HEALTH LAW

INTER-CLASS MEMORIAL DRAFTING (HEALTH LAW)

PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._/2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 r/w 156 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA)
THE SOCIETY OF PREACHERS (SOP) AND ORS...................................PETITIONER
~Versus~
UNION OF SCINDIA.....................................................................................RESPONDENT

UPON HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

JUSTICE OF SCINDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................iv

I. LIST OF CASES....................................................................................................................iv

II. LIST OF STATUTES............................................................................................................x

III. LIST OF BOOKS CITED....................................................................................................x

IV. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES.......................................................................................x

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…................................................................................xii

STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................xiii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................xv

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................xvi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…..............................................................................................1

ISSUE I:WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA?........................................................................1
ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA AND WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON CHANG FOR
THE VIOLTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRATIES AND CONVENTIONS?....................5
PRAYER.................................................................................................................................11

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | ii

HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
& And
¶ Paragraph Number
A.C Appeal Cases
AD Anno Domini
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
BLJR Bihar Law Journal Report
Bom. Bombay
C.B.I Central Bureau of Investigation
C.I.T Commissioner of Income Taxes
Co. Company
CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
ITR Income Tax Return
JSW Jindal South West
LJ Law Journal
LR Law Report
Ltd. Limited
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Mad. Madras
Misc. Miscellaneous
NCT National Capital Territory
Ori Orissa
Ors. Others
P.I.L Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
SCC Supreme Court Cases

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | iii

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. LIST OF CASES

SL. NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATIONS PAGE NO.

1950 SCR 88: AIR
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 6, 7
1950 SC 27
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V.
2. (2001) 2 SCC 62 5
Naydu

3. ABC v The State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1 6

4. Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mehboob Begum AIR 1953 SC 91 5

(2005) 13 SCC
5. Amita v. Union of India 5
721
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief
6. (1974) 2 SCC 348 6
Controller of Imports
Andhra Pradesh S.R.T.C. v. State Transport
7. (1998) 7 SCC 353 8,9
Appellate Tribunal

8. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 6

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West
9. (2004) 3 SCC 349 7
Bengal
AIR 1989 SC
10. Asif Hameed v. State of J&K 8
1899
Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of
11. AIR 1957 SC 877 9
Customs, Calcutta

12. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625 10

Bd. of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v.
13. (1983) 1 SCC 124 9
NadkarniDilip Kumar Raghavendra
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of
14. (2009) 9 SCC 551 11
Maharashtra
Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh
15. (2014) 5 SCC 551 12
Sharma

16 Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subbra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490 13

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | iv

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

II. LIST OF STATUTES

SL. NO. STATUTES PAGE NO.
1. The Constitution of India, 1949 Passim
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Passim
3. The National Security Act, 1980 Passim
4. Disaster Management Act, 2005 Passim
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 Passim
5.
III. LIST OF BOOKS
SL. TITLE OF BOOK AUTHOR EDITION YEAR
NO.
1. Principles of M.P. Jain & 6th Edition 2015
Administrative Law S.N. Jain
2. Indian Constitutional Law M.P. Jain 7th Edition 2016
3. Commentary on the Dr.Durga Das 8th Edition 2010
Constitution of India Basu
4. Constitutional Law of H.M. Seervai 4th Edition 2015
India
5. Constitution of India V.N. Shukla 12th Edition 2013
6. Constitutional Law of Dr. Subhash C. 2nd Edition 2015
India Kashyap
7. Shorter Constitution of Dr.Durga Das 14th Edition 2015
India Basu

IV. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES

SL. NO. ONLINE DATABASES

1. Westlaw (www.westlawindia.com)

2. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com)

3. SCC Online (www.scconline.in)

JSTOR (www.jstor.org)
4.
The Judgement Information System (http://www.judis.nic.in)
5.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | v

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

STATEMENT OF

The Society of Preachers (SOP) v. Union of Scindia

It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 321 of the Constitution of Scindia.

Scindian Law Students Association (SLSA) v. Union of Scindia

It is most respectfully submitted this Hon’ble Court has accepted the letter of SLSA and suo
moto converted the same to a PIL petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Scindia.

Citizens for Justice v. Union of Scindia

It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Scindia.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted and clubbed all the above petitions and the
same is listed for hearing.

1
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 rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or 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.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vi

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. EXORDIUM
Chang is the world’s most populous country, known for its robust government, pervasive
surveillance and stringent policies. A series of Pneumonia cases of unknown etiology were
detectedon 31st December 2019 by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Wuzan City of
Chang. On 7th January 2020, Changian authorities identified a novel Coronavirus as the
causative agent for the malady. The virus had been renamed by WHO as SARS-CoV-2 and
the disease caused by it as COVID-19. By mid-January 2020, nations across the globe had
started reporting similar cases. Chang and Scindia are neighboring countries with a history of
border tensions. However, considering the size of their markets, both engage in regular trade.
II. The Society of Preachers (SOP) v. Union of Scindia

The Society of Preachers (SOP), an independent minority religious institution conducted an

event of almost 2000 people within their own premises on 13th of March, 2020 at a time
when the government of Scindia had started cancelling all activities in mass gathering. It was
reported across national media that it appeared that SOP members were spreading the virus in
the country as there were instances of them defying the lockdown and also non-declaration of
travel history. An FIR is filed against Maulana Tabdili, the head of SOP, and 7 others leaders
under The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 3 and Scindian Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 269,
270, 271 and 120B. Also, relevant provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 were
invoked against the SOP members as it was alleged that they were non co-operative with the
state departments and health officials. Resultantly, they created terror by contributing to the
spread of disease to remote areas of the State and thus infecting more people.
Times of Scindia, one of the most circulated newspaper of the country claimed in its report
that it had traced links of the SOP with terror activities in the past and flouting the visa
guidelines. Members of the SOP filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court stating that
this is discrimination.
III. Scindian Law Students Association (SLSA) v. Union of Scindia

The government of Scindia issued notices to all the news agencies instructing that nothing
will be published without government approval citing dissemination of fake news Many state
governments started issuing notifications ordering pay cuts and deferments of salaries of all
government employees including those of All Scindia Services ranging between 10%-50%.
Central government employees expressed their resentment and some even challenged the

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vii

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

government’s authority to do so. Student bodies in various universities started demanding

semester promotions without examinations especially the final year graduating batches due to
lack of time, application deadlines for higher education and other competitive examinations
and shrinking job opportunities in the market. A Letter to the Supreme Court was written by
Scindian Law Students Association (SLSA) challenging the actions of the Government as
violation of the Constitution of Scindia. The letter has been converted into a PIL by the
Supreme Court of Scindia. Chang on the other hand generated huge business / profits from
the pandemic.
IV. Citizens for Justice v. Union of Scindia

At a time when the whole world was suffering, it had already recovered and started to quickly
take over the market by supplying the goods whose supplies were affected due to lockdowns
in most of the countries. A few reports by independent agencies, accused Chang of
intentionally spreading the virus across the globe. It was claimed that the virus was created in
a Changian lab with the intention to spread it the whole world to make Chang an economic
power and global leader like Britain and USA, post WW-I & WW-II. Because of the
pandemic, Changian companies and banks made the most of buying due to the crashing
world securities market. Also, the reports raised questions on the reason why there haven’t
been outbreaks in other provinces of Chang when the outbreak has affected the entire globe.
Chang in reply to all the accusations claimed that the outbreak was caused by Tetley Military
which participated in the Military World Games 2019 held in Wuzan, Chang. They claimed
that this was being done to cripple the Changian economy. Further, they rejected all the
claims of the virus being a biological weapon. Also, it rejected and blocked the proposal of
discussion over the pandemic in UN General Assembly. Three petitions filed in various
countries asking the governments to take action against Chang for the spread of the virus at
an International Court. A similar petition was filed in the Supreme Court of Scindia asking it
to issue directions to the government to impose sanctions on Chang for the violations of
International treaties and Conventions.
V. PRERORATION
The Supreme Court has accepted and clubbed all the petitions and the same is listed for
hearing on 01-03 May 2020. COVID-19 Pandemic.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | viii

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

I. WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA?

ISSUE II

I. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA AND WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON CHANG FOR
THE VIOLTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRATIES AND CONVENTIONS?

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | ix

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I:WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA?
In the instant cases, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner do not have the required locus
standi to approach this Hon’ble Court as there has been no violation of Fundamental Rights
and in this crucial time, the apex Court should restrict itself to hear only urgent matters. In the
instant case, the petitioners have utterly failed to establish that their fundamental rights have
actually been violated and the crux of a writ petition is that there should be a violation of
Fundamental Rights. In the instant case, the Society of Preachers has an alternative remedy
u/s 9 of NSA Act, to approach the advisory board and SLSA and Citizens for Justice have not
exhausted their alternative remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of Scindia before
knocking the doors of justice of this Hon’ble Court.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA AND
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS
ON CHANG FOR THE VIOLTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRATIES AND
CONVENTIONS?
Security of State is of vital importance and a government must have the power to impose a
restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Art. 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed
on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the security of the State. However, the
term ‘security’ is a very crucial one. The term ‘security of the state’ refers only to serious and
aggravated forms of public order. Art. 19(6) empowers the state to put reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the power conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) in fact to the extent of complete or
partial exclusion. ‘Procedure established by law’ in Art.21 is the law prescribed by the
parliament at any given point of time. The Constitution has emancipated the reasonable
reach and boundaries of different particles of Government. In the present case, the legislative
intent of Parliament must not be over- interpreted by the Judiciary to the extent to make a law
ultravires and void. The anomaly, if any, in the legislation, the Supreme Court may refer the
matter and recommend appropriate steps to be taken by the legislature. Imposing sanction
would lead to deteriorate Diplomatic ties and regular military ties in Indian Oceanas well as
in Dokhlam and Scindia always being a peace-supporting Country should not boost such
ideas unless Chang has been proved of the allegations in the International Court of Justice.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | x

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon;ble Court that the instant matter is not maintainable
before the court of Law. The Petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to maintain the matter
before the apex Court. Though the Hon’ble Court has clubbed the matters, yet certain issues
regarding maintainability of the case must be highlighted before this court to prevent any
miscarriage of justice.
{I.A.} The petitioner doesn’t possess required locus standi to file the instant petition.
[¶ 1.] The expression ‘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 a class of
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected.2 The Supreme Court has only the persons acting bona fide3 and having sufficient
interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the law in
motion4, to wipe out violation of fundamental rights5 and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.6 A petitioner must come not only with clean hands but also with a clear heart,
clean mind and clean objective.7 There must be real and genuine public interest involved in
the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before the Court.8 Court
of Law should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to
extraordinary jurisdiction.9The credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on
the creditworthiness of the materials averred and not even on the credentials claimed of the
person moving the Court.10

2
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, 356: AIR 2004 SC 280; Neetu v. State of
Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614, 619; Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, 371: AIR 2004 SC 1923.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 1

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

[¶ 2.] In the instant cases, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner do not have the required
locus standi to approach this Hon’ble Court as there has been no violation of Fundamental
Rights and in this crucial time, the apex Court should restrict itself to hear only urgent
matters.
{I.B.} There is no violation of any fundamental right.
[¶ 3.] No action lies in the Supreme Court under Article 32 unless there is an infringement of
a Fundamental Right.The Supreme Court is the sentinel of justice and have been vested with
extraordinary powers to ensure that the rights of citizens are duly protected.11 The violation
of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article
32.12 In order to establish the violation of a Fundamental Right, the Court has to consider the
direct and inevitable consequences of the action which is sought to remedied or the guarantee
of which is sought to be enforced.13 Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to adjudge the
validity of any legislation or an action unless it adversely affects petitioner’s fundamental
rights.14 The Court has clearly held that if the violation of Fundamental Rights cannot be
shown, the writ petition cannot be maintained.15.
In the instant case, the petitioners have utterly failed to establish that their fundamental rights
have actually been violated and the crux of a writ petition is that there should be a violation
of Fundamental Rights.
{I.C.} The alternative remedies are not exhausted before invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the Apex Court.
[¶ 4.] A writ is an extra ordinary relief,16 granted only upon the exhaustion of an existing
alternative remedy in a statute. Further, the writ remedy cannot be used as an alternative
remedy17or as a means to adjudge any factual inconsistencies.18 The Supreme Court refused
to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 stating that the petitioner’s in a case had a
remedy available of moving the High Court under Article 226.19 In the case of Madhya
Pradesh v. ITO20, The Supreme Court has held that when there existed an alternative remedy
then the writ petition would be dismissed by the court in limine. The petitioners, in the case at

11
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532: AIR 2017 SC 6549.
12
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1970 4 SC 1539: (1974) 2 SCC 348.
13
Hindi HitrashakSamiti v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 352: AIR 1990 SC 851.
14
Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532: (1939) 1 SCR 265.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 2

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

hand, had did not exercise the proper course of action provided by the alternative remedies
before filing the writ petition.
[¶ 5.] The Supreme Court can dismiss a writ petition in liminein appropriate cases. It is not
obligatory for it to give reasons.21 Moreover if the Supreme Court move to entertain these
types of writs, it will open a floodgate of social issues which the State.
In the instant case, the Society of Preachers has an alternative remedy u/s 9 of NSA Act, to
approach the advisory board and SLSA and Citizens for Justice have not exhausted their
alternative remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of Scindia before knocking the
doors of justice of this Hon’ble Court.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA AND
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS
ON CHANG FOR THE VIOLTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRATIES AND
CONVENTIONS?

It is humbly stated that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not valid as there has been no
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of Scindia.
{III.A} There has been no violation of Article 21 of Constitution of Scindia.
[¶ 11.] Life or personal liberty includes right to live with human dignity. 41 It would include
all those aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful 42, worth-living43 and
complete. 44
There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its
functionaries.45It is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate

36
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1: AIR 2007 SC 861.
37
Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, 1990 (3) SCC 130.
38
ChiranjitLal Chaudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 3

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

it by taking positive steps in that direction. 46 The object of Art. 21 is to prevent encroachment
upon personal liberty by the State save in accordance with law, and incompliance with the
provisions thereof.47 Before a person is deprived of his life and personal liberty the procedure
established by law must be strictly followed 48
and must not be departed from to the
disadvantage of the person affected.49
[¶ 12.] Article 21 guarantees the protection of ‘personal autonomy’ of an individual. 50

Personal autonomy includes both the negative right of not to be subject to interference by
others51 and the positive right of individuals to make decision about their life, to express
themselves and to choose which activities to take part in.52
{III.B} Article 21 is subject to procedure established by law.
[¶ 13.] Right to life and personal liberty can be curtailed only in accordance with the
procedure established by law, as provided under Art.21 of the Constitution. 53 International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights also provides that the liberty of the people can be
restricted, in accordance with procedure established by law.54
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi,55 has laid down a triple test for any law to
be 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(3); and
(3) It should be just fair and reasonable.

[¶ 14.] ‘Procedure established by law’ in Art.21 is the law prescribed by the parliament at any
given point of time.56 Parliament is charged with the primary responsibility for deciding the
best way of dealing with social problems.57

M. Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

46

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88: AIR 1950 SC 27; Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi
47

Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526; Nareinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3810: (2002) 2

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 4

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

[¶ 15.] Public health falls under Entry 6 of the State List, giving the States the power to
legislate on all matters concerning public health within its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, Entry 81
of the Union List allows the Centre to make laws on inter-state quarantine and quarantine of
ports and ships. Accordingly, Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 provides States
with the powers to take all necessary measures to contain an epidemic, while Section 2A
empowers the Centre to take measures for inspections and detention of ships. States have
invoked Section 2 of the 1897 Act to enforce orders detailing measures to combat the virus.

[¶ 16.] By terming COVID-19 as a disaster, the Government has rightly acknowledged the
magnitude of the problem. The Prime Minister, being the ex officio Chairperson of the
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) under Section 3(2)(a) of the 2005 Act,
has the power under Section 6(2)(i) to take measures for the prevention and mitigation of the
disaster. Using this power, the NDMA has permitted various different Authorities to take
measures to contain the spread of the virus. 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.
{III.C} There has been no violation of Article 19 of Constitution of Scindia.
[¶ 17.] Security of State is of vital importance and a government must have the power to
impose a restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Art. 19(2) reasonable restrictions can
be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the security of the State.
However, the term ‘security’ is a very crucial one. The term ‘security of the state’ refers only
to serious and aggravated forms of public order. Art. 19(6) empowers the state to put
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the power conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) in fact to the
extent of complete or partial exclusion.
[¶ 18.] In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India,58 the Supreme Court of India 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 general public. A restriction
doesn’t become unreasonable merely because it operates in a harsh manner.59

It is humbly contended by the respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court should not
ordinarily intervene and issue guideline to Government of Scindia to impose sanctions on

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 5

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU
Chang for the alleged violations of International treaties and conventions as:
{IV.A} That the intervention of Judiciary in this particular case is not warranted.
[¶ 19.] Although in the Constitution of India there is no express separation of powers, it is
clear that a legislature is created by the Constitution and detailed provisions are made for
making that legislature pass laws.60 The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the
doctrine of separation of powers in the absolute rigidity but the functions of the different
parts or branches of the Government has been sufficiently differentiated. 61The basic postulate
under the Indian Constitution that the legal sovereign power has been distributed between the
Legislature to make the law, the Executive to implement the Law and the Judiciary to
interpret the law within the limits set down by the Constitution.62
[¶ 20.] The essential legislature function consists in the determination of the choice of the
legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of
conduct. 63
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their respective
spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to
another.64
{IV.B} That the intervention of Judiciary is violative of the basic structure of Scindian
Constitution

[¶ 21.] Separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 65 The principle
of separation of powers being a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it is neither
permissible for the Central Government to encroach upon the legislative powers of the state
nor can the superior courts of the land adjure such a jurisdiction which is otherwise
prohibited under the Constitution.66If grounds need to be added to those already specificall
set forth in the legislation, that is the business of the legislature and not of the
courts.67Legislature is constituted by the chosen representatives of the people. They are
responsible for the welfare of the State and it is for them to lay down the policy that the State
should pursue. Therefore it is for them to determine what legislation to put upon the statute
back in order to advance the welfare of the state. 68
However laudable, desirable, and
attractive, the result may seem, an activist court is not fully equipped to cope with the details
and intricacies of the legislative subject. 69
While interpreting a provision the court only
interprets the law and cannot legislate it.70
[¶ 23.] The Constitution has emancipated the reasonable reach and boundaries of different
particles of Government. In the present case, the legislative intent of Parliament must not be
over-interpreted by the Judiciary to the extent to make a law ultravires and void. The
anomaly, if any, in the legislation, the Supreme Court may refer the matter and recommend
appropriate steps to be taken by the legislature. Hence, any Judicial over-reach to interfere in
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 6
 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

the functions of the legislative body would be a clear violation of the intents of the founding-
fathers of the Constitution and would breach the basic structure of the Constitution i.e.
“theory of separation of powers.”

 Scindia is the largest provider of Generic Medicines globally occupying a 20% share
in global supply by volume. It supplies 50% of the global demand in vaccines. But,
2/3rd of total import of pharmaceutical ingredients and raw materials for manufacture
of drugs croms from China. Hence, Sanction would destroy the ever-growing
pharmaceutical manufacturing industries of Scindia.
 Chang state draft policy led it acquire the Djibouti naval Base in East Africa and
Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka, which enhanced its hold over Indian Ocean i.e. String
of Pearls theory.
[¶ 24.] Hence, imposing sanction would lead to deteriorate Diplomatic ties and regular
military ties in Indian Oceanas well as in Dokhlam and Scindia always being a peace-
supporting Country should not boost such ideas unless Chang has been proved of the
allegations in the International Court of Justice.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 7

 HEALTH LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING, PRESIDENCY UNIVERISYT, BENGALURU

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Court that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:

1. That the present Writ Petitions are not maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Scindia and should be dismissed;

2. That, there has been no discrimination against Society of Preachers and thus uphold all
the actions taken against them;

3. That, there has been no violation of Fundamental rights as a result of the lockdown,
and the actions taken are a result of reasonable restriction;

4. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court should not interfere to issue guidelines to the
Government of Scindia regarding imposition of sanction against Chang;

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the
respondent shall be duty bound as ever pray.

Place: Bangalore S/d

Date: 20-06-2023 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 8