ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITIONS UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF W.G.N

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 

It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable before the
honourable Court. As there is a prima facie infringement of the Petitioner’s right to
equality, movement, life and profession under the Constitution of W.G.N. Also,
Article 32 of the Constitution gives the right to legal entities and citizens to move
to the Supreme Court for the deprivation of their fundamental rights.

1.1 The Petitioner’s has a locus standi to plead before this Honourable Court:

A. That the present petitioner has a locus standi as there is an apparent

infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation by the actions of the Respondents.
B. That the Petitioner humbly contends that the lockdown orders passed by the
government are violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation. The actions of
the respondents under the garb of the powers conferred to the Respondents
by the substantive laws are arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental
rights.
C. Thatby  the  virtue  aforementioned  reasons  gives  the  rise  to  the  right 
of the Petitioner to seek remedy against the actions of the Respondents
under the Article 32 of the Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation.

2. Power of the Supreme Court to grant relief is of highest amplitude:

A. That the Article 32 of the Constitution of World’s Greatest

Nation confers the widest amplitude of power on the Supreme
Court in the matter of granting relief. It has the power to issue
“directions or orders or writs”, and there is no specific
indications, no express language, limiting or circumscribing that
power of the Apex Court.

B. The Constitutional Philosophy behind Article 32 makes it apparent

that the legislative intent of the framers of Constitution was that
whenever any person whose right is infringed by arbitrary actions
may approach the Court for appropriate remedy. Article 32 provides
for an expeditious and inexpensive remedy for the protection of the
fundamental rights and executive interference and therefore could
move to the Supreme Court for appropriate remedy. Also that the
 Supreme Court was of the opinion that its solemn duty to protect
the fundamental right zealously and vigilantly[1].

C. That the Supreme Court in a series of judgment like in Bandhua

Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[2], held that the provisions
conferring on the Supreme Court the power to enforce fundamental
rights in the widest possible terms show the anxiety of the
Constitution-makers not to allow any procedural technicalities to
stand in the way of the enforcement of fundamental rights.

D. Also in Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras[3], the court held that

by this Article the Supreme Court has been constituted as a
protector and guarantor of fundamental rights conferred by Part III.
Once a citizen has shown that there is infringement of his
fundamental right the court cannot refuse to entertain petitions
seeking enforcement of fundamental rights.

E. In K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras[4], the court held that Article

32 itself being a fundamental right the court will give relief
notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. The court’s
power under Article 32 is wide enough to order the taking of
evidence, if necessary, on disputed questions of fact, and to give
appropriate relief to the petitioner by issuing the writ or order so as
to suit the exigencies of the case.

F. That the court also maintain the sanctity of the legislative intent
behind the framing of the Constitution that the jurisdiction
conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32 is an important part
of the basic structure of the Constitution because it is meaningless
to confer fundamental rights without providing an effective remedy
for their enforcement when they are violated. [5]

G. That the Petitioner has approached before the Honourable Court in

Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 as there is a prima facie
infringement of the Petitioners fundamental right by the actions of
the respondents’ party. In a landmark judgment the apex court held
that an application under Article 32 may always be made first to the
Supreme Court since Article 32 is a fundamental right. It is a
substantive right not a mere procedural right. There is no resort to
Article 226 before approaching the Supreme Court under Article
32. [6] Also that the object of Article 32 is to provide quick remedy
to the citizens whose fundamental right is violated. If a citizen is
 asked to go first to the High Court and then to go to the Supreme
Court in appeal the very purpose of Article 32 will be frustrated.

H. That in Smt Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.[7], it was declared that

whenever it is prima facie established that there is violation of a
fundamental right, the question of its enforcement arises; for
example, it may arise when the statute itself is ultra vires and some
action is taken under such a statute, or (b) it may also arise when
some action is taken under an intra vires statute, but the action taken
is without jurisdiction so that the statute though intra vires does not
support it; to (c) it may again arise on misconstruction of statute
which is intra vires, but the misconstruction is such that the action
taken on the misconstrued statute results in the violation of
fundamental right.

The petitioners humbly submit that Article 32 of the Constitution of World’s

Greatest Nation gives power to the citizens to approach the honorable court when
there is an infringement of their fundamental right.

The petitioner further humbly submits that there is an infringement of the

fundamental rights of the petitioner by the actions of the respondent (issue 2) and
thereby which gives the right to the petitioners to approach the Apex Court to seek
remedy.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT VIOLATIVE OF THEFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE CITIZENS?

The Petitioner humbly contends there is a prima facie infringement of

Fundament Rights  by the actions of the Respondents party. The
Respondent does not have the power to impose a nationwide lockdown and
has acted beyond the powers conferred upon them under substantive rules
and therefore a complete case of arbitrariness.

2.1 That the order is violative of the Fundamental Right of Equality

enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of World’s Greatest
Nation. 

It is humbly contented before this Hon’ble court that the jurisdiction of Art
14 extends to the prevention of arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the
State, which are “antithetical” to the rule of equality. The principles of
Indian Law have thrown open the gates of Executive action to Judicial
Scrutiny.

2.1.1 Arbitrary actions of the state are in conflict with the Art.14.

A. The question whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is

ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a
given case. This Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and
Ors. indicated the test of arbitrariness and the pitfalls to be avoided
in all State actions to prevent that vice, in a passage as under:
“ In this context it is important to emphasize that the
absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of
law upon which our whole constitutional system is based.”
B. Further in case of Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, Supreme Court Of
India Vs Union Of India And Others, this Hon’ble court held that
where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore
violative of Art. 14. State Policy : The sweep of Article 14 covers all
state action .Non arbitrariness and fairness are the two immobile and
unalterable cornerstone of a legal behaviour baseline.
C. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, An authority,
however, has to act properly for the purpose for which the power is
conferred. He must take a decision in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the statutes. He must not be guided by
 extraneous or irrelevant consideration. He must not act illegally,
irrationally or arbitrarily,
D. It is humbly submitted that the respondent party did not act in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes (issue 3)
and acted completely arbitrarily, thereby violating Article 14 of the
Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation.

E. Also, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was held

that Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures
fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must
not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant
principle which is non-discriminatory: It must not be guided by any
extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial
of equality.
F. The classification to be reasonable should fulfill the following test:-
(I) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based
on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction,
which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class
from others left out of it. (II) The differentia adopted on the basis of
classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
G. In the instant case, the government of World’ Greatest Nation
passed the order of a nationwide lockdown without giving a
reasonable notice. The individual and the citizens did not get the
time for making their or settlement, sudden declaration of lockdown
very strongly affected the workers or labourers. 
H. Also, in the instant case, the order only exempted the government
servants, the staff of the government hospitals and Police Personnel
which is completely violative of the fundamental right to equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 

2.2That the order is violative of the Fundamental Right of Freedom enshrined under
Article 19 of the Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation. 
It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that the declaration of lockdown by sudden
notice affected the right to move freely throughout the India and also affected the right to
practise any profession, occupation and carry any trade or business guaranteed under Art.19
of the Constitution to those migrant workers or labourers who can’t survive without earning
money every days.
2.2.1. It is in violation of right to freely move throughout the India guaranteed under
Art.19(1)(d).
A. By the time of Blackstone, however, the right to such Freedom of Movement had
received its affirmation on the modern basis which gives recognition to the deep
spiritual need of a human being to develop his personality to the fullest extent. In
dealing with the Right to free enjoyment of Personal Liberty Justice Subbarao of the
 Supreme Court of India, speaking of freedom of movement in a free country, defined
a free country as: “A country where a citizen may do whatever he likes, speak to
whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without apprehension, subject
of course to the law of social control.1”

B. Further in the case of Bauer v. Acheson2,it held by Court thatnot only the right of the
citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person but also the right to be
free in the enjoyment of all his faculties and freedoms and includes the right of
locomotion, i.e., the right to remove oneself from one place to another according to
one’s inclination.

C. The petitioners humbly submit that in the instant case there is a complete
infringement the right to freely movement by sudden declaration of lockdown 3. The
order also states that the public transport services will not be operational and
international travel will be banned4. Since public transport services were not available,
various groups of these migrant workers resorted to travel by foot to reach home,
some even travelling 100kms. While on their journey back, various migrant workers
died5. It is also pertinent to note that all these restrictions were imposed without
giving reasonable time to the citizens6.

D. The petitioners humbly submit that it is crystal clear that the actions of the respondent
lead to a complete infringement to the fundamental right of free movement

2.2.2 It is in violation of right to profession guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g)

A. This right aims at the welfare and wellbeing of the citizens as well as the nation as a
whole. Under this article, every citizen has the right to choose an employment, or take
up any trade or occupation etc as per his volition and free will. Article 19 (1) (g) is a
general right available to all the citizens of the country to carry on any type of
business, occupation or profession to satisfy their livelihood needs.

B. The said lockdown cannot be said to be in the interest of general public. The
overwhelmed government7 passed an order infringing the fundamental rights of the
citizens without giving a reasonable time to the citizen and a time period to the said

1
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P (AIR, 1963 S.C., page 1295 at page 1301. (India)).
2
Bauer v. Acheson (1952), 106 F. Supp., page 445. (U.S.A).
3
Moot proposition, para 3.
4
Moot proposition, para 3.
5
Moot proposition, para 4.
6
Moot proposition, para 2.
7
Moot proposition, para 2.
 lockdown. With adequate policies denying the fundamental rights blatantly is an
extreme action. Due to the lockdown, their employers refused to pay them the wages8.

2.3. It is in the violation of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of
the Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation.

The Petitioner humbly contends there is a prima facie infringement of Fundamental Right to
food, shelter and health by the actions of the Respondents party. The Petitioner has not
followed the due procedure established by law as the Respondents party has acted beyond the
powers conferred upon them under substantive rules and therefore a complete case of
arbitrariness.

2.3.1 Right to health, shelter and food are an intrinsic part of the Article 21 of the
Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation.

A. That it is humbly submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution reads as “No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.”
B. In the series of judgments, the honorable Supreme Court has laid down its observation
that Right to Health is an integral part of Article 21. The Supreme Court in the case of
Vincent Parikurlangara v. Union of India, held that the right to maintenance and
improvement of public health is included in the right to live with human dignity
enshrined in Article 21. A healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities.
In a welfare State this is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and
sustaining of conditions congenial to good health.
C. In a historic judgment in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of
India, the Supreme Court has held that the right to health and medical care is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it is essential for making the
life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life in
Article 21 includes protection of the health and strength of the worker. The
Expression “life” in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence. It has a much
wider meaning which includes the right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic
conditions in workplace and leisure. The court further held that be it Union or State
government or an industry, public or private is enjoined to take all such action which
will promote health, strength and vigour of the workmen during period of
employment and leisure.
D. In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, the Supreme
Court has held that the right to health is a fundamental right.
E. It is humbly submitted that in the series of judgments the honorable Supreme Court
has laid down its observation that Right to shelter is an integral part of Article 21. In
the case of Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 9, the honorable Supreme Court
8
Moot proposition, para 4.
9
Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746; Shantistar Builders v.
 has held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of World’s Greatest Nation. Shelter for human beings, therefore, is not a
mere protection of his life and limb. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate
living peace, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light,
pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as
to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not
mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure
necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. The court thereby
held that it is the duty of the State to provide housing facilities to citizens.
F. Additionally, many International instruments that India is a party to explicitly provide
for the right to adequate housing and shelter10.
G. In a significant judgment in PUCL v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that
the people who are starving because of their inability to purchase food grains have the
right to get food under Article 21 and therefore they ought to be provided the same
free of cost by the States. The court held that under such a situation foodgrains be
provided to all those who are aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men,
pregnant and lactating women and destitute children.
H. Further in Jaydip Paper Industries v. Workmen11 ,in this case the Supreme Court held
that the Nation State should provide protections against starvation and pay a minimum
wage to its labourers.
I. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 embraces within its sweep not only
physical existence but the quality of life and if any statutory provisions run counter to
such a right, it must be held to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has embraced
the qualitative concept into Article 21 when it held that the right to life with human
dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization
which make the life worth living.12
J. In the instant case due lockdown, the workers did not have the resource to survive,
various migrant workers died because of illness, lack of food and water 13. The citizens
of W.G.N also faced difficulties because of the government’s inability to provide
basic services such as food to the people stuck during the lockdown14.
K. That without any prejudice to previous submission the Petitioner humbly contends
there is a prima facie infringement of Fundamental Right to life and livelihood by the
actions of the Respondents party. It is also the duty of the State to provide the citizens
with means to basic livelihood which is evident in the instant case the respondent
failed to do, breaching their duty in the said Article. It resulted in the most vulnerable
section of the society becoming more vulnerable to the extent of facing their survival
and existence resultantly exposing them to low level of immunity in these days of
unknown and unlimited scare of the disease for which cure is unknown. On a
purposive reading of the Act, the role of mitigation would largely be upon the

Narayan KhimalalTotame, AIR 1990 SC 630; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan,
(1997) 11 SCC 123. (India); U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad, 1996 AIR 114, 1995 SCC Supl. (3)
456(India).
10
ICESCR, General Comment on Art. 11(1966); UDHR Art. 25.
11
Jaydip Paper Industries v. Workmen,1972 AIR 605, 1972 SCR (2) 920. (India).
12
Confederation of ex-servicemen association v. Union of India [2006] 8 SCC 399.
13
Moot proposition, para 3.
14
Moot proposition, para 5.
 government and not on individual citizens who may themselves be victims of the
disaster.

2.3 That the Respondents did not follow the due process of law.

That without any prejudice to previous submission the Petitioner humbly contends
there is a prima facie infringement of Fundamental Right to life and livelihood by
the actions of the Respondents party. It resulted in the most vulnerable section of
the society becoming more vulnerable to the extent of facing their survival and
existence resultantly exposing them to low level of immunity in these days of
unknown and unlimited scare of the disease for which cure is unknown. On a
purposive reading of the Act, the role of mitigation would largely be upon the
government and not on individual citizens who may themselves be victims of the
disaster.

A. The Respondent party suspended Article 21, Article 19(1)(d) and Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of King’s Landing by keeping the people of the
country illegally restrained inside their houses without any backing of law.
A. The Petitioners humbly contend that the word “lockdown” or its synonyms
does not find mention in the Disaster Management Act or the Constitution.
Infact, the Constitution of W.G.N prevents the suspension of Article 21 of
the Constitution even during a declared emergency. However, the situation
that has been in existence is worse than that of an emergency without one
being declared, with or without following the due process of law.
B. The petitioners further humbly contend that the respondent party has not
provided any safeguards before implementing the lockdown. Section 12 and
13 of DMA ensure the welfare of the people and protect their livelihood
(Article 21) and other reasonable interests were not invoked.

D. The DMA, in so far as its sections 12 and 13 provide for Guidelines

for minimum standards of relief, and Relief in loan repayments
etc,were thrown to the wind and the lockdown was implemented
without any application.
D. The situation at bus stands, railway stations and even along all the arterial
roads of all the major business hubs and industrial towns has thrown all
norms of social distancing to the winds, defeating the very intent with which
the lockdown was imposed, it is sought to be indicated.
D. The petitioner further humbly submits that the respondent party exercised
its power under section 10(2)(l) of the DMA which reads as, “lay down
guidelines for, or give directions to, the concerned Ministries or
Departments of the Government of India, the State Governments and the
State Authorities regarding measures to be taken by them in response to
any threatening disaster situation or disaster”. Therefore, this provision
does not appear to empower the National Executive to issue directions to
 individuals and private businesses to shut shop. The directions can only be
issued to state and Central governmental departments.
D. The most worrying feature of the guidelines is that they seem to have been
issued as though the framers consider themselves to have untrammelled
powers. The Disaster Act has been applied as though it gives the
government emergency powers of unimaginable amplitude.
D. It is humbly submitted that the respondent party not only went beyond the
powers conferred upon them by law but it is upon the government to ensure
livelihood to people. Therefore, the respondent party has acted arbitrarily
and infringed the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the
petitioners.