Respondent Nomc 3610 Lloyd

COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2020.
NOMC 3610
COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW ONLINE MOOT COURT

COMPETITON, 2020.
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._/2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA)
THE SOCIETY OF PREACHERS (SOP)..…………………………………PETITIONER
~Versus~
UNION OF SCINDIA……………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
WITH
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._/2020
SCINDIAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (SLSA)…..………………PETITIONER
~Versus~
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._/2020
CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE…………………………………………………..PETITIONER
~Versus~
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
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | i

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
V. LIST OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS……………………...xi
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 THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST SOCIETY OF
PREACHERS(SOP) AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?..........3
ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA?...............................5
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE
SANCTIONS ON CHANG FOR THE VIOLTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRATIES
AND CONVENTIONS?............................................................................................................8
PRAYER.................................................................................................................................11
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | ii

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

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 4
721
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief
6. (1974) 2 SCC 348 2
Controller of Imports
Andhra Pradesh S.R.T.C. v. State Transport
7. (1998) 7 SCC 353 3
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 1
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 5
Customs, Calcutta
12. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625 7
Bd. of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v.

13. (1983) 1 SCC 124 5
NadkarniDilip Kumar Raghavendra
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of
14. (2009) 9 SCC 551 6
Maharashtra
Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh
15. (2014) 5 SCC 551 2
Sharma
16 Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subbra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490 1
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | iv

Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Western

17. (2007) 11 SCC 32 3
Coalfields Ltd.
AIR 1968 SC 718:
18. Cf. Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies 6
1968 (2) SCR 366.
ChhetriyaPardushanMuktiSangharshSamiti
19. (1990) 4 SCC 449 5
v. State of U.P.
20. ChiranjitLalChowdhary v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41 4, 5
Consumer Education & Research Centre v.

21. (1995) 3 SCC 42 5
Union of India
D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
22. (1996) 5 SCC 216 3
India
AIR 1991 SC 101:
23. D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D.T.C. 1991 Supp. (1) 5

SCC 600
DattarajNathujiThaware v. State of
24. (2005) 1 SCC 590 1
Maharashtra
(1984) 1 SCC 29:
25. Deena v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 4

1154
26. Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy. CIT 280 ITR 567 2
27. Douglas v Hello, Ltd [2001] QB 967 6
28. Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363 1, 2

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,
29. (1981) 1 SCC 608 5
Union Territory of Delhi
30. Ghaidan v. Godin (2004) UKHL 30 7
AIR 1959 SC 609:
31. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration 1959 Supp. (2) 5

SCR 87
32. R v. Johnstone (2003) UKHL 28 7
Govt. of A.P. v. Maharshi Publishers Pvt.

33. (2003) 1 SCC 95 4
Ltd.
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | v

(2002) 10 SCC
34. H.P. Gupta v. Union of India 45
658
35. Hari Shankar Nagla v. State of M.P. Air 1954 SC 465 8
36. Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 352 2

(2007) 2 SCC 1:
37. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu 5
AIR 2007 SC 861
38. In re Delhi Laws Act Case,1912 1951 AIR 332 8
Indian Bank’s Association v. Devkala

39. (2004) 11 SCC 1 1
Consultancy Service
Institute of Charted Financial Analysts of (2002) 256 ITR
40. 2
India v. ACIT 115 (AP.)
Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar
41. AIR 1968 SC 353 3
University
42. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 1
43. Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761 5
44. K.R. Srinivas v. R.V. Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620 1
45. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1967SC 1643 8
1994 Supp (2)
46. KaziLhendupDorji v. C.B.I. SCC 116: 1994 1

SCC (Cri) 873
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and
47. (1973) 4 SCC 225 8
Ors. v. State of Kerela and Anr.
Khedat Mazdoor ChetnaSangath v State of
48. (1994) 6 SCC 260 5
M.P.
49. Lokesh Katara v. High Court of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 427 3
50. M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India 2010) 4 SCC 150 4
51. M. Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212. 4, 6

(2004) 12 SCC
52. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 118: AIR 2004 SC 5

4016.
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vi

Madhu Kishwar & Others v. State of Bihar

53. 1996 (5) SCC 125 9
& Others
(1965) 67 ITR 637
54. Madhya Pradesh v. ITO 3
(SC)
1952 SCR 368:
55. Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab 6
AIR 1952 SC 27
56. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 6
(2014) 2 SCC 532:
57. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary AIR 2017 SC 2

6549
Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth
58. 1990 (3) SCC 130 5
G.S. Medical College
Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model AIR 2007 SC
59 5
Town Residents Association 2844
60. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2005) 9 SCC 631 6

(2000) 10 SCC
61. NamadaBachaoAndolan v. Union of India 664: 2000 Supp 5

(2) JT 6
Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of AIR 1952 SC 106:
62. 6
Punjab 1952 SCR 395
AIR 2001 SC
63. Nareinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India 3810: (2002) 2 6

SCC 210
64. Narendra Union of Kumar v. India AIR 1960 SC 430 7

(2007) 10 SCC
65. Neetu v. State of Punjab 619
614
New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society
66. (1996) 1 SCC 731 5
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
AIR 1986 SC 180:
67. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation 5
(1985) 3 SCC 545
68. Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 9
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vii

(1996) 2 SCC 498:
69. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC 4

1023
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
70. AIR 1991 SC 207 6
of IndIa
Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi
71. (1980) 3 SCC 526 6
Administration
72. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya v. State of Puinjab AIR 1955 SC 549 8
1993 Supp (2)
73. Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 1
SCC 20
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. RDS AIR 2013 SC 200:
74. 4
Projects Ltd. (2013) 1 SCC 524
Reynold Raiamani and Another v. Union of
75. 9
India and Another (1982) 2 SCC 474
S. Saran Kumar v. Regional Manager, (2010) 6 Mad. LJ
76. 4
Karur Vysya Bank 47 (Mad.)
1981 Supp SCC
77. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1
87
78. Sahib Ram Giri v. ITO 301 ITR 249 2
(2011) 13 SCC
79. Sanjoy Narayan v High Court of Allahabad 6
155
80. SarbanandaSonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665 1
81. Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 6
82. Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1958 SC 532 2

Shantistar Builders v. Narayan AIR 1990 SC 630:
83. 5
KhimalalTotame (1990) 1 SCC 520
1955 (2) SCR 531:
84. Shrikishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 4
AIR 1955 SC 795
85. Soma Chakravarty v. State (2007) 5 SCC 403 4
AIR 1952 Bombay

86. State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali 9
84
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | viii

87. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. T.N. Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 3
(2000) 9 SCC 572:

88. State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. 5
(2000) 6 JT 1
(2003) 7 SCC 389:
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedia Leather
89. AIR 2003 SC 5
& Liquor Ltd.
3236
(2006) 12 SCC
90. State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh 709: AIR 2007 SC 4

641
AIR 1998 SC 344:
91. State of T.N. v. K. Sabanayagam 5
(1998) 1 SCC 318
92. State of U.P. v. Maqbool Ahmed (2006) 7 SCC 521 4

State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Commtt. AIR 2010 SC
93. 9
For Protect, Democratic Rights 1476
AIR 1952 SC 75:
94. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCR 284: 5
1952 Cr LJ 510
Supreme Court Advocates on Record
95. (2016) 5 SCC 1 6
Association v Union of India
Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v.
96. (1983) 4 SCC 24 3
State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 2009 SC 763:
97. T. Venkateswarulu v. T.T. Devashthanan (2009) 1 SCC 546 4

(574)
98. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 1
T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of

99. (2006) 5 SCC 28 1
India
(2008) 10 SCC
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya
100. 139: AIR 2009 SC 4
Prasad Mishra
296
101. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577 5
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | ix

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
5. Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 Passim
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)
4. JSTOR (www.jstor.org)
5. The Judgement Information System (http://www.judis.nic.in)
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | x

V. LIST OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
SL. NO. TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. Biological Weapons Convention, 1975
4. The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or
other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925
5. International Health Regulations, 2005
6. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | xi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
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 | xii

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 | xiii

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 | xiv

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
I. WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA?
ISSUE II
II. WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST SOCIETY OF

PREACHERS(SOP) AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS?
ISSUE III
III. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA?
ISSUE IV
IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA SHOULD IMPOSE
AND CONVENTIONS?
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | xv

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.
Article 14 provides equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by
nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality before the law may
result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does
not mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in
spite of differences in circumstances or conditions. This provision provides for equality
among the equals; it does not mean that unequals ought to be treated equally.

RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA?
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. Parliament is charged with the primary responsibility
for deciding the best way of dealing with social problems.
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | xvi


AND CONVENTIONS?
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 | xvii

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
motion 4 , to wipe out violation of fundamental rights 5 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.
3
T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28: AIR 2006 SC 1774; S.P. Gupta v. Union
of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
4
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36; SarbanandaSonowal v. Union of India,
(2005) 5 SCC 665: AIR 2005 SC 2920.
5
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subbra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 722: (1996) 1 SCC 490.
6
KaziLhendupDorji v. C.B.I., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116: 1994 SCC (Cri) 873.
7
DattarajNathujiThaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540: (2005) 1 SCC 590; Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20: AIR 1993 SC 852; K.R. Srinivas v. R.V. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620.
8
Indian Bank’s Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service, (2004) 11 SCC 1: AIR 2004 SC 2615.
9
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36.
10
Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, 396-70: AIR 2004 SC 1923; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State
of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349: AIR 2004 SC 280.
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | 1

[¶ 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.
15
Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Sharma, (2014) 5 SCC 551.
16
SAMPATH IYENGAR (12TH EDITION OF 2012).
17
Institute of Charted Financial Analysts of India v. ACIT, (2002) 256 ITR 115 (AP.).
18
Sahib Ram Giri v. ITO, 301 ITR 249; Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy. CIT, 280 ITR 567.
19
LokeshKatara v. High Court of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 427.
20
Madhya Pradesh v. ITO, (1965) 67 ITR 637 (SC).

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.

It is humbly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the actions taken against SOP were
taken in the interest of security of the nation and hence were not discriminatory and were
reasonable.
{II.A} The actions taken against SOP were not arbitrary and discriminatory.
[¶ 6.] Whether a classification adopted by a law is reasonable or not is a matter by the courts
to decide.22 The study of the cases will show that many different classifications have been
upheld as constitutional.23 It is not necessary that for a classification to be valid, its basis must
always appear on the face of the law. To find out the reasons and the justification for the
classification, the Court may refer to relevant materials.24 Prescribing no limit on the exercise
of the discretionary power conferred on the authority does not mean arbitrariness as it is
coupled with the duty to apply mind to the relevant factors.25The concept of equality allows
differential treatment but it prevails distinctions that are not properly justified. Justification
means each case to be decided on a case to case basis.26
21
D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216: AIR 1996 SC 2481.
22
Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Western Coalfields Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 32: AIR 2007 SC 2971.
23
Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 24: AIR 1984 SC 20.
24
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. T.N. Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1: (1974) 1 SCC 19; Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor,
Bihar University, (1968) 1 SCR 231: AIR 1968 SC 353.
25
Andhra Pradesh S.R.T.C. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 7 SCC 353: AIR 1998 SC 2621.
26
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212: AIR 2007 SC 71.

[¶ 7.] If a person complains of unequal treatment, the burden lies on him to place before the
Court sufficient material from which it can be inferred that there is unequal treatment. 27
Whether the petitioner is subjected to hostile discrimination is also a question of fact. That is
why the burden to establish the existence of these facts rests on the petitioner. To cast the
burden of proof in such cases on the State is really to ask it to prove the negative that no other
persons are situated similarly as the petitioner and that the treatment meted out to the
petitioner is not hostile. 28 There cannot be perfect equality in any matter on an absolute
scientific basis and certain inequalities here and there would not offend Article 14.29
{II.B} The actions taken against SOP did not violate their rights under Article 14.
[¶ 8.] Article 14 provides equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not
equal by nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality before the
law may result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the
law does not mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all
persons in spite of differences in circumstances or conditions.30 This provision provides for
equality among the equals; it does not mean that unequals ought to be treated equally.31
[¶ 9.] Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. 32 The
concept of equality affirms that who are in fact unequally circumstanced cannot be treated at
par.33 The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application
for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position.34 It
does not take away from the State the authority to make classification for reasonable
purposes.35
27
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 200: (2013) 1 SCC 524; T.
Venkateswarulu v. T.T. Devashthanan, AIR 2009 SC 763: (2009) 1 SCC 546 (574); S. Saran Kumar v. Regional
Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, (2010) 6 Mad. LJ 47 (Mad.).
28
Deena v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 29: AIR 1983 SC 1154, 1167.
29
H.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 658.
30
ChiranjitLalChowdhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41: (1950) 1 SCR 869: (1951) 53 Bom. LR 499.
31
M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 1596 (1603): 2010 AIR SCW 2321: (2010) 4 SCC 150;
State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh,(2006) 12 SCC 709: AIR 2007 SC 641: T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355: (2002) 8 SCC 481: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra,
(2008) 10 SCC 139: AIR 2009 SC 296.
32
Shrikishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1955 (2) SCR 531: AIR 1955 SC 795; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State
of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, 655; Govt. of A.P. v. Maharshi Publishers Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 1 SCC 95; Amita
v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721; State of U.P. v. Maqbool Ahmed, (2006) 7 SCC 521; Soma Chakravarty
v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411: AIR 2007 SC 2149.
33
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, 655: AIR 2003 SC 355.
34
Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P., (1996) 2 SCC 498: AIR 1996 SC 1023.
35
Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609: 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 87; Babulal Amthalal Mehta v.
Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877: 1957 SCR 1110; H.P. Gupta v. U.O.I., (2002) 10 SCC 658;
Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, AIR 1953 SC 91: 1953 SCR 404.

[¶ 10.] Equality secured by Article 14 does not mean absolute equality, which is a human
impossibility. It is to be held to be a comparative concept. 36 Existence of equality of
opportunity depends not merely on the absence of disabilities, but on presence of abilities. It
is not simply a matter of legal equality. De jure equality must ultimately find its raison d’etre
in de facto equality. 37 The varying needs of different classes of persons require separate
treatment. 38 Application of the same laws uniformly to all may result in inequality. 39
Distinctions have to be made for different classes and groups of persons and a rational or
reasonable classification is permitted, as otherwise it would be almost impossible to carry on
the work of Government of any State or any country.40

RIGHTS DURING THE LOCKDOWN AS CLAIMED BY THE SLSA?
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.
39
Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Association, AIR 2007 SC 2844.
40
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75: (1952) 1 SCR 284: 1952 Cr LJ 510.
41
Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761; Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746: (1981) 1 SCC 608; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180: (1985) 3
SCC 545; D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101: 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600; Khedat
Mazdoor ChetnaSangath v State of M.P., (1994) 6 SCC 260; Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union
of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
42
New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 1 SCC 731; State of
Karnataka v. State of A.P., (2000) 9 SCC 572: (2000) 6 JT 1; NamadaBachaoAndolan v. Union of India, (2000)
10 SCC 664: 2000 Supp (2) JT 6; State of T.N. v. K. Sabanayagam, AIR 1998 SC 344: (1998) 1 SCC
318;.Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalalTotame, AIR 1990 SC 630: (1990) 1 SCC 520; Virender Gaur v.
State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118: AIR 2004 SC 4016.
43
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Naydu, (2001) 2 SCC 62: 2000 Supp (3) JT 322;
ChhetriyaPardushanMuktiSangharshSamiti v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 2060: (1990) 4 SCC 449; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389: AIR 2003 SC 3236.
44
Bd. of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v. NadkarniDilip Kumar Raghavendra, AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1
SCC 124.
45
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631, 637: AIR 2005 SC 402.

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
others 51 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
46
M. Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
47
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88: AIR 1950 SC 27; Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi
Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526; Nareinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3810: (2002) 2
SCC 210; Cf. Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718: 1968 (2) SCR 366.
48
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 368: AIR 1952 SC 27.
49
Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106: 1952 SCR 395.
50
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra, (2009) 9 SCC 551; Selvi v State of Karnataka, (2010) 7
SCC 263; Douglas v Hello! Ltd, [2001] QB 967.
51
ABC v The State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1; Sanjoy Narayan v High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13
SCC 155; Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.
52
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1.
53
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of IndIa, AIR 1991 SC 207.
54
Art. 9, ICCPR (Adopted by United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966)
55
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
56
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
57
Ghaidan v. Godin, (2004) UKHL 30; R v. Johnstone, (2003) UKHL 28.

[¶ 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
58
AIR 1960 SC 430.
59
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO,(2005) 1 SCC 625.


AND CONVENTIONS?
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
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 specifically
60
In re Delhi Laws Act Case, 1912, 1951 AIR 332, 1951 SCR 747.
61
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya v. State of Puinjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
62
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967SC 1643, (1967) 2 SCR 762.
63
Hari Shankar Nagla v. State of M.P., Air 1954 SC 465, (1955) SCR 380.
64
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, AIR 1989 SC 1899, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364
65
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerela and Anr. , AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973) 4 SCC
225
66
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Commtt. For Protect, Democratic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476.

set forth in the legislation, that is the business of the legislature and not of the
courts. 67 Legislature 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
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.”
{IV.C} Imposing sanction on Chang would call for unwanted tension between two
countries.
• It is humbly contended that India is the manufacturing destination of 800 Changian
Companies with 75 engaged with sectors like construction, equipment, automobiles,
optical fibres, chemicals etc. sanction would result in withdrawal of companies
shifting to a different location affecting the manufacturing sector and overall Scindian
Economy.
• By imposing sanctions on Chang, Scindia will not be able to avail loans from Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank (NDB), which
are highly influenced being headquartered at Chang affecting India’s Visionary
Infrastructure Projects and Policies.
• Chang directly affects the value of American Dollar by loosely packing the value of
its currency against dollar and hence sanction against China would lead to humiliating
defeat of Scindia in export industries and highly affecting the import industries for
e.g. high Oil Prices.
67
Reynold Raiamani and Another v. Union of India and Another (1982) 2 SCC 474.
68
State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bombay 84.
69
Madhu Kishwar & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, 1996 (5) SCC 125.
70
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 3 SCC 533.

• 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.

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: New Delhi S/d_____________
Date: 01-03/05/2020 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

Respondent Nomc 3610 Lloyd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Nomc 3610 Lloyd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2020.

COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW ONLINE MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._/2020

UPON HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | i

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

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

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

V. LIST OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS……………………...xi

ISSUE I:WHETHER THE CLUBBED PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | ii

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | iii

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

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

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

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

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West

12. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625 7

Bd. of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v.

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

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | iv

Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Western

20. ChiranjitLalChowdhary v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41 4, 5

Consumer Education & Research Centre v.

23. D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D.T.C. 1991 Supp. (1) 5

25. Deena v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 4

26. Dinesh Chand Jain v. Dy. CIT 280 ITR 567 2

27. Douglas v Hello, Ltd [2001] QB 967 6

28. Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363 1, 2

30. Ghaidan v. Godin (2004) UKHL 30 7

AIR 1959 SC 609:

31. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration 1959 Supp. (2) 5

32. R v. Johnstone (2003) UKHL 28 7

Govt. of A.P. v. Maharshi Publishers Pvt.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | v

35. Hari Shankar Nagla v. State of M.P. Air 1954 SC 465 8

36. Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 352 2

38. In re Delhi Laws Act Case,1912 1951 AIR 332 8

Indian Bank’s Association v. Devkala

42. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 1

43. Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761 5

44. K.R. Srinivas v. R.V. Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620 1

45. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1967SC 1643 8

1994 Supp (2)

46. KaziLhendupDorji v. C.B.I. SCC 116: 1994 1

49. Lokesh Katara v. High Court of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 427 3

50. M. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India 2010) 4 SCC 150 4

51. M. Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212. 4, 6

52. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 118: AIR 2004 SC 5

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vi

Madhu Kishwar & Others v. State of Bihar

56. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 6

(2014) 2 SCC 532:

57. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary AIR 2017 SC 2

60. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2005) 9 SCC 631 6

61. NamadaBachaoAndolan v. Union of India 664: 2000 Supp 5

63. Nareinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India 3810: (2002) 2 6

64. Narendra Union of Kumar v. India AIR 1960 SC 430 7

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS Page | vii

(1996) 2 SCC 498:

69. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC 4