P a g eTC-

|1A

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALA

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED BHARAT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. of 2022

VISHWAM NATH………………………………………………………………APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE UNION OF UNITED BHARAT…………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………….3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………..…4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………….9

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………...10

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………...…………………………………………..….12

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………..13

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………….…….14

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

1.1 Maintainability of public interest litigation
1.2 That this is a matter of public interest

II. Whether The Dependents Of Deceased Migrant Workers Are Entitled To

Compensation?
III. Whether The Migrant Workers Are Liable For “Trespassing” By Choosing Railway
Tracks For Their Travel To Home Town?
IV. Whether The Right To Livelihood A Basic Human Right Falling Under Article 21 Of
Constitution Is Violated During Pandemic Covid-19?
8. PRAYER ………………………………………………………………..………………………27

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

s. Section
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
w.e.f. With Effect From
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ed. Edition
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Hon’ble Honourable
Anr. Another
All Allahabad
AP Andhra Pradesh
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
Del Delhi
Kar Karnataka
P&H Punjab and Haryana
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
U.P. Uttar Pradesh

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |4

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S. Caselaw Citatiaon FN. PG.
No No No.
1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury vs Union Of AIR 1951 SC 41 1 10
India
2 P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union AIR 1982 SC 149 4 11
of India
3 Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary AIR 1993 SC 892 ,¶ 64 5 12
4 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v AIR 1981 SC 844 6 12
Union of India
5 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya (2008) 9 SCC 527 9 13
Kumar and Ors
6 Kumari Alka and Union of India and Ors AIR 1993 Delhi 267 10 14
7 Kishan Lal and Delhi Jal Board v. Raj AIR 2006 Delhi 75 11 14
Kumar & Ors
8 H.S.E.B. & Ors. v. Ram Nath & Ors 2004 5 SCC 793 12 14
9 Re Sant Ram AIR 1960 SC 932 14 20
10 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1983 SC 109:(1983) 1 15 20
v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath SCC 124
Nandkarni
11 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal AIR 1986 SC 180 16 20
Corporation
12 M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka &Ors AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 19 21
(4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38
SC
13 MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. AIR 1997 Bom. 406 20 21
M/s. ZY
14 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity 1996 SCC(4) 37, JT 1996(6) 21 23
v/s State of W.B. 43

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |5

15 Pratibha Shinde & Ors. v/s State of (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 22 23
Maharashtra & Ors 87 
16 Shivani Kaushik v/s Union of India & CWJC No. 353/2021  23 23
Ors

STATUES REFERRED
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Disaster Management Act, 2005
4. The Indian Railways Act,1989
5. The Epidemic Act, 1897

BOOKS REFERRED
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Ed., 2019).
2. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (13th Ed., 2019).
3. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (14th Ed., 2020).
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (36th Ed., 2020).
5. A.K. Srivastava The Disaster Management (20th Ed., 2021)
6. H. Saharay Bhaumik On the Railways Act,1989 (27th Ed. 2020)

ONLINE LEGAL DATABASE

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Lexis Nexis

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |6

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
of the Constitution of United Bharat which reads as follows:
“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, qua warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this part.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |7

 United Bharat is unique in its contents and Spirit. Constitution of United Bharat
providing an independent and impartial judiciary, established parliamentary system of
government and also guarantees fundamental rights to citizen which are enforceable
before court of law.
 On 30th January 2020 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, a pandemic
disease was reported in United Bharat. All the sectors were adversely affected (economic
activity as well as a loss of human lives). The government of United Bharat also declared
‘curfew’ under Sec.144 of CrPC of United Bharat. The enforcement agencies arrested
and detained the violators.
 Mr. Ashish Baiga (migrant worker) He was engaged in construction works in another
state of “United Bharat” called Rashtra. He belonged to a poor scheduled tribe family. He
lost his job and not find out a new job. So he decided to travel back to his home with his
family(parents, wife, two children and unmarried sister) but transportation not available
due to lock down. So he along with five other co-workers started their travel to Bangla.
These migrant workers chose to walk home along the railway tracks as train routes were
considered shorter than roads. But this poor labour class group had no sufficient money
for meeting their basic needs during their travel.
 On March 5th 2020, at night by 7 pm The labourers faced fatigue and lethargy because
of sleeplessness, lack of rest and less food and water intake. They walked on tracks with
confidence as they assumed that no trains would be running because of the lock down but
they met with train accident. Mr. Ashish Baiga resulting in their death. The other three
were severely injured out of whom one lost his right leg.

 Number of railway accidents By NCRB, it was found that 805 people suffered injuries
and 8,733 people died on railway track between January 2020 and December 2020.
Majority of the dead were migrant workers.
 United Bharat railway declared that refused to pay compensation to these migrant
workers. The victims were given a very meagre Compensation by the State
Governments Concerned. The Government of United Bharat also denied compensation
to the victims families.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |8

 Mr. Vishwam Nath, a social activist took up initiative to file a suit as public interest
litigation before Hon’ble The Supreme Court of United Bharat under Article 32 of the
Constitution of United Bharat to bring in to attention the plight of migrant workers during
Pandemic Covid 19 and to direct Central Government to pay reasonable compensation to
the family of migrant workers who met with railway accidents.
 Now the case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 Page |9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

INTERSET LITIGATION?

II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

ENTITLED TO COMEPNSATION?

III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

CHOOSING RAILWAY TRACKS FOR THEIR TRAVEL TO HOME TOWN?

IV. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED DURING PANDEMIC
COVID-19?

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 11

ARGUMENNTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

INTERSET LITIGATION?

The present petition is not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation as the act done by the
deceased itself amounts to violation of Section 147of The Railways Act, 1989, Epidemic Act
1897 as well as the violation of Section 269,270,271 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts clearly states that the migrant workers choose to travel amid the spread of the
outrageous covid pandemic despite of the lockdown imposed by the Central Government through
the Railway Tracks to travel to their native place.

Section 147 in The Railways Act, 1989

147. Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass.—
(1) If any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having
lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment
shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees.
(2) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) may be removed from the railway by any railway
servant or by any other person whom such railway servant may call to his aid.
Section 269 in The Indian Penal Code
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 for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine,
or with both.

Section 270 in The Indian Penal Code

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.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 12

Section 271 in The Indian Penal Code

271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.—Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and
promulgated 1[by the 2[***] Government 3[***] for putting any vessel into a state of
quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore
or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious
disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

In the present case the migrant workers not only violated the lockdown but also criminally
entered into the Railway premises,broke covid 19 protocols prescribed by the Government Of
India and they even trespassed the Railway tracks, they also enadagered not only their own life
but also others life by going against the order of government and spread the disease.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 13

II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

ENTITLED TO COMEPNSATION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the deceased families are liable
for compensation under the Railway Accident And Untoward Incidents (compensation)
Amendments Rules,2016 ,Prime Ministers National Relief Fund and States Relief Fund.
According to Railway act whereby the rate of compensation in case of death of a bona fide
passenger in a train accident chapter XIII, Sec.123,124,124A state liability of railway
administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents

123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:—
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a
minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a
minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.
25
[(c) “untoward incident” means—
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying
passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform
or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]

124. Extent of liability.—When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being
either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of
or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there
has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as
would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and
recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed
and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such
accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned
by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 14

of such accident. Explanation.—For the puposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway
servant on duty.
[124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course of working a
railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who
has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and
recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed
and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of
such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the
railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to—
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes
necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of
this section, “passenger” includes—
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any
date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]

According to above sections compensation are not awarded to migrant worker because it is not a
untoward incident it is a self-inflicted injury(sec.124A b).
In Union Of India vs B.koddekar And Anr 1, In this case the Supreme Court held that the
claimants were doing prohibited acts like such as boarding a running train, alighting from a
moving train and standing at the doorstep of moving train which are offences . According to the
councel, these exceptions fall under exceptions to section 124A of the Act and therefore, the
Railways are not liable to pay comepensations in cases of this nature. Even otherwise,according
to the learned counsel, the manner in which the deaths were caused, such incidents could not be
held to be 'untoward incidents' as provided under Section 123(c) of the Act and therefore, the
applicants-claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Counsel stated under the Scheme of
the Act, the Tribunal has to examine whether the accident is as a result of negligence of
the Railways or is there any contributory factor on the part of the deceased or victim.
In our case also the migrant workers are commiting prohibited act like walking on the railways
tracks.The Railway tracks are made for trains not for walking on the tracks.
Hence the migrant workers were negligent to walk on the Railway tracks and hence they are not
entitled to receive any compensation from Railways

1
AIR 2003 AP 23.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 15

Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. V. Union of India, the petitioners allege that the death of their
children was caused due to negligence on the part of the officials of the respondent, as the
railway tracks were not properly fenced and adequate safety measures had not been put in place
despite the knowledge that children regularly played in vicinity of the tracks at the site of the
incident. Court held that the railway tracks have been laid at an elevated level. The respondent
had ensured that the tracks are not at the ground level and had thus taken the necessary safety
measure to ensure that the tracks are not accessible in the normal course. The railway authorities
have been advertising extensively cautioning the public of the hazards of trespassing on the
railway tracks. The tracks also do not present a hidden trap. In the circumstances, it is difficult to
apportion any blame on the railway authorities for the tragic incident. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.

According to fact it is clearly state that government of united bharat also declared ‘curfew’ under
sec.144 of crpc to control disease. Migrant worker are broken the law and come out for going to
home along railway tracks which is dangerous for there life.
144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any
other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy
is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and
served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or
to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management,
if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent,
obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life,
health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances
do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is
directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing
in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular
place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making
thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing
danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by
notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for
such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the
Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved,
rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to
him or by his predecessor- in- office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person
aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub- section (4).

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 16

(7) Where an application under sub- section (5) or sub- section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or
the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of
appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order;
and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly
or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing. D.- Disputes as to immovable
property

The government has promised a free supply of 5 kg of foodgrain per person and 1 kg channa per
family per month for two months, for those migrants who are neither beneficiaries of the
National Food Security Act (2013), or NFSA, nor possess State cards. The government expects
eight crore migrants to benefit from this scheme and the Centre will spend ₹3,500 crore on this.
States will be in charge of implementation and distribution. The inclusion of these estimated
eight crore beneficiaries will bring the total number of people under the Public Distribution
System coverage close to the level legally mandated by the NFSA of 67% of the population. the
Centre is ready to provide additional foodgrain for free supply but it would leave it to States to
identify genuine beneficiaries. “States can directly supply free ration at shelter camps, or issue
distress coupons or adopt any suitable method for free distribution of the food grains and
channa,”. Government provide every basic need for migrant worker so government has not liable
for compensation.
R.S. Khawungsing v. Union of India and others, it is pleaded by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Sr.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that despite the Union of India order dated 29-03-2020,
many of the workers including migrants as well as students who are living in the rented
accommodation are facing hardship, hence this PIL has been filed. AS pointed out by Mr.
Jotendro, learned senior counsel, we find no reason why landlords should insist on rent from the
workers, migrants or even for that matter from the students during lockdown period considering
the grave situation that the state and the nation is facing due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
government of india order is in force. The court held that there will be an interim relief as sought
for in respect of workers including migrants as well as students and the landlords are restrained
from taking rent or evicting so long as the Union of India order dated 29-03-2020 is in force….
Dileep Kumar Mishra V. Union of India, the petitioner seek a direction in the nature of
mandamus, from this court, to the respondents to safeguard the rights of migrant
workers/labourers stranded in the state of U.P and provide the essential necessities like food,
drinking water and medical help to them. It is also prayed that a direction may also be issued by
this court to the respondents to ensure that the persons (migrant/labourers), who are moving on
the road are not left starving and to provide them transportation free of cost to reach their native
place. Court direct the learned counsel for the respondents to file status report by way of an
affidavit in the matter in issue by the next date of listing indicating therein that what facilities
have been provided to the workers/laborers who are keen to reach their native place in the state
of U.P., some of which are on the way as also to the stranded workers/labourers in the state of
U.P.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 17

Hence, government provide all basic need to migrant worker but migrant worker return to there
home without to see government facilities and take dangaraous way to return there home. So,
government is not entitled to compensation but state government provide compensation which is
clearly given in the fact.

III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

CHOOSING RAILWAY TRACKS FOR THEIR TRAVEL TO HOME TOWN?

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 18

IV. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED DURING PANDEMIC
COVID-19?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that, According to Article 21, No
person shall be deprived of life and liberty, except procedure established by law, nor shall any
person be denied equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India. This fundamental right considers every individual to be equal before the eyes of law and
provides protection to anyone, whether Indian or foreigner against deprivation of life and liberty
by the state.

the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right to
livelihood. In Re Sant Ram2, a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme
Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21.
The Court said curtly:

“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in
Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument
that the word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”

But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 was read broadly. The
Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath
Nandkarni3, came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to
livelihood’.

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation4, popularly known as the ‘Pavement
Dwellers Case’, is important. Herein, a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to
livelihood is borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of
living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:

“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean,
merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and
execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
2
AIR 1960 SC 932
3
AIR 1983 SC 109:(1983) 1 SCC 124
4
AIR 1986 SC 180
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 19

aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

In the instant case, the Court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood
or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except
according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as
offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

Emphasising upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the Court stated:

“That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be
deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood
and you shall have deprived him of his life5.”

Article 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and,
for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Article 21 insists is that such lack ought to be
according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore,
anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can
challenge such deprivation as being against Article 21 and get it declared void6.

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which
must be fair, just and reasonable and in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the
right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka &Ors7, the Supreme Court held that the right to life
under Article 21 does protect livelihood. However, the Court added a rider that its deprivation
could not be extended too far or projected or stretched to the recreation, business or trade
detrimental to the public interest or has an insidious effect on public moral or public order.

The Court further held that regulating video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are
not violative of Article 21, nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair or unjust.

An important case that needs to be mentioned when speaking about the right to livelihood is MX
of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY 8. In this case, the Court had held that a person could
not be denied employment if they tested positive for HIV. And they cannot be rendered
‘medically unfit’ owing to the same. In interpreting the right to livelihood, the Court emphasised
that the same couldn’t hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority.

5
http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf
6
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315
7
AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC
8
AIR 1997 Bom. 406
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 20

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD NOT VIOLATED DURING PANDEMIC COVID19

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme court that According to World Health
Organization “all States have a duty to protect human life, including by addressing the general
conditions in society that give rise to direct threats to life. States are making extraordinary efforts
to do this, and it must remain the primary focus.9
While international law permits certain restrictions on freedom of movement, including for
reasons of security and national emergency like health emergencies, restrictions on free
movement should be strictly necessary for that purpose, proportionate and non-discriminatory.
The availability of effective and generalized testing and tracing, and targeted quarantine
measures, can mitigate the need for more indiscriminate restrictions.10
According to The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
Power to take special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous epidemic
disease.—(1) When at any time the 2[State Government] is satisfied that 2[the State] or any part
thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease, the
3[State
Government], if 4[it] thinks that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in force are
insufficient for the purpose, may take, or require or empower any person to take, such measures
and, by public notice, prescribe such temporary regulations to be observed by the public or by
any
person or class of persons as 4[it] shall deem necessary to prevent the outbreak of such disease or
the spread thereof, and may determine in what manner and by whom any expenses incurred
(including compensation if any) shall be defrayed.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the 2[State
Government] may take measures and prescribe regulations for—
(b) the inspection of persons travelling by railway or otherwise, and the segregation, in hospital,
temporary accommodation or otherwise, of persons suspected by the inspecting officer of being
infected with any such disease.
2A. Powers of Central Government.—When the Central Government is satisfied that India
or any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbrea k 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, 8[the Central Government may take
such measures, as it deems fit and prescribe regulations for the inspection of any bus o r train or
goods vehicle or ship or vessel or aircraft leaving or arriving at any land port or aerodrome, as
the
case may be, in the territories to which this Act extends and for such detention thereof, or of any
person intending to travel therein, or arriving thereby, as may be necessary.]

9
https://www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/sites/www.un.org.victimsofterrorism/files/un_-
_human_rights_and_covid_april_2020.pdf
10
ibid
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 21

The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Parmanand Katara v/s Union of India & Ors.  11has
categorically held that it is the obligation of the State/ Government to preserve life. The Court
further observed that death by negligence does not tantamount to legal punishment. Every Doctor
whether at Government Hospital or not, has a duty to extend medical assistance for the
preservation of life. No law or state action can interfere to avoid/ delay the discharge of the
paramount obligation casted on the members of the medical profession.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels
for Petitioner humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court, to be graciously pleased to:

I. Provide, adequate compensation to the families of the deceased.

II. Direct, the railway authority to take measure to avoid these trespass.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that the Court may deem fit in light of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

And for this kindness, the Respondent, as duty bound as ever, shall humbly pray.

_____________________________

All of which is humbly prayed by,

TC-

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

11
(1989) 4 SCC 286 
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE
 P a g e | 22

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE