1.

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the
Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the
Constitution.

2. The sole objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked
in any case of violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution
of India as has been observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India1
amongst the many others. The constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the
power to issue writs for the speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right
to approach the Supreme Court for such enforcement itself a fundamental right.2
3. The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any
executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes
upon the Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as
void by the Courts under Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the
Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the
Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has
been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights.

5. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

6. In the present case the basic right of livelihood is violated and the government of united
bharat was inconsistent in arranging the basic necessity as provided under article 21 to
the migrant workers during the pandemic.

7. Since article 21 remains prevelant even during the times of national emergencies 3 and the
constitution itself provides protection against it.

1
AIR 1951 SC 41
2
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3711 (8rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa 2008).
3
44th amendment act 1978
 8. Hence the petitioner is justified in challenging the authority of the Central Government
and filing a writ petition for the same under Art. 32.

I.A. MAINTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

9. In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India 4, articulated the concept

of PIL as follows, “any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate
direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of
fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under
Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such
person or determinate class of persons.”

THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST

10. The fact 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, and The
Government of United Bharat also denied compensation to the victims' families on the
ground that it is impossible to compensate these many families as the economic impact of
Covid-19 pandemic in United Bharat has been largely disruptive.

11. The central government did not made any effort to make availability of basic necessities
as well as there was no travel arrangements made by the government during the
pandemic.

12. Since the situation was very serious one central government should make efforts for its
people and should have arrange resources for them.

13. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation for protection and enforcement of
rights of public at large and seeks remedy for the fundamental right that has been
deprived for them by not providing them basic amenities during the pandemic as well as
by not providing any compensation to the families.

4
AIR 1982 SC 149
 THE PETITONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PETITION

14. It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary5 that only a person ‘acting bona
fide6’and ‘having sufficient public interest’7in the proceeding of public interest litigation
will have alone the locus standi8 but not a person for personal gain or political motive or
any oblique consideration.
15. The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine
infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration.

16. The petitioner Vishwam Nath being an social activist which actively works in the field of
public health and welfare particularly to those belonging to lower strata therefore capable
of being acting bonafide.

Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental rights,
the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India bought as a Public Interest Litigation.

5
AIR 1993 SC 892 ,¶ 64
6
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 844
“whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or public authority
which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury.
7
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
Public Interest- Something in which community at large has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the
particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs
of local, state or national government. See also Vineet Narain v Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
8
In Blacks’s Law dictionary (6th Edition)
Locus standi- the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.