Teamcm29 Petitioner

TEAM CODE: CM29
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL
W. P. No. _____ OF 2022
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS ________________PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF ROSEHILL___________________________________RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

CLEA MOOTING (SOUTH ASIA ROUNDS) COMPETITION -2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SL. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 12
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 15
9. PRAYER 50
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
ADR Association of Democratic Rights
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Bom Bombay
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
COVID Corona Virus Disease
FPRW Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights
ILO International Labour Organisation
NALSA National Legal Services Authority
Ors. Others
PDS Public Distribution System
PMMKBY Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES
S. No. CASE NAME CITATIONS
1. A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badavath &

Ors
2. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789
3. Aruna R. Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
5. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
6. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118
7. Consumer Education & Research v. Union of India, 1976
8. Delvin Vriend v. Her Majesty, The Queen 1998 SCC OnLine Can SC
29; [1998] 1 SCR 493
9. Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others 2021 SCC OnLine 1313
Gau
10. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat (2020) 10 SSC 459
11. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited (1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR
v. Union of India (2) 287)
12. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India 022 SCC OnLine SC 533
13. K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
14. Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963 AIR 1295)
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 597(1978))
16. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India
17. Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969) 1 SCC 853
18. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India
19. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
20. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
4
21. Om Kumar v. Union of India
22. People‘s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India
23. PP Enterprises v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1016
24. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, ((2017) 10 SCC 1)
25. R v. Oakes (1986) SCCOnline Can SC

6d
26. Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State [2021 SCC OnLine Megh
of Meghalaya 277]
27. Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan
28. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, AIR (1984) 4 SCC 90
29. Shri Alakh Alok Srivasta v. Union of India W.P. (C.) No. 468/2020.
30. Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 SCC OnLine US SC

125: 86 L Ed 1655 316 US
535 (1942)
31. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
32. T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, 1983 SCC OnLine AP 90:

AIR 1983 AP 356
33. Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2019 SCC Online Bom
3155]
34. Williams v. Fears 1900 SCC OnLine US SC
211:45
35. X v. Austria
36. X v. Netherlands
II. STATUTES
S. No. STATUTE
1. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
2. Bonus Act
3. Employees State Insurance Act,
4. Factories Act, 1948
5
5. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
6. Minimum Wages Act, 1948
7. Payment of Wages Act,
8. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
9. Telegraph Act
III. BOOKS, DIGESTS & ARTICLES
1. Constitutional Law of India by D. D. Basu
2. Indian Constitutional Law by M. P. Jain
3. Yashdeep Chahal, Sai Krishna Kumar, Fundamental Freedoms and

Proportionality, BAR AND BENCH,
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/fundamental-freedoms-and-
proportionality-of-restrictions-in-the-lockdown
4. Anant Singh, Epidemic Act and Disaster Management Act - A Pathway to

Arbitrariness and Vagueness 1 Indraprastha Law Review 1, 3 (2020).
IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS
S. No. REPORT
1. BN Srikrishna Committee Report, 2018
V. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
S. NO. TREATY OR CONVENTION
1. ICCPR
2. Tripartite Consultation International Labour Standards Convention
6
3. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights of Workers
7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HERBEY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFOR ETHE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL INVOKING THE WRIT
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IN APPREHENSION OF THE VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THEREFORE THE PETITIONERS MAINTAIN THAT THE JURSIDICTION OF ART. 32,
WHICH PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF ROSEHILL FROM ANY VIOLATION OF
THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Rosehill is a country in South Asia with Braavos as its capital. It is the most populous
democracy in the world. Rosehill‘s commitment to law is created in the Constitution
which constituted Rosehill into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, containing a federal
system with Parliamentary form of Government in the Union and the States, an
independent judiciary, guaranteed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State
Policy containing objectives which though not enforceable in law are fundamental to the
governance of the nation.
2. On 30. 01. 2020, the World Health Organisation declared that coronavirus is a global
emergency of international concern as the death toll in Chinovia jumped to 170, with
7,711 cases reported in the country. On March 11, The World Health Organization
declared Covid-19 a pandemic, which is defined as ―an epidemic that has spread over
several countries or continents, and most people do not have immunity against it‖.
3. To curtail the spread of the virus through social distancing, ‗Ministry of Home Affairs‘
(MHA) of Rosehill vide its executive order dated 25.03.2020 imposed countrywide
lockdown, till 14.04.2022 and trains, flights, public transport, universities, schools,
offices, factories, and manufacturing units were shut. All public movement was totally
prohibited through all means of roadways, airways, etc., and only essential services kept
out of its purview.
4. As the factories and workplaces closed down, millions of migrant workers had to deal
with the loss of income, food shortages, and an uncertain future. The government did not
provide any immediate relief to the workers. Due to the prevailing uncertainties migrant
workers had no other option than to return to their villages. People undertook hazardous
journeys to reach their destinations, sometimes walking up to 1000 km with no money to
spend and often without food for days together. Many were arrested by law enforcement
officials for violating the lockdown, some died due to exhaustion or accidents on the
roads. Random instances of looting and abuse were also reported.
5. The Government of Rosehill on 10.4. 2020 introduced a new scheme called the Pradhan
Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana (PMMKBY) to address the distress of the public. The scheme
included free food to the ―poorest of the poor'', income support to farmers and
unorganised sector workers, as well as provision of free food grains and other essential
items through the Public Distribution System (PDS). However, there were allegations on
the ineffective implementation of the scheme that only a few migrant workers benefited
9
from these schemes and many were left distressed with no livelihood, food or other basic
necessities.
6. The State Government of Braavos, through an ordinance dated 25.04.2020 temporarily
suspended significant labour laws (The Factories Act 1945, The Industrial Disputes Act,
1947; The Payment of Wages Act, 1936; The Minimum Wages Act; The Bonus Act,
1965 and The Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948) for three years in view to
incentivize economic and industrial activities in the State except for Section 5 of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936. This was done to add vigour to the economy, which had
crashed due to the pandemic. This invigorated the already abysmal situation of the labour
and migrant worker class.
7. During this massive surge in Covid cases, many dead bodies were left abandoned for a
very long period of time which later decomposed. There were reports about numerous
incidents during this pandemic where several dead bodies were found floating in the holy
rivers. Even the immediate family members of Covid-19 victims could not perform the
funeral rites of the deceased and bodies were not handed over to them. Later on, the basis
of WHO study reports the Government of Braavos started handing over corpses to the
families, however, many corpses remained unclaimed.
8. In order to curb the spread of the pandemic in the country, the Central Government
launched Covid-19 tracking application, CoviTrack and made it mandatory for all the
citizens to download it and upload all the information like name, contact number, health
data etc. The app. sought continuous access to location information for its social
movement graph. However, this caused distress amongst the public who were of the view
that the privacy policy of the app. is completely silent on what security practises are being
followed and concerns regarding the safety of the data stored. The Health and Family
Welfare Department of Braavos published the addresses including the names, contact
details, house numbers, street numbers, and localities of 16,910 people who have been
quarantined because they had come from abroad, on its official website. This list also
included the countries that they had recently visited. Both these issues have further
aggravated the privacy concerns of the public.
9. Another bizarre situation that was reported widely in Braavos was the alleged use of
mysterious drones by the Government. The drones were seen announcing orders to
pedestrians below to maintain social distancing and they were also being used to scan
fevers. Law enforcement officials were allegedly using drones to scan public places for
10
violators not complying with the social distancing protocols as mandated by the
government.
10. In June 2020, the Government started developing the vaccine, CoviSave, against the
COVID-19 disease through a public-private partnership. There were allegations that the
private laboratories straight away conducted trials on humans without any preclinical
trials on animals. There has been reported instances where the private laboratory was
conducting human trial of the CoviSave on orphans (as no parental consent was sought)
from slum areas in Braavos and using them as guinea pigs to test the safety of the
Vaccine and allegations that a handful of such orphans have even died during the trials.
However, the Government refuted all such claims and spread massive awareness about
the benefits of the vaccine. However, majority of the population was reluctant in
administering the vaccine due to reports that it may cause side effects like blood clotting
and other pulmonary issues in the body.
11. The Director General of WHO addressed the media where he stressed on the need to
safely achieve herd immunity, which can also be achieved through vaccination. In the
meantime, the Covid-19 cases increased rapidly. In this background, Government issued
regulations under the Epidemic Act, 1897 on 15. 7. 2020 whereby Vaccination Certificate
is made mandatory for inter-state travel and those employed in educational institutions,
government offices, manufacturing industries and factories. The public alleged that this
caused violation of array of their constitutional and human rights. Further, this step was
seen to be infringing their Fundamental Right to Life, Personal Choice and Bodily
Autonomy and Integrity.
12. Rosehill is a signatory to all international human right legal instruments. In this
background, Association of Democratic Rights (ADR) has filed a writ petition before the
Supreme Court of Rosehill challenging various actions of the Government during the
covid period. The Supreme Court of Rosehill has admitted the petition and framed the
relevant issues for consideration.
11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN ON 25. 03. 2020 CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
WHETHER SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
ROSEHILL?
II. WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS

DATED 25. 04. 2020 WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS,
VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY
THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS IS
VALID?
III. WHETHER THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVOS‘S SHARING OF THE

PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE
AND USE OF MYSTERIOUS DRONES VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY?
IV. WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE

GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS,
BOTH ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL
AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID
REGIME?
V. WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER

THE EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 ON 15. 07. 2020 MAKING VACCINATION
COMPULSORY VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS
CONSTITUTION?
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN ON 25.03.2020 IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
THE SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL.
A. The executive order declaring countrywide lockdown violates Article 19 of the

Constitution of Rosehill.
B. The sudden imposition of lockdown is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the
C. The lockdown violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of Rosehill.
ISSUE 2
THAT THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS DATED

25.04.2020 WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS, VIOLATED
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
ORGANIZATION CONVENTIONS.
A. The State Government of Braavos is not empowered to suspend Central labour

legislations.
B. The impugned suspension of labour laws is violative of Article 21.
C. The suspension of The Minimum Wages Act violates Article 23 of the Constitution of
Rosehill.
D. The suspension of labour laws by way of the Ordinance violates International Labour
Organization Conventions.
13
ISSUE 3
THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVOS’S SHARING OF THE PERSONAL

DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE AND USE OF
MYSTERIOUS DRONES IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
A. There is violation of the petitioner‘s right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of

India.
B. The use of mysterious drones is violative of constitutional provisions.
ISSUE 4
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE
GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH
ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID REGIME.
A. Right to decent burial is fundamental right.

B. Stranded migrant workers and provision of shelter, food and transportation.
C. Right to life and duty to protect life.
ISSUE 5
THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE EPIDEMIC

ACT, 1897 ON 15. 07. 2020 MAKING VACCINATION COMPULSORY IS
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION.
A. There is a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the

B. The restrictions imposed by the states on unvaccinated individuals are arbitrary and
fails the test of proportionality.
14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN ON 25. 03. 2020 CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID.
THE SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL
1. The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Rosehill that the
executive order of the Central Government declaring lockdown is unconstitutional on the
following grounds:
A. The executive order declaring countrywide lockdown violates Article 19 of the

constitution of Rosehill.
2. The executive order imposing lockdown not only violates fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 19 (1) (d) and 19(1) (g) but also does not come within the reasonable
restrictions permissible by way of Article 19(5) and 19(6).
4. The imposition of lockdown primarily violates the fundamental rights laid down in:
(i) Article 19(1)(d) which protects the right of free movement within the territory of
India.
(ii) Article 19(1)(g) that secures the right to carry out any occupation, trade or business
and to practice any profession in this country.
5. A countrywide lockdown is an all-pervasive order involving restrictions upon a bundle of

civil liberties. The freedom of movement, freedom to carry on profession, trade or occupation
of choice, and freedom to reside in any part of the country were completely restricted. The
restrictions on these rights led to a direct violation of the otherwise faceless right to life and
personal liberty, as argued later.
6. By the executive order, trains, flights, public transport, universities, schools, offices,
factories and manufacturing units were shut. All public movement was totally prohibited
15
through all means of roads, airways, etc.1 The restrictions imposed by the countrywide
lockdown on the fundamental rights of the citizens are unreasonable. It is a well settled
exposition in the realm of constitutional law that there is a crucial distinction between the
existence of power to impose restrictions and proportionality of such restrictions.2 Citizens of
Rosehill have a constitutional right to resist disproportionate curbs on their civil liberties.
7. Article 19 (5)3 and (6)4 requires any kind of restrictions on fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1) (d) and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of Rosehill to be 'reasonable'.
8. In Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat5, it was held that ―The principle of
proportionality envisages an analysis of the following conditions in order to determine the
validity of the State action that could impinge on fundamental rights:
1. A law interfering with fundamental rights must be in pursuance of a legitimate state
aim.
2. The justification for rights-infringing measures that interfere with or limit the exercise
of fundamental rights and liberties must be based on the existence of a rational
connection between those measures, the situation in fact and the object sought to be
achieved.
3. The measures must be necessary to achieve the object and must not infringe rights to
an extent greater than is necessary to fulfil the aim.
1
Para 3, MOOT PROPOSITION.
2
Yashdeep Chahal, Sai Krishna Kumar, Fundamental Freedoms and Proportionality, BAR AND BENCH Apr.
10,2020, 3.55 P.M.), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/fundamental-freedoms-and-proportionality-of-
restrictions-in-the-lockdown
3
Article 19 (5) provides that -
“Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the
protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.”
4
Article 19 (6) provides that -
"Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes,
or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said
sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any
occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business,
industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise"
5
(2020) 10 SSC 459
16
4. Restrictions must not only serve legitimate purposes; they must also be necessary to
protect them.
5. The State should provide sufficient safeguards against the abuse of such interference.‖
The impugned executive order does not pass the aforesaid test of reasonableness.
9. In Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, it was held that the

word ―reasonable‖ implies intelligent care and deliberation.
Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to
contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the
freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of
Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.
10. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohammed Faruk v.

State of Madhya Pradesh7 while determining rights under Article 19(1) (g)
of the Constitution, discussed the doctrine of proportionality and held that when imposing
restrictions, the possibility of achieving the object by imposing a less drastic restraint or
that a less drastic restriction may ensure the object intended to be achieved must be
looked into.
B. The sudden imposition of lockdown is unreasonable and violative of article 14 of

the constitution of Rosehill.
11.It is humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that the executive order of the
central government declaring lockdown is not constitutionally valid as it is unreasonable and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Rosehill. A distinction, however, has to be
carefully drawn and understood between extraordinary measures and extra-constitutional
measures. The former can be sustained only as long as it does not militate against the latter.8
12.The nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government of Rosehill on 25th March, 2020
had an impact not only on the economic growth of the country but also on the normal lives
6
AIR 1951 SC 118
7
(1969) 1 SCC 853
8
17
led by the people. The stringent restrictions imposed by the lockdown had varied effects on
the various sections of society depending on the social and economic differences. The sudden
lockdown was plainly unintelligent and unreasonable and the effect of the lockdown on the
people put forward a clear picture of the same.9 Taking the case of migrant workers, millions
of them had to deal with the loss of income, food shortages, and an uncertain future as the
factories and workplaces closed down. Devoid of any other option, they took to massive
migration.10 With universities and colleges shut down, students were stranded with no
resources and no way to return to their homes.
13. Indian Staffing Federation in its report on ―Impact of Key Reforms on Job Formalization
and Indian Flexi Staffing Industry, 2019‖ stated that India has almost 68% casual
workforce i.e., people who do not work on a contractual basis but a daily basis at places
like construction places, malls, sweeping staff, rickshaw pullers, fruit or vegetable
vendors, cobblers, etc. Such people are living on a hand to mouth basis.11 It is petrifying
to imagine a situation when a person is made to choose to die by an epidemic or by
starvation as he won't be able to earn his living for many days. The Apex Court in the
recent PIL filed by Alakh Alok Srivasta12 accepted the contention of the petitioners that
in a country like ours, panic will destroy more lives than the spread of COVID-19 virus
itself and thereby directed the Central government to prevent any such situation13. The
restrictions put in were inequitable regarding certain classes of society.
14. In a country with huge socio-economic diversity, blanket restrictions of a pervasive

nature could produce highly inequitable effects upon enforcement. The principle of
proportionality of restrictive measures is based upon an inherent understanding that one
uniform formula does not apply to all situations and all citizens at all times. It is so
because natural circumstances in a society have placed citizens at different rungs of the
ladder with varied quality of liberties enjoyed by them. If the quality of liberties varies
9
Anjali K.P., Lockdown in India- Whether a Violation of Constitutional Provisions? (Jun. 25, 2021)
https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=202
10
Para 4, MOOT PROPOSITION.
11
Anant Singh, Epidemic Act and Disaster Management Act - A Pathway to Arbitrariness and Vagueness 1
Indraprastha Law Review 1, 3 (2020).
12
Shri Alakh Alok Srivasta v. Union of India, W.P. (C.) No. 468/2020.
13
18
inter-se citizens, the impact of restrictions will also vary. Unintelligent restrictions
imposed at once on distinctly placed citizens without taking into account their unequal
placing in the society is a typical case of unreasonableness of restrictions.14
15. In a society deeply divided in economic and social terms, the quality of rights, desirability
of restrictions and effect of restrictions upon the citizens can never be the same, and this
fundamental feature of our society puts extra onus upon the state to ensure the standards
of proportionality. Imposition of blanket restrictions could lead to colourisation of one
group as violators of the law solely because of their social placing. In times of crisis,
where concerns of public health loom large, it is all the more important to ensure that the
law does not take the backseat because state-citizen intercourse is more intimate in such
times, and needless to add, whenever state and citizens interact, the Constitution must
always register its intervention.15
16. The Supreme Court, in the case of Narendra Kumar v. Union of India had determined
the reasonableness of a restriction. The Court had said that the restriction should not be
more than the necessary reasonable restriction and it should be in the interest of the
people. The restriction must also consider the background of the situation that has
occurred. The reasonable restriction should remain ‗reasonable‘ and not cross the line.
17. Article 14 of the Constitution envisages that the government must exercise its
discretionary powers keeping in mind the principles of reasonableness, fairness and
proportionality. The government rather than acting as an autocrat, need to understand the
implications of their decision on all sectors of society and not just one particular group of
people which is pertinent in the present case where the lockdown though still comforting
for the middle and higher class of the society was severe for the lowers class of society.16
14
15
16
19
C. The lockdown violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the constitution of Rosehill
18. Article 21 provides that -

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law."
19. The decision to impose a countrywide lockdown could have been taken by the
government with prior notice. Although a lockdown seemed important in the present
scenario, its nature, extent and poor implementation deprived people of their right to life
and livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Rosehill.
20. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh17 the Apex court stated that right
to life does not merely mean an animal existence but something more valuable and
meaningful. Similar observations can be seen in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration18 where the court held that the right to life included many aspects like
the right to live a healthy life, right to live, sleep in peace, etc.
21. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation19 the court pointed out the
importance of the right to livelihood and stated that, ―An equally important facet of the
right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of
livelihood. The sweep of the right to life, conferred by Article 21 is wide and far
reaching. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life,
the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude
life its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.
There is thus a close nexus between life and means of livelihood and as such that, which
alone makes it possible to live, leaving aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to
be an integral component of the right to life.‖
17
1963 AIR 1295
18
1980 AIR 1579
19
1986 AIR 180
20
22. The State may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of
livelihood or work to the citizens. But any person who is deprived of his right to
livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge
the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21. It has been concluded
by way of many precedents that though a person can be deprived of his rights under
Article 21 the same can only be done by a procedure established by law and the same has
to be just, fair and reasonable in the eyes of law.
23. The Government did not provide any immediate relief to the workers. Even though the
Government of Rosehill came up with a new scheme called 'Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan
Yojana' more than a week after imposition of lockdown, its ineffective implementation
left a majority of citizens distressed with no livelihood, food or other basic necessities. 20
The citizens were completely stripped of their right to live a healthy life and right to
livelihood coming within the ambit of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
II. THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS DATED 25. 04. 2020
WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS VIOLATED
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS.
24. The suspension of significant labour laws, namely, The Factories Act 1945, The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Payments of Wages Act, 1936, The Minimum Wages
Act, The Bonus Act, 1965 and The Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948 for three years
by the Government of State of Braavos is violative of the fundamental rights of workers
across the country as well as a violation of International Labour Organization convention.
A. The State Government of Braavos is not empowered to suspend central labour

laws.
25. The Ordinance making power is the legislative power of the Executive. Every power of
the Executive is the end product of the delegated legislation. Interpreting the scope of
20
Para 4 & 5, MOOT PROPOSITION.
21
Article 73 and Article 162 of the Constitution, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in A.P. Public
Service Commission v. Baloji Badavath & Ors.21, held that with respect to the subject
matter under List III, the Executive function shall ordinarily remain with the States,
subject to the provisions of the Constitution or the parent law of Parliament. It is essential
that the state executive must never transgress or go beyond the parent legislation.
26. Therefore, in the instant case, the suspended labour laws are Central Acts which do not
derogate any explicit power to the State Governments to suspend them except for the
Factories Act and The Payment of Bonus Act. However, the requirements of such
suspension under the Act of ‗maximum three months‘ of suspension and for a ‗public
emergency‘ are blatantly flouted.
B. The suspension of labour laws is violative of Article 21.
27. The word ‗life‘ as employed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes in its sweep
not only the concept of mere physical existence but also all finer values of life including
the right to work and right to livelihood. This Ordinance is in direct violation of Article
21.
B.1. Suspension of the Industrial Disputes Act
28. The suspension of laws like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would lead to complete
lawlessness as employers will be able to hire and fire workers at their will. Workers will
be left without any job security or source of livelihood. The suspension of the Industrial
Disputes Act means that there would be no regulation with regards to the employment
and termination of workers. According to this law, permanent workers can only be
terminated for a valid reason with permission of the appropriate government office. This
Act gives workers protection from termination on unfair grounds, such as their
membership in a trade union or participation in a strike for better wages or working
conditions.
B.2. Suspension of the Factories Act
21
22
29. The Factories Act, 1948 ensures the safety of workmen and implementation of humane
working conditions in the workplace like availability of drinking water, electricity,
regulates health, safety etc. To do away with this Act, even if it for a temporary period
will reverse the wheel on worker‘s age-old struggle for humane working conditions in
factories and have an adverse impact on their safety. In another example, the suspension
of the Factories Act, 1948, would further risk employee safety across the board. The Act
provides a statutory basis for basic rights of workers, such as reasonable working hours,
leave time, and overtime. In a case, Consumer Education & Research v. Union of
India22, the Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical aid—to protect the
health and vigour of a worker while in service or post-retirement—is a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. This law‘s suspension will likely put in jeopardy
essential policies for fire safety; upkeep of necessary safety equipment; and the
maintenance and examination of other critical equipment like lifting machines, pressure
vessels, and hygrometers.
B.3. Payment of Wages Act, Employees State Insurance Act and Bonus Act
30. The non-payment of adequate wages to the workers infringes their right to work, right to
earn a livelihood, and live a life of dignity under Article 21. Falling health standards is a
consequence of non-payment of wages or long hours of working which again is an
infringement of the right to live a healthy life. The suspension of the Industrial Disputes
Act, also takes away the right of fair trial. Due to non-follow up of due process and
promulgation of ordinance by incompetent legislature, the ordinances by different states
in a blanket manner, halting the labour laws, fall flat on the law and all established tools
of constitutionality and justified behaviour.
C. The suspension of the Minimum Wages Act violates Article 23 of the

31. Denial of fundamental rights of workers in the guise of promoting economic interests is
untenable since both social and economic interests go hand in hand. Suspension of the
22
1995 AIR 922
23
Minimum Wages Act amounts to bonded labour which is prohibited under Article 23 of
the Constitution of Rosehill.
32. In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan23, it was held that the payment of wages lower than
the minimum wage to a person is violative under Article 23. With the suspension of
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, there would be no regulation of the wages received by
workers. Indian jurisprudence recognises that payment below the minimum wage would
give rise to the situation of bondage, as affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court in
Bandhua Mukti Morcha case24. Additionally, non-payment of minimum wage to
workers is a clear violation of article 23 of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme
Court also recognised, in the case Sanjit Roy v. the State of Rajasthan25, that if
minimum wage is not paid for labour, the work then falls under the category of ―forced
labour‖ in violation of the country‘s Constitution.
33. Suspension of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which ensures that a minimum wage is
paid to workers, will have a detrimental effect on the economic conditions of the workers
who are already bordering on being impoverished due to Covid-19. Further, out of the
four laws exempted from suspension, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
remains one of them. However, the consequence of suspension of the Minimum Wages
Act will force labourers into bonded labour as employers will be able to pay them below
minimum wage amount. The Supreme Court of India in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India26 held that any payment below the nominal wages amounts to a situation
of bondage. Without the Act, labourers will not be able to approach the courts against
their employer.
D. The suspension of labour laws by way of the Ordinance violated International

Labour Organization Conventions.
34. The International Labour Organisation Convention sets out the goal of advancing
economic and working conditions that give all workers, employers, and governments a
23
AIR 1983 SC 328
24
(1997) 10 SCC 549
25
AIR 1983 SC 328
26
(1997) 10 SCC 549
24
stake in lasting peace, prosperity, and progress. The Ordinance stands in violation of
International Labour Organisation Convention No. 14427 to which India is bound as it
is a signatory to it. This convention aims towards social justice by proposing various
methods for bringing together governments, employers and workers. Convention 144 is
the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976.
35. Article 2 of the Convention 144 provides that
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this

Convention undertakes to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations,
with respect to the matters concerning the activities of the International Labour
Organisation set out in Article 5, paragraph 1, below, between representatives of the
government, of employers and of workers.
36. Article 5 of the Convention 144 provides that

1. The purpose of the procedures provided for in this Convention shall be consultations
on--
(a) government replies to questionnaires concerning items on the agenda of the
International Labour Conference and government comments on proposed texts to be
discussed by the Conference;
(b) the proposals to be made to the competent authority or authorities in connection
with the submission of Conventions and Recommendations pursuant to article 19 of
the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation;
(c) the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and of
Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given, to consider what measures
might be taken to promote their implementation and ratification as appropriate;
(d) questions arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office
under Article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation;
(e) Proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions.
37. Such amendments or relaxing of labour laws should emanate from tripartite consultation
involving the government, the workers‘ and the employers‘ organisations and be
compliant with the international labour standards, including the Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work (FPRW)28.
38. A response to the economic downfall does not allow a compromise on human rights and
the fundamental principles underlying the right to work. What remains essential to do is
27
C144 - Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144),
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C144
28
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--
en/index.htm
25
that, India as a signatory to the ILO convention must aim towards the adoption of a
strategic multi-phased approach wherein stability of the livelihood as well as income is
thoroughly maintained. It is of utmost alarm that the state governments took the decision
of suspending the operation of labour laws without conducting an employment impact
assessment. There was an apparent absence of ‗tripartite‘ consultation and social
dialogues which should have taken place between the Government, the trade unions and
the employers for the purpose of collective bargaining between the two bodies. Such a
responsibility emanates from the Tripartite Consultation International Labour
Standards Convention, 1976 to which India is a party. 29
39. A study of four states, namely, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya
Pradesh, by the V.V Giri, National Labour Institute found that ―amendments in labour
laws neither succeeded in attracting big investments, boost to industrialisation or job
creation.‖ The obligation to provide decent, safe and secure conditions of work has also
been acknowledged as a part of the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article
21. The right to unionisation and social security also constitutes international human
rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Abrogation of almost the entirety of the existing labour laws would arguably mean an
abdication of this constitutional and human rights mandate.
40. Dismantling of all the labour laws across the board would leave millions of workers
acutely vulnerable, given the systematic asymmetry of bargaining power between
workers and employers. The step taken by the state governments is immensely short-
sighted and a ―draconian measure‖ which will in turn undermine the historic struggles of
the workers of our country.
III. THE APPLICATION COVITRACK, BRAAVOS’S SHARING OF THE

PERSONAL DATA OF THE QUARANTINED PERSONS ON THE WEBSITE
AND USE OF MYSTERIOUS DRONES IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.
29
Pallavi Mishra, Revival of Economy Through Nullification of Labour Laws - The ILO Perspective, Indian
Journal of Law and Public Policy (IJLPP), https://ijlpp.com/revival-of-economy-through-nullification-of-labour-
laws-the-ilo-perspective/
26
41. The petitioner humbly submits that the CoviTrack Application, Braavos‘ sharing of
personal data of the quarantined persons on the official website of the Health and Family
Welfare Department of Braavos and the use of mysterious drones by the Government is
violative of right to privacy coming within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.
A. There is violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy guaranteed by the

42. It is humbly submitted before the Court of Rosehill that there is violation of Right to
Privacy. The term Privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise
control over his or her personality. It finds an origin in the notion that there are certain
rights which are natural to or inherent in a human being. Natural rights are inalienable
because they are inseparable from the human personality. The human element in life is
impossible to conceive without the existence of natural rights. Right to Privacy is an
integral part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. ―No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks.‖30
43. The petitioner submits that the respondent's action has violated the following rights
guaranteed under the Constitution: privacy as guaranteed under Article 21 because There
is an infringement of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 and the state
surveillance was arbitrary and fails the test of proportionality. There is an infringement of
right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21.
44. The facts precisely state that the said applications CoviTrack, Bravos collect the personal
details of citizens. Here it is contended that the data so collected has been
misappropriated. There exists a controversy as regards to the leakage of data so collected
which is indeed a blatant violation of the Constitutional rights. In Puttaswamy v. Union
of India, ((2017) 10 SCC 1), the controversy was as regards to the data which was
collected for Aadhar. The Court in its judgement stressed upon the points hereinafter
30
Article 12, UNHR
27
discussed. Firstly, it was held that privacy concerns in this day and age of technology can
arise from both the state as well as non-state entities and as such, a claim of violation of
privacy lies against both of them. Here the action arises from a State, that is, Rosehill.
Secondly, it was also laid down that the ambit of Article 21 is ever-expanding due to the
agreement over the years among the Supreme Court judges as a result of which a plethora
of rights has been included within Article 21. The aforementioned case law has
recognized Right to Privacy as a genus of Right to Life under Article 21.
45. It is to be noted that the precedent lays down certain principles to be followed while
assessing the right to Privacy. First, there must be a governing law. Second, this
governing law must have a legitimate aim. And third, the law adopted must be
proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.
A.1 Analysis of adherence to the Triple Test of Privacy
46. Here the personal details which has been collected by the government is not in
proportion to the object it seeks to achieve. The data so collected expressly supersedes the
Principles of Proportionality and legitimacy. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the
case of Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2019 SCC Online Bom
3155], while determining the validity of tapping orders issued against one of the accused
persons, observed that in the absence of any ingredients of risk to the people or interest of
public safety, orders for tapping and intercepting of phone calls, would not be justified.
The Hon'ble High Court also noted that the orders for interception, passed in that case,
would in no manner pass the test of ―Principles of proportionality and legitimacy‖ and
would therefore not be sustainable in law. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the
concerned authorities to delete the stored intercepted message, since the same were
collected in contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act.
47. The Principle of Proportionality has been discussed in detail in Om Kumar v. Union of
India. By ―proportionality‖, we mean the question whether, while regulating exercise of
fundamental rights, the appropriate or least - restrictive choice of measures has been made
by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the
purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be. Under the principle, the court will
see that the legislature and the administrative authority ―maintain a proper balance
28
between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on
the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were
intended to serve‖. Here, it is evident as regards to the fact that the state has failed to
maintain a proper balance between the effect of legislation and interests of citizens and
there is a clear infringement of privacy of its citizens by the state. Moreover, it is to be
noted that there is no proportion as to the amount of personal data which has been
extracted from its citizens which is indeed a clear violation of Privacy.
48. In K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), this Court considered the need to protect the privacy
interests of individuals while furthering legitimate State interests. This Court therefore
directed the State to embark upon the exercise of balancing of competing interests. This
Court observed as follows: ―While it intervenes to protect legitimate State interests, the
State must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfilment of a
threefold requirement. These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just
informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content-based mandate of
Article 21.‖
49. Certain observations made by this Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Private Limited v. Union of India, (1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287). It is
undeniable that surveillance and the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied
on can affect the way an individual decides to exercise his or her rights. Such a scenario
might result in self-censorship. This is of particular concern when it relates to the freedom
of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the
freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public watchdog role of the press, which may
undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information. The
Petitioners submits that in the same case it was reaffirmed that the right to privacy as
emanating from the liberties guaranteed by Article 19 and personal liberty under Article
21.
50. It is to be noted that the above analysis reveals that the use of the said applications has
resulted in blatant violation of Right to Privacy as incorporated under Right to life as
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Since there exists aa huge speculation as to
leakage of personal data, the petitioner humbly submits that there is a blatant violation of
29
Article 21 i.e., Right to Life under which Right to Privacy is infringed. As a matter of
which the apps shall be banned.
B. The use of mysterious drones violate right to privacy as envisaged in the

Constitution.
B.1. Action of state is capricious and has resulted in an intrusion into one’s private life.
51. The petitioners humbly submit that the usage of drones for surveillance of quarantined
persons has resulted in a grave infringement to the Privacy of the citizens. The said act of
state of snooping into the movement of an individual deepens the deviance from the
enforceability of fundamental rights. The Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India
(known as the Pegasus case), set up a committee of experts to recommend amendments to
the existing law around surveillance to secure the right to privacy. Thus, the need to
regulate surveillance activities, especially in light of privacy concerns, is even backed by
a judicial push in India. one of the parties whose phone was directly affected by Pegasus,
submitted that Pegasus enabled an entity to not only carry out surveillance or spy on an
individual, but also allowed them to implant false documents and evidence in a device.
Learned senior counsel submitted that such an attack on the privacy of the Petitioner was
not only a violation of his fundamental right, but also amounted to chilling his freedom of
speech as a journalist.
52. In PP Enterprises v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1016), it was held that the
expression "reasonable" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in the
enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is
required in the interests of public. Further, in order to be reasonable, the restriction must
have a reasonable relation to the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must
not go in excess of that object. It is to be noted that the drones always fly high over the
sky and thus causes grave injustice to the individuals as their Privacy and freedom of
movement has been at stake.
Laws Governing Usage of Drones in India
30
53. It is humbly submitted before the court that the drones which has been used by the state
causes a serious invasion to the privacy of individuals. It monitors the movement of
individuals and so on. The contention could be supported by the following arguments;
54. It is to be noted that a similar situation arose in Paris. The use of drones by the Paris
police to enforce COVID-19 lockdown restrictions was prohibited and deemed as
violating personal data protection laws by France‘s Supreme Court for Administrative
Justice, pending legal safeguards approved by France‘s data privacy watchdog. The
verdict reasoned that drones that could fly at a range of 80-100 meters could technically
identify individuals, risking potential use in contravention to data protection laws.
55. While government agencies foreseeably rely on exemptions from drone laws and data
protection laws, drone operations and the resultant data processing should be analysed in
accordance with the three-fold requirement for restraints on privacy laid out in Justice
KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. Drone operations by government agencies
must meet the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to their objectives
regardless of the exemptions obtained from any legislation. Here the use of drones is not
in proportion to the object it seeks to achieve and it also violates the legality clause as the
laws are unreasonable and unjust as it goes in contravention with Article 21 of the
Constitution
B.2 Failure of test of reasonableness
56. It is humbly contended by the petitioners that the techniques adopted by the state for
surveillance, that is, drone surveillance is indeed an encroachment into the private life of
its citizens. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (AIR 1978 SC
597(1978)), the SC 7-Judge Bench said ‗personal liberty‘ in Article 21 covers a variety of
rights & some have status of fundamental rights and given additional protection u/a 19.
Triple Test for any law interfering with personal liberty: (1) It must prescribe a procedure;
(2) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights
conferred u/a 19 which may be applicable in a given situation and (3) It must withstand
test of Article 14. The law and procedure authorizing interference with personal liberty
31
and right of privacy must also be right just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or
oppressive. Here, the use of mysterious drones to carry out surveillance is unjust and
unreasonable.
57. There is a bill known as Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 which focuses on protection
of data of individuals and preventing misappropriation of data which is collected legally.
The bill provides for the following: (1) To provide for protection of privacy of individuals
relating to their Personal Data and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India for the
said purposes and the matters concerning the personal data of an individual. (2) Framed
on the recommendations of B.N Srikrishna Committee Report (2018).
58. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that ―No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law‖. The right to life
enshrined in Article 21 has been liberally interpreted so as to mean something more than
mere survival and mere existence or animal existence. It therefore includes all those
aspects of life which makes a man‘s life more meaningful, complete and worth living and
the right to privacy is one such right. The first time this topic was ever raised was in the
case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963 AIR 1295) where the Supreme Court held
that Regulation 236 of UP Police regulation was unconstitutional as it clashed with
Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held by the Court that the right to privacy is a part of
the right to protection of life and personal liberty. Here, the Court had equated privacy to
personal liberty. Thus, the use of mysterious drones is an implied infringement of liberty
as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
59. In People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, a Public Interest Litigation was
filed protesting rampant occasions of phone tapping of politician‘s phones by CBI. The
court ruled that ‗telephone conversation is an important facet of a man‘s private life‘. The
right to hold a telephonic conversation in the privacy of one‘s home or office without
external interference can indeed be claimed as ―right to privacy‖. So, tapping the
telephone is a serious invasion of privacy. This means that telephone tapping would in
fact attract Article 21 unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The
procedure has to be ―just, fair and reasonable‖.
B.3 Privacy from international purview

32
60. Several international treaties, agreements and conventions have recognised privacy as a
basic human right. Rosehill has also signed many of such treaties and has undertaken the
duty to ensure privacy to all its citizens. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental
constitutional value is part of Rosehill's commitment to a global human rights regime.
Article 51 of the Constitution, which forms part of the directive principles, requires the
State to endeavour to "foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the
dealings of organised peoples with one another. Where there is a contradiction between
international law and a domestic statute, the Court would give effect to the latter.
61. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which has been enacted by Parliament
refers to ICCPR as a human rights instrument. Section 2(1)(d)54 defines "human rights":
2. (1)(d) "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of
the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants
and enforceable by courts in India.
62. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), recognises the right
to privacy: ―Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Section 2(1)(d) defines human rights: ―human rights‖ means the rights relating to life,
liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied
in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.‖
63. ―We have on a number of occasions used international conventions to read in new rights
into fundamental rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which India is a
signatory had expressly recognised privacy as a fundamental and inalienable right and
this constitutional bench just had to read it in," Justice Nariman opined on the
conventions.
64. The legislations which govern the international conventions of the nation are hereinafter
included:
33
(a) Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (1948) incorporates privacy and it states as ―No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.‖
(b) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 17 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a party), refers to privacy and states
as ―No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.‖
(c) The European Convention on Human Rights: The European Convention on Human
Rights, which came into effect on 3-9-1953, also states in Article 8 as ―Everyone has the right
to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no
interference by a public authority except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-
being of the country, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.‖
65. Thus, it is most respectfully submitted that there is an obligation from the part of the state
to adhere to the international conventions it has signed. In the instant case where there is a
gross miscarriage of rights this court should rise up to the position to make the state do
so.
66. In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (“NALSA”), a Bench of two
judges, while dealing with the rights of transgenders, adverted to international
conventions acceded to by India including the UDHR and ICCPR. Provisions in these
conventions which confer a protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with a
person‘s privacy, family and home would, it was held, be read in a manner which
harmonizes the fundamental rights contained in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 with India‘s
international obligations. Thus, it is to be noted that the snooping of the state into the
personal affairs of its citizens defy the principles which needs to adhered upon as per the
international treaties and conventions.
34
67. Thus, it is most respectfully submitted that there is an obligation from the part of the state
to adhere to the international conventions it has signed. In the instant case where there is a
gross miscarriage of rights this court should rise up to the position to make the state do so.
IV. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE

GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS,
BOTH ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL
AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID
REGIME.
68. The United Nations (UN) defines human rights as:
―…fundamental to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity,

language, religion, or any other status. These rights include the right to life and liberty,
freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work
and education, and many more such as a safe & clean environment have become
important to uphold. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination or threat
of any kind”31
69. Human rights are such delicate entities that at times public health and public policy
actions might compromise larger interests of the most afflicted or vulnerable populations.
Evidence-based policies may not always be representative of all members of the
community. Therefore, ethical and rights-based approaches to ensure no added harm or
disenfranchisement of individuals/groups is a sentiment that needs to be acted upon32.
70. The principle of vulnerability is pertinent in the context of global disasters. It emphasizes
ethical discourse on ameliorating the conditions that produce vulnerability, rather than on
31
United Nations Human rights (2016). Available online at: https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-
depth/human-rights/
32
Covid 19 and Human Rights, United Nations,
https://www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/sites/www.un.org.victimsofterrorism/files/un_-
_human_rights_and_covid_april_2020.pdf
35
emergency actions focused on saving lives33Vulnerability is a global phenomenon but in

the context of the pandemic it is exacerbated in many societies where inequality and
access to basic freedoms is restricted. In lower- and middle-income countries such
freedoms can easily be impacted due to existing system challenges and adverse social
determinants of health.34
71. In responding to public health emergencies, governmental authorities have to navigate the
delicate balance between protecting the public's health and safeguarding their inherent
human rights including education, freedom of movement, and access to health care.
Measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases are not zero-sum tradeoffs and can
decrease fatalities but also increase suffering if human rights are not respected. As such,
while being protected from clear public health threats, many people, especially vulnerable
populations, may be deprived of their inherent human rights 35
A. Right to decent burial is fundamental right
―In a certain context, it can be said, life sans dignity is an unacceptable defeat and
life that meets death with dignity is a value to be aspired for and a moment for
celebration‖.36
72. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The ‗procedure‘
mentioned in Article 21 has been read into the ‗due‘ procedure by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India37 which means that procedure must be fair, just and
33
Have H. Disasters, vulnerability and human rights. In: O'Mathúna D, Dranseika V, Gordijn B,
editors. Disasters: Core Concepts and Ethical Theories. Advancing Global Bioethics. Vol 11:1–10. Cham:
Springer; (2018).
34
Rahman, Muhammad et al. ―Mental Distress and Human Rights Violations During COVID-19: A Rapid
Review of the Evidence Informing Rights, Mental Health Needs, and Public Policy Around Vulnerable
Populations.‖ Frontiers in psychiatry vol. 11 603875. 8 Jan. 2021, doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.603875
35
United Nations . We are all in this Together: Human Rights and COVID-19 Response and Recovery (2020).
Available online at: www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/we-are-all-together-human-rights-
and-covid-19-response-and
36
Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665.
37
AIR 1978 SC 597
36
reasonable. Over the period of time, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to
include various rights within its fold.
73. The Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh38 held -
―Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation
extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally
prohibits the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out
of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul
communicates with the outer world.‖
74. It has framed the ―right to life‖ as more than mere existence and as a right that includes
living with dignity. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India39 the Supreme Court held that the
word ‗life‘ in Article 21 means right to live with human dignity and the same does not
merely connote continued drudgery.
75. The Supreme Court in Parmanand Katara (Pt.) v. Union of India40 noted , the Article
takes within its fold ―some of the finer graces of human civilization, which makes life
worth living‖, and that the expanded concept of life would mean the ―tradition, culture
and heritage‖ of the person concerned. Right to dignity is not only available to a living
man but also to his body after his death. This was a petition that challenged the method of
execution of the death sentence by hanging under the Punjab Jail Manual as inhuman and
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner pointed out the Jail Manual
which required the body of a condemned convict to remain suspended for a period of half
an hour after hanging as violative of right to dignity. Although the Supreme Court
rejected the challenge to the method of execution by hanging, it accepted the contention
of the petitioner suspending the body for a period of half an hour after death as a violation
of its right to dignity. The Supreme Court held:
―We agree with the petitioner that right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21
of the Constitution of India is not only available to a living man but also to his body
after his death‖. We make it clear and hold that the jail authorities in the country shall
38
AIR 1963 SC 1295
39
AIR 1994 SC 1844
40
(1995) 3 SCC 248
37
not keep the body of any condemned prisoner suspended after the medical officer has
declared the person to be dead. The limitation of half an hour mentioned in para 873
is directory and is only a guideline.‖
76. Further, in Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India41, the court accepted the various
steps taken by the Police and the local body for providing a decent burial to a homeless
dead person, according to the religious faith to which he belonged.
77. In S. Sethu Raja v. The Chief Secretary42, the Madras High Court directed authorities
to bring back the petitioner‘s son‘s dead body from Malaysia.― By our tradition and
culture, the same human dignity (if not more), with which a living human being is
expected to be treated, should also be extended to a person who is dead‖. It went on to
state: ―There can be no dispute about the fact that the yearning of a father to perform the
obsequies for his son who died in a alien land, is as a result of the traditional belief that
the soul of a person would rest in peace only after the mortal remains are buried or burnt.
78. ―Traditions and cultural aspects are inherent to the last rites of a person‘s dead body.
Right to a decent funeral can also be traced in Article 25 of the Constitution which
provides for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion subject to public order, morality and health and to the other fundamental rights
under Part III of the Constitution.
B. Stranded migrant workers and provision of shelter, food and transportation
―Labour is priceless, not gold.‖ - Mahatma Gandhi
79. The migrant workers leave their hometowns in search of livelihood to big urban cities and
turn the wheels of our economy and serve us in our daily lives. However, during the
lockdown, this socio-economically weak section of our society had to suffer a lot of
hardships. It is the responsibility of the state in the guardian role for citizens and its duty
to provide for the needs of all sections of the society especially the ones who are
repressed.
41
(AIR 2002 SC 554)
42
W.P.(MD) No.3888 of 2007
38
80. During lockdown a large population of workers and labourers seem to moving towards
their home by walking on foot. Due to Unemployment during this period they have to
face misery to the extent that they don‘t have money to eat even enough food.
81. Restraining the migrant workers from necessities and to return their hometowns is
violation of their fundamental right of right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution. Denial of basic necessities (food, water) is also the violation of their Human
Right. Article 19(1) (d) provides the fundamental right to move freely throughout the
territory of the India. But the restraint of migrant workers to their hometowns and villages
is violative of this right. Every citizen has fundamental right of life and liberty, provided
by Article 21 of Indian Constitution, on contrary, the restraining of migrant workers from
moving home leads to violation of said right and is illegal.
82. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality before the law. A failure of the State
Government to provide proper shelter, food and transportation to intestate migrant
workers is unjust and violation of Article 14. Persons include both intra-state and inter-
state migrant workers, the statutory and Constitutional obligations have been violated by
not allowing labour to travel back.
83. The essence of Article 14 is to get rid of inhuman practices prevalent in the country and
the unequal treatment of the two types of workers by State Government of Braavos is
threatening the foundation of democracy. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India43 it was held that an arbitrary action of the government is in violation of the Right
to Equality protected by Article 14. The case further focused on the link between Article
19 and 21 of the Constitution which can be applicable in this case. Although, the
imposition of lockdown was a decision in consonance with Article 19(2), the inability to
provide transportation the migrant workers within a reasonable time is a violation of
Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 as they are being deprived of their human dignity,
considering the pathetic state faced by such workers.
43
AIR 1978 SC 597.
39
84. Article 19 dwells upon the fundamental right to freedom with certain exceptions.
However, it is pertinent to note that the decision of the Government to disallow migrant
workers to travel back home, for the purpose of construction and infrastructure
development is in violation of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. It is the duty
of the Government to provide facilities for travel to the migrant workers as per the order
of the Central Government and other constitutional obligations. The migrant workers
have the autonomy to decide whether to stay or leave the State and the State Government
cannot block transportation facilities because of its decision to progress with construction.
Having knowledge of the plight of the migrant workers during the lockdown makes it
necessary for providing free transport to ensure safeguard of Article 19(1)(d) and Article
21.
85. In Rupinder Singh Sodhi v. Union of India44 where the court held that reasonable
restriction imposed on Article 19(1)(d) must satisfy the test of proportionality. The
restrictions must be minimal and should not exceed the constraints prevalent in a
particular situation. A restriction of freedom of movement cannot be used as ―engines of
oppression, persecution and harassment". In the case of State of H.P & Ors. v. Umed
Ram Sharma & Ors.45 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that Article 19 and 21 are
to protect not only the physical existence of life but also the quality of life.
86. The impact on Article 21 and the right to life of the migrant workers has been the hardest
social reality of the migrant workers. In the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India,46the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court laid down human dignity is inseparable and intrinsic to human
existence. The dignity of a person is inalienable and can neither be given nor taken away
from a person.
87. The case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India47 lays down the essence
of dignity and liberty infused into the very existence of a person. The right to privacy was
recognized and its jurisprudence interpreted to express the recognition of such a right for
every person. It also laid down that the reflection of the concept of dignity is laid down in
44
AIR 1983 SC 65.
45
AIR 1983 SC 65.
46
(2006) 8 SCC 212
47
(2017) 10 SCC 1
40
Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court stressed on the
importance of life and the means of attaining a worthy life.
88. Considering the situation of the migrant workers in the State of Braavos, it can be
deduced that they too are entitled to human dignity and privacy and the stance and actions
of the Central Government of Rosehill and the State Government of Braavos are in clear
violation of the poor and needy migrant workers. At para 373, the Hon‘ble Court, in
explaining the scope of privacy, the Court held as follows:
―373. Concerns of privacy arise when the State seeks to intrude into the body of
subjects…. Similarly, the freedom to choose either to work or not and the freedom to
choose the nature of the work are areas of the private decision-making process. The right
to travel freely within the country or go abroad is an area falling within the right of
privacy. The text of our Constitution recognised the freedom to travel throughout the
country under Article 19(1) (d). This Court has already recognised that such a right takes
within its sweep the right to travel abroad. A person‘s freedom to choose the place of his
residence once again is a part of his right to privacy‖.
C. Right to life and duty to protect life.

89. The pandemic has not only caused a serious threat to the health of the people but has also
cast its shadow on the economic growth of the country .Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of person48. Invoking the right to life reminds us that all States have a
duty to protect human life, including by addressing the general conditions in society that
give rise to direct threats to life.
90. According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person can be
deprived of his life and personal liberty by the state except procedure established by law.
Article 21 is not merely the physical act of breathing but also gives a fundamental right of
life to live with dignity.
91. The meaning of words ―personal liberty‖ was interpreted by the Supreme Court in A.K.
Gopalan v. Union of India49. By Qualifying the word ‗liberty‘ the Court said, the import
of the word ‗personal liberty‘ is narrowed down to the meaning given in English law to
48
Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
49
AIR 1950 SC 27
41
the expression ‗liberty of the person‘. Article 19 and 21 deals with different aspects of
‗liberty‘. Article 21 is guarantee against deprivation (total loss) of personal liberty while
Article 19 affords protection against unreasonable restrictions (which is only partial
control) on the right of movement. Freedom guaranteed by Article 19 can be 13 enjoyed
by a citizen only when he is a freeman and nit if his personal liberty is deprived under a
valid law.
V. THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE

EPIDEMIC ACT, 1897 ON 15. 07. 2020 MAKING VACCINATION COMPULSORY
IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION.
92. The compulsory vaccination imposed by the government is violative of constitutional

provisions. If a man has to die with dignity, he has to have some privacy. 50 The petitioner
submits that the respondents‘ action has violated the right to privacy of many citizens
because: (A) There is a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the
constitution of India and (B) The restrictions imposed by the states on unvaccinated
individuals was arbitrary and fails the test of proportionality.
A. There is a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the

93. ―Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human
condition with dignity and respect.‖51 In Williams v. Fears,52 it was held and
subsequently in several cases it was reiterated that ―All liberal democracies believe that
the State should not have unqualified authority to intrude into certain aspects of human
life53 and that the authority should be limited by parameters constitutionally fixed. 54
Fundamental rights are the only constitutional firewall to prevent State's interference with
those core freedoms constituting liberty of a human being. 55 The right to privacy is
50
Justice S.A Bobde
51
Bruce Schneier (2009). ―Schneier on Security,‖ p. 69, John Wiley & Sons (Bruce Schneier, privacy specialist,
Public Policy Lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School
52
Williams v. Fears, 1900 SCC OnLine US SC 211:45 L Ed 186: 179 US 270 (1900)
53
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615
54
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942 SCC OnLine US SC 125: 86 L Ed 1655 316 US 535 (1942)
55
T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, 1983 SCC OnLine AP 90: AIR 1983 AP 356
42
certainly one of the core freedoms which is to be defended. It is part of liberty within the
meaning of that expression in Article 21.‖56
94. The judiciary has recognised right to privacy as necessary ingredient of right to life and
personal liberty. In Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India57 ,the Supreme Court declared that:
―bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no
individual can be forced to be vaccinated.‖
95. In the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) and
Anr. v Union of India and Ors.58 the court held that the right to privacy was held to be
an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. And it not only
includes a person‘s rights relatable to her physical body but also protects an individual‘s
autonomy over fundamental personal choices.
96. Further, when we apply Mill‘s Theory of the liberty to exercise one‘s right until it
impinges on the right of another as done by the Meghalaya High Court, it can
be comprehended that even if the Welfare State (India) attempts to secure the Right to
Public Health of the public at large, the procedure of compulsory vaccination adopted by
the State would be excessive as this procedure is coercive and impinges on the
individuals‘ Right to Privacy, Personal Choice, and Bodily Autonomy and Integrity. 59
97. In this regard of coercive procedure, it is also imperative for us to note that, in the English
case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland60, the Court held that if an unwilling adult is made
to have the flu vaccination through force, then it would amount to a crime and tort/civil
wrong. Same was relied upon by the Meghalaya High Court in Registrar General, High
Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya61 who further observed that: ―Thus, coercive
element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a
preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only
56
Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, AIR (1984) 4 SCC 90
57
022 SCC OnLine SC 533
58
(2017) 10 SCC 1
59
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 : AIRONLINE 2021 SC 49 : AIR 2021 SC 891
60
[1993] AC 789
61
2021 SCC OnLine Megh 277
43
discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a
century.‖
98. The Meghalaya High Court also relied on the cases of X v. Netherlands62 and X v.
Austria63to illustrate that when a person is subjected to an intrusion of their body, even if
of a minor intensity such as through a needle, concerns regarding the issue of personal
and bodily autonomy and integrity arise regardless of the consequences of such intrusion
for deciding Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya.64
99. It is to be noted that Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 65 of the Constitution of
India. The right to life in Article 21 of Indian constitution does not mean animal existence
or the mere act of breathing. It guarantees the right to a dignified life and therefore no
individual can be forced to be vaccinated. Personal autonomy of an individual involves
the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which
consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the
sphere of individual health. Persons who are keen to not be vaccinated on account of
personal beliefs or preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically
compelling them to be vaccinated.
100. The Supreme Court (SC) has said that no person can be forced to get vaccinated and
that people have the right to bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution, which
includes the right to refuse vaccination therefore no violation of article 21. In its judgment
in the case of Aruna R. Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors.,66 the Supreme Court of
India had established that the right to life also includes the right to refuse medical
treatment. While an individual may not actively try to end his life, they have the right to
right to refuse treatment which would lead to the same result. By logical extension, an
individual must also have the right to refuse medical intervention in the form of
vaccination; otherwise, their fundamental rights would be violated.
62
https://www.stradalex.com/nl/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_6852-74
63
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-74223%22
64
2021 SCC OnLine Megh 277
65
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law
66
(2011) 4 SCC 454
44
B. The restrictions imposed by the states on unvaccinated individuals was arbitrary

and fails the test of proportionality
101. In recent decision by this court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India67, a law
which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible
restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy
must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and
reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and
personal liberty under Article 21
B.1. Oakes Test
102. Proportionality test, as laid down in R v. Oakes68, wherein it has been held that the
objective must be:
a) "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or
freedom";
b) there must be a rational connection between measure and objective;
c) the means must "impair as little possible the right of freedom in question"; and
finally,
d) there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are
responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has
been identified as of "sufficient importance"69
B.2. German Proportionality Test
103. The version which is used by the German Federal Constitutional Court and is also
accepted by most theorists of proportionality. According to this test, a measure restricting
a right must, firstly, serve a legitimate goal 70(legitimate goal stage); it must, secondly, be
67
[2021 SCC OnLine SC 985 : AIR 2021 SC 5396]
68
R v. Oakes (1986) SCC Online Can SC 6 d
69
Delvin Vriend v. Her Majesty The Queen1998 SCC OnLine Can SC 29: [1998] 1 SCR 493
70
See, Dieter Grimm, Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Law Jurisprudence, 57 UNIV. OF
TORONTO L.J. 383 (2007)
45
a suitable means of furthering this goal71 (suitability or rational connection stage);

thirdly, there must not be any less restrictive hut equally effective alternative (necessity
stage)72 and fourthly, the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right-
holder (balancing stage)73
B.3. Test of Proportionality laid down in Puttaswamy
104. In the recent decision of Justice K S Puttaswamy, the nine-bench assented upon the
test of proportionality that has to adhered to. It comprises of four tests:
a) the action must be sanctioned by law;
b) the proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;
c) the extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;
d) There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.
105. Going by the three-fold requirement laid down in Puttaswamy, the restriction should
be proportionate to the purpose it seeks to achieve. However, state actions to vaccinate
people in this manner are disproportionate as the benefits of vaccination cannot be
justified to deprive people of their food and livelihood74.The orders of forced vaccination
come at a time when the vaccine shortage is still prevalent in the country, especially in
remote and rural areas. In this situation, penalising individuals by cutting their rations and
salaries goes against the principle of equity as it is not fully accessible. Coercive
vaccination orders cause unreasonable discrimination against the unvaccinated population
without a reasonable nexus because people who have been vaccinated with the first dose
of the vaccine are allowed to earn their livelihood while their unvaccinated counterparts
cannot.
Thus, forceful or mandatory vaccination that is being carried out in India in the given
circumstances goes against the principle of equity and does not find any force in law.
106. It can be prima facie proved that the treatment of unvaccinated individuals in public
places is discriminatory by imposition of vaccine mandates.
71
See, Aharon Barak, Proportional Effect: The Israeli Experience, 57 UNIV. OF TORONTO L.J.369 (2007
72
See, Aharon Barak, Proportional Effect: The Israeli Experience, 57 UNIV. OF TORONTO L.J.369 (2007)
73
See, Mattias Kumm: "The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point and Purpose
of Rights-Based Proportionality Review (2010)
74
Para 12, MOOT PROPOSITION
46
―No doubt that when COVID-19 vaccines came into the picture, they were expected
to address, and were indeed found to be successful in dealing with, the risk of
infection from the variants in circulation at the time. However, with the virus
mutating, we have seen more potent variants surface which have broken through the
vaccination barrier to some extent.‖ [Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India]
Hence, the restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through vaccine mandates

cannot be considered to be proportionate, especially since both vaccinated and unvaccinated
individuals presently appear to be susceptible to transmission of the virus at similar levels.
107. It should also be noted that Natural immunity acquired from COVID-19 infection is
more long-lasting and robust as compared to vaccine immunity. Serological studies show
that more than 75 per cent of the Indian population has already been infected and is
seropositive and therefore, has better immunity to the infection than that which can be
provided by the vaccine.75
108. Moreover Vaccines do not prevent infection from or transmission of COVID-19 and
are especially ineffective in preventing against infection from new variants.76 The Gauhati
High Court in the Mizoram SoP case77 observed that ―there is nothing to show that
vaccinated persons (first dose) cannot be infected with the corona virus or that they
cannot be spreaders. If both unvaccinated and vaccinated people with the first dose have
to follow COVID-appropriate behaviour, there is no reason to discriminate only against
unvaccinated persons and deprive them of their livelihood.
75
An article in the scientific journal Nature Andreas Radbruch and Hyun-Dong Chang, ―A long-term
perspective on immunity to Covid‖ Nature 595, 359-360 (2021), which states that ―studies have shown that
memory plasma cells secreted antibody specific for the spike protein encoded in SARS-CoV-2 even 11 months
after the infection and further that, immune memory to many viruses is stable over decades, if not for a
lifetime‖.
76
A study published in the European Journal of EpidemiologySubramanian, S.V., Kumar, A. ―Increases in
COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States‖
Eur J Epidemiol 36, 1237–1240 (2021), which has analysed data from 68 countries available as of 03.09.2021
and has found that ―at the country level, there appears to be no discernible relationship between percentage of
population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases‖. It is further stated therein that in fact higher percentage
of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 per 1 million people.
77
Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others 2021 SCC OnLine 1313 Gau : (2021) 5 Gau LR 699 : (2021)
4 GLT153
47
109. Apart from the violation of Fundamental Rights, it can also be understood that
vaccine shortage exists in Rosehill and other countries due to which equitable access to
vaccine becomes a significant conundrum. It has also been found that it would take a
minimum of four years to vaccinate the entire population of Rosehill with both doses.
Thus, such a policy of compulsory vaccination would go against its objective of securing
public health as it denies them equitable access and opportunity to vaccination by
suddenly and exorbitantly increasing the demand for vaccines while its supplies remain
low.
110. On June 23, 2021, the High Court of Meghalaya, in Registrar General, High Court
of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya, held that compulsory or forceful vaccination does
not find any force in law, due to which such vaccination becomes unconstitutional since
its inception. The same is evident from the following:
―...harmonious and purposive construction of the provisions of law and principles of

equity, good conscience and justice reveals that mandatory or forceful vaccination
does not find any force in law leading to such acts being liable to be declared ultra
vires ab initio.‖
In this regard, the Meghalaya High Court lucidly held that the vaccination policy of a welfare
State (like Rosehill) ―can never affect a major fundamental right, i.e., right to life, personal
liberty and livelihood‖.
111. By linking vaccinations to essential services, these orders have a restricting effect on
the right to life, right to livelihood and the right to carry on any trade, profession or
business is violation of various fundamental rights enshrined in constitution.
112. It is to be noted that the Epidemic Diseases Act does not provide for procedural
guarantees against any abuse of state power regarding privacy infringement. There is a
fear of the law being misused for profiling, mass quarantine and targeting of individuals.
Therefore, the act does not pass the tests of reasonable restrictions on privacy
infringement and is, thus, grossly inadequate when weighed against the scales of privacy
rights.
48
113. From all the aforementioned tests and material facts it is evident that in the instant
case none of these parameters were followed. The state had no sanction of the law, the
action of the state was not necessary and the interference was not reasonable or
proportional.
49
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the counsel
for the petitioner humbly pray and implore before this Hon‘ble Court to kindly adjudge, hold
And declare:
I. That the executive order of the government of Rosehill declaring lockdown on

25.03.2020 is not constitutionally valid. the sudden imposition of lockdown via an
executive order violates articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of Rosehill.
II. That the ordinance passed by the State of Braavos dated 25.04.2020 which suspended
several labour laws, violated fundamental rights of workers and the international
labour organization conventions.
III. That the application CoviTrack, Braavos‘s sharing of the personal data of the
quarantined persons on the website and use of mysterious drones is violative of the
right to privacy.
IV. That the Central Government of Rosehill and the State Government of Braavos
violated several human rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, under the national
and international legal regime during the post COVID regime.
V. That the regulations issued by the government under the epidemic act, 1897 on 15. 07.
2020 making vaccination compulsory is violative of the rights protected by its
constitution.
Or pass any writ, order or direction which the court may deem fit in the end of equity,
justice, expediency and good conscience in favour of the Petitioner and for this act of
kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall forever remain obliged.
ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.
50

Teamcm29 Petitioner

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

Teamcm29 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: CM29

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL

W. P. No. _____ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS ________________PETITIONER

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

SL. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

ADR Association of Democratic Rights

AIR All India Reporter

CBI Central Bureau of Investigation

COVID Corona Virus Disease

FPRW Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

NALSA National Legal Services Authority

PDS Public Distribution System

PMMKBY Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UOI Union of India

S. No. CASE NAME CITATIONS

1. A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badavath &

2. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789

3. Aruna R. Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors.

4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

5. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615

6. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118

7. Consumer Education & Research v. Union of India, 1976

12. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India 022 SCC OnLine SC 533

13. K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

14. Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963 AIR 1295)

16. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India

17. Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969) 1 SCC 853

18. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India

19. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

20. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

21. Om Kumar v. Union of India

22. People‘s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India

23. PP Enterprises v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1016

24. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, ((2017) 10 SCC 1)

25. R v. Oakes (1986) SCCOnline Can SC

27. Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan

28. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, AIR (1984) 4 SCC 90

30. Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 SCC OnLine US SC

32. T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, 1983 SCC OnLine AP 90:

1. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

3. Employees State Insurance Act,

4. Factories Act, 1948

5. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

6. Minimum Wages Act, 1948

7. Payment of Wages Act,

8. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

III. BOOKS, DIGESTS & ARTICLES

1. Constitutional Law of India by D. D. Basu

2. Indian Constitutional Law by M. P. Jain

3. Yashdeep Chahal, Sai Krishna Kumar, Fundamental Freedoms and

4. Anant Singh, Epidemic Act and Disaster Management Act - A Pathway to

IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. BN Srikrishna Committee Report, 2018

V. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

S. NO. TREATY OR CONVENTION

2. Tripartite Consultation International Labour Standards Convention

3. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights of Workers