THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1 : Whether the present pill is maintainable or not?

ISSUE 2 : Whether the government order on lockdown is against to the disaster

management act or not

ISSUE 3 : Whether this particular order infringed the fundamental rights of the people

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the pill is not
maintainable, restrictions or lockdown are for the public heath sake and already once
due to this virus our country has went down in economic stability so we don't want
this to happen again! That's why state wise partial lockdown has been imposed! And
this lockdown doesn't infringe any rights therefore this appeal is not maintainable and
is liable for dismissal.

ISSUE 2 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that government order on

lockdown is not against to the disaster management act, The Disaster Management
Act, 2005 gives the Central government powers to take quick policy decisions and
impose restrictions on people to manage a disaster. Here’s an explainer on what the
law entails for people and governments in these difficult times.

ISSUE 3 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the fundamental rights
of the people are not infringed as it is for the safety of the people to prevent further
death of lives, without the lockdown many lives would have lost as Novid-19 has
been spreading rapidly
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the pill is not
maintainable, according to Black's Law Dictionary- “Public Interest Litigation means
a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or
general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest
or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected”. Judiciary, being
the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in
the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or
decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental
rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Courts directly by invoking
Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure
involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in
respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty,
illiteracy and ignorance and also in reference to P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao And Ors. vs
Andhra University case and Jaleel.P.P. vs P.K. Muralikrishnan explain what exactly is
the meaning of public interest and public interest litigation. He refers to paragraphs
public interest litigation and should reject at the outset petitions especially involving
service matters which in the guise public interest

Here no public rights has been violated and hence there the pill is not maintainable.

ISSUE 2 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that government order on

lockdown is not against to the disaster management act, 2005. DMA is a national law
that empowers the Central government to declare the entire country or part of it as
affected by a disaster and to make plans for mitigation to reduce “risks, impacts and
affects” of the disaster. The Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 does not provide such
powers. DMA covers all man-made and natural disasters which are beyond the coping
capacity of a community. It also provides powers to the government to act against
anyone not abiding by government orders and regulations.
Never before has the epidemic law been invoked to control a pandemic. That’s not
surprising. For instance, to act against anyone defying orders under the law a warrant
issued by a court is needed. The law also does not have provisions to enforce
mandatory quarantines or social distancing, to provide for quick release of money, or
to take over government or private buildings to provide relief. It gives powers to
health officials but very little to the law enforcement agencies, which are now
implementing complete lockdown. That’s why this lockdown had to be under DMA.
The law provides for detention of any person for defying government orders including
government officials and directors of the private companies. The jail term prescribed
is one year for first offence and two years for the second. The officials notified as
nodal officers -- district magistrates in this case, can summon anyone to perform
duties for disaster mitigation and relief. A department head could be held responsible
for any dereliction of duty by the personnel reporting to him. A complaint against any
official can be made only to chairpersons of national, state or district disaster
management authorities.
Hence the government order on lockdown is not against to the disaster management
act, 2005.

ISSUE 3 : It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the fundamental rights
of the people are not infringed authorities have imposed strict quarantine measures to
prevent the spread of the virus, following the closure of shops, sports and arts venues,
lockdowns and travel authorisation documents have taken priority over freedom of
movement, without doing so there will be a huge spread of Novid-19 and can also
lead to loss of life, as Novid_19 is a dangerous virus
A lockdown is an all-pervasive order involving restrictions upon a bundle of civil
liberties. The freedom of movement, freedom to carry out one's profession, trade or
occupation of choice, and freedom to reside in any part of the country constitute the
first layer of curbs in a lockdown, the second layer of curbs is born out of instances of
extravagance while implementing the first layer, thereby leading to a direct violation
of the otherwise faceless right to life and personal liberty. It is pertinent to note that
the guidelines restricting freedom of trade/occupation/profession have been framed
under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005. Notably, these guidelines do not
put a direct restriction on the freedom of movement. The movement of citizens is
restricted through a web of executive orders passed under Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 coupled with the addendum issued by the Home Ministry
and read with the colonial era Epidemic Diseases Act.
By this we can say that the fundamental rights of the people are not infringed.