-human-rights-law-say-167735

31
 compulsory vaccination through appropriate departments in the state governments and the central

government. [66]

20. Further, under Section 62 [67], the Central Government can issue directions to the Union

Ministries, Departments, and State Governments “to facilitate or assist in the disaster

management.” This essentially means that it is possible for the Central Government to prescribe

compulsory vaccination through the NDMA or its conduct via the issue of directions to the state

Governments.

21. According to Section 3 and 6 read with Section 10 and 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005,

we lucidly comprehend that the Central Government is empowered to establish the National

Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) who, in turn, is capable of forming national and state-

level plans and policies to control, management, and mitigate the disaster.

22. Thus, this essentially means that it is possible for the Central Government to prescribe

compulsory vaccination under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

23. The Central government can impose a requirement of vaccination on anybody wishing to

enter India. For example, resident-nationals from polio-infected countries like Pakistan,

Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. are not allowed to enter India unless they have been

vaccinated. The United States also imposes such requirements in relation to a variety of

diseases. So, nothing can stop the Government from imposing a requirement of Covid-19

vaccination for anybody wishing to enter India. [68]

24. The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court observed that in the backdrop of this

unforeseen situation, citizens should remember Article 51-A of the Constitution of India that

refers to fundamental duties. "In this difficult time, we may remind ourselves that it is a

fundamental duty of a citizen to promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood amongst

all the people of India and probably, this is an immediate need of the time,"

66
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Disaster%20Management%20Act%2C%202005.pdf
67
Section 62 Disaster Management Act 2005
68
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/pakistan-and-afghanistan-the-final-wild-poliovirus-bastion

32
 25. Considering the laws mentioned above, it is quintessential for us to analyze whether such powers

of the Central Government lead to the violation of Fundamental Rights. In Consumer Education

and Research Centre v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the Right to Health is a

fundamental right and is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution.

26. Further, when we apply Mill’s Theory of the liberty to exercise one’s right until it impinges on

the right of another, we comprehend that even if the Welfare State (India) attempts to secure the

Right to Public Health of the public at large, the procedure of compulsory vaccination adopted

by the State would be excessive as this procedure is coercive and impinges on the individual's

Right to Privacy, Personal Choice, and Bodily Autonomy and Integrity. [69]

27. In recent times, multiple countries have made vaccination compulsory such as Russia. Further,

in a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case of Vavřička and others v. The Czech

Republic [70], the Court held that the compulsory vaccination policy of the Czech Republic was

valid and necessary in a democratic society.

****************

69
https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-is-mills-principle-of-liberty
70
Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic

33
 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:

1. Declare that the Executive Order of the Government declaring lockdown and the

sudden imposition of the same is constitutional as it does not violate the Right to

equality and Right to Life of its citizen which enshrined under the Constitution and

upheld the Executive Order.

2. Declare that the Ordinance passed by the State of Braavo’s, which suspended some

Labour laws is Constitutional as it does not violate the fundamental rights of workers

and subsequently not violate the International Labour Organization Convention

3. Declare the Mandatory usage of CoviTrack application is constitutional and also to

declare that the act of Braavos publishing the information of 16,910 quarantined pupil

in the official website the usage of drones is constitutionally valid.

4. Declare the Central Government of Rosehill and the State Government of Braavos not

violated the National and International both enumerated and unenumerated human

rights during the post covid regime.

5. Also, declare the Regulation issued by the Government under Epidemic

Disease Act, 1897 on making Vaccine compulsory is constitutional and

dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner.

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

XII
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL, AS IN DUTY

BOUND EVER PRAY

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

-(R)

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

XIII