Final Memo Respondent

4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
TEAM CODE: 30
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI
IN THE MATTERS OF:
INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHAN AND OTHERS .... APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF BOMAI AND OTHERS …

RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2010, ___/2012
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI
UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................................11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................................13
ADVANCED ISSUE I..............................................................................................................................13
1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT?.........................................................................................................................................................13
1.1 Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution:................................13
1.2 Violation of the Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution:
14
1.3Public Interest Litigation......................................................................................................................16
ADVANCED ISSUE II.............................................................................................................................18
2 WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY THE
MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIANA AND UDHR............................................................................................................................18
2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the sanitation
workers goes against the UDHR guidelines...........................................................................................18
2.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the sanitation
workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of Indiana............................................................19
2.2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers violated Article 21...............................................................................................20
2.2.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution.......................................................21
2.3 Historically, Manual Scavengers face discrimination in all forms hence violating their Rights
under Article 17.....................................................................................................................................22

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
S.No. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
1.
& And
2.
AIR All India Reporter
3.
Anr Another
4.
Art Article
5.
et. Al And others
6.
FIR First Information Report
7.
HC High Court
8.
Hon’ble Honourable
9.
No. Number
10. Prohibition of Employment As

PEMSR Act Manual Scavenger And Their
Rehabilitation Act
11.
Ors. Others
12.
SC Supreme Court
13.
SCC Supreme Court Cases

14.
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
15.
UOI Union Of India
16.
v/s Verses
17.
u/s Under Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India..................................................................................7

E. P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu............................................................................................13
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v The State of Kerala and Ors...............................12
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors................................9
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India..................................................................................................12
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. Union of India &
Ors..............................................................................................................................................13
Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.................................................................7, 15
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors...............................................14
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279...................14
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors.................................................14
Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra................................................................................12
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India.......................................................................................8
STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
3. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 1993
4. The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993
5. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Rules,
2013
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

2. The Covenant On Civil And Political Rights 1966
3. The Covenant On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights 1966

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8th Ed, 2022)
2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (16th Ed, 2021)
3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (14th Ed, 2023)
4. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 3rd Ed,2018)
LEGAL DATABASE
1. http://www.indiakanoon.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.casemine.com
4. https://www.scconline.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF BOMAI, IN THE MATTER OF INDIANA KARAMCHARI
SAFAI ANDOLAN & ANRS VS STATE OF BOMAI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE
FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.
Article 226 in Constitution of Indiana
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and
for any other purpose.
[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th Amendment]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background:
 Indiana, a signatory to the UDHR, protects civil, economic, cultural, political, and social
rights.
 Human rights are safeguarded through fundamental rights in the constitution, which are
enforceable under Part III.
 Part IV of the constitution is persuasive, outlining directive principles.
 The government is obliged to defend human rights.
 Citizens can seek redressal from the Supreme Court for violations of fundamental rights
under Part III.
 The Supreme Court has the power to declare statutes unlawful if they contravene Part III.
 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, mandates the establishment of human rights
commissions and courts to uphold rights.
Pratyaksh's Death:
 Pratyaksh, aged 45, was a sanitation worker employed in Arvind Municipal Corporation
(AMC), Arvindnagar.
 In 2011, while performing his duties, he descended into a sewer without proper safety
gear and died due to asphyxiation caused by inhaling carbon monoxide, hydrogen
sulphide, and methane.
 The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as excessive inhalation of toxic
gases.
 His family, unaware of the situation's gravity and fearing repercussions, did not pursue
the contractor for pending dues.
 Financial constraints forced Pratyaksh's wife to migrate back to their hometown,
Sathinagar.
Rahul's Death:
 In 2018, Pratyaksh's elder son, Rahul, aged 19, followed his father's footsteps and became
a sanitation worker in Sathinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC).
 During the rainy season, Rahul was assigned to clear water-logging in Sathinagar without
proper safety equipment.

 While attempting to clear a blockage caused by human excreta, Rahul was swept away by
gushing water, leading to his death.
 His body, along with his co-worker's, was found in the Panna River after two days,
confirming the cause of death as asphyxia.
Legal Proceedings:
 A First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and police concluded the deaths were due to
the workers' negligence.
 The session's court upheld this, absolving the municipal corporations of responsibility.
 This decision sparked widespread public outrage, leading to various protests and media
coverage.
NGO Intervention:
 Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan (IKSS), an NGO advocating for the rights of daily-
wage workers, filed a writ petition on behalf of Rahul and his family.
 The petition, under Article 226 of the High Court, questions the failure of Arvind and
Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to provide adequate safety measures for sanitation
workers.
 IKSS argues that this failure constitutes a violation of the workers' inherent rights
enshrined under Part III of the Indiana Constitution and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?
10 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indiana
Constitution is maintainable as;
i. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants the High Courts the power to issue
writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any
other purpose deemed necessary for the administration of justice. Since the
petition is seeking redressal for the violation of fundamental rights, it falls within
the purview of Article 226, allo1wing the High Court to intervene and provide
relief.
ii. In this petition, the failure of the Municipal Corporation to provide safety
measures to sanitation workers violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.
iii. The IKSS, an NGO advocating for daily-wage workers' rights, has standing to file
the writ petition. Addressing a public wrong which is the gross violations of
sanitation workers' fundamental rights, the petition seeks judicial intervention due
to the state's failure to fulfill its duty. Hence, it qualifies as public interest
litigation and is maintainable under the doctrine of locus standi.
2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES

BY THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED
UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
It is humbly submitted that the state as through Municipal corporation infringes upon the
fundamental rights of the sanitation workers as provided in the Indiana Constitution as
well as international convents like UDHR, and the petitioner is here to seek relief for the
violation of fundamental rights, including the right to life, prohibition of torture, and the
right to effective remedy as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). Additionally, the failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate
safety measures to sanitation workers violates Part III of the Indiana Constitution,
particularly Articles 21 (right to life) and 14 (right to equality).
3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING
THE RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
LAW?
It is humbly submitted that the state's failure to uphold safety regulations and protect
sanitation workers, alongside its neglect in providing justice for victims of workplace
hazards, violates both domestic and international laws. According to the Indiana
Constitution, sanitation workers have rights to life and dignity, which are undermined when
safety measures are ignored. Similarly, under global standards like the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines, the state
is obligated to ensure safe working conditions. Neglecting these responsibilities shows a
broader disregard for human rights, demanding urgent corrective measures.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ADVANCED ISSUE I
1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

1. It is humbly submitted that as the respondent in this case, it is our contention that the writ
petition filed by the NGO Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan (IKSS) on behalf of Rahul and his
family is not maintainable. While we acknowledge the tragic circumstances surrounding the
deaths of Rahul and his co-worker, it is imperative to address certain legal considerations
regarding the petition's maintainability. Our position is based on an analysis of relevant legal
principles, including jurisdictional limitations, standing requirements, and the nature of the
alleged violations. Through this response, we aim to uphold the integrity of the legal process
while ensuring that justice is served in accordance with established legal standards.
2. It is the matter of fact that the workers are employed by the state responsible Municipal
corporation as sanitation workers for cleaning- sweeping purposes and not for Manual
scavenging which was prohibited under The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers
and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. This Act aims to abolish the practice of manual scavenging
and provide rehabilitation for manual scavengers. It prohibits the engagement or employment of
individuals as manual scavengers, the construction of insanitary latrines, and the manual cleaning
of sewers and septic tanks. Additionally, the act mandates the identification and rehabilitation of
manual scavengers, including provisions for their alternative employment, skill development,
financial assistance, and other support measures. Overall, the act seeks to address the systemic
issues surrounding manual scavenging and uplift the affected individuals from this degrading
occupation.
3. Also, this act under Section 2(1)(g) explains that a person engaged or employed to clean a
sewer with the help of such devices and using protective gear shall not be deemed to be a
“manual scavenger‟ and without any protective gear is considered illegal.
4. So, in this case through various reports, judgements and facts mentioned in the case it is
being argumented and explained that the state is providing all the necessary tools, Personal
Protection Kits (PPE) and maintain the records of sanitation workers for the same, but here the
death of Rahul and his co-worker Mahesh has not been occurred due to the Negligence of the
state Municipal corporation in providing the safety kits to the sanitation workers as the state
municipal corporation never employed them as Manual scavengers and has not permitted and
employed them to went inside the suffocating Drain unit without any protecting gears and just
ordered them to clean the waterlogging on the road at Lane 14, Shopprix Road, Sathinagar. It
was their own negligence that they entered into the water-logged unit with no equipment to help
them control the circumstances faced due to the ongoing monsoon rains and struck there without
informing the Municipal corporation leading to the tragic death of both the sanitation workers.
1.1] Lack of Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution
5. The lack of jurisdiction argument posits that the petition filed under Article 226 of the
High Court, aimed at addressing the tragic deaths of Rahul and Mahesh, is not appropriate.
Article 226 grants the court authority to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
However, in this case, there is no indication of a violation of fundamental rights by the state
municipal corporation. The deaths of Rahul and Mahesh resulted from their own negligence
rather than any action or omission by the corporation. They entered a suffocating drain unit
without protective gear, a decision not mandated or influenced by the municipal corporation. As
such, the circumstances leading to their deaths do not involve a breach of fundamental rights or
any failure on the part of the corporation to fulfill its duties. Therefore, the petition seeking relief
under Article 226 lacks a valid basis for jurisdiction, as it does not address an infringement of
fundamental rights by the municipal corporation.
6. The Latin phrase "Subla Fundamento Cedit Opus", which will be later on discussed as to
show there is no such violation of Fundamental rights translates to "The foundation being
removed, the superstructure falls." In the scenario, the tragic deaths of sanitation workers Rahul
and Mahesh occurred due to their own negligence, as they entered a suffocating drain unit
without protective gear. Despite claims in the writ petition, there is no evidence to suggest that
the state municipal corporation was directly responsible for their deaths. The foundation of the
case, therefore, lies in the actions (or inaction) of Rahul and Mahesh themselves, rather than any
fault on the part of the corporation.
7. Furthermore, the lack of jurisdiction stems from the fact that the tragic deaths of Rahul
and Mahesh were not caused by any direct action or negligence on the part of the state municipal
corporation. The corporation did not employ them as manual scavengers nor did it instruct them
to enter the suffocating drain unit without protective gear. The decision to enter the unit without
proper equipment was made independently by Rahul and Mahesh. Therefore, there is no
evidence to suggest that the municipal corporation violated any legal obligations or duties
towards them. As such, the petition seeking relief under Article 226 of the High Court, which is
intended for addressing violations of fundamental rights, is not applicable in this case where
there is no indication of such violations by the municipal corporation. The lack of jurisdiction
renders the petition not maintainable as it fails to establish a legal basis for the court's
intervention.
1.2] Locus standi; the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.
State Liability:
8. The petition's failure to establish the state municipal corporation's violation of any legal
obligation or duty towards Rahul and Mahesh stems from the absence of evidence indicating
direct responsibility on the corporation's part. Crucially, the corporation neither employed Rahul
and Mahesh as manual scavengers nor mandated their entry into the suffocating drain unit
without protective gear. The decision to enter the unit without appropriate equipment was solely
that of Rahul and Mahesh. Consequently, the corporation cannot be deemed liable for their tragic
deaths. Legal liability necessitates a demonstrable breach of duty or obligation, which, in this
case, is lacking since the corporation did not compel or overlook unsafe practices by Rahul and
Mahesh. While the deaths are undoubtedly regrettable, legal culpability cannot be attributed to
the corporation absent evidence of negligence or misconduct on its part. Therefore, the petition
fails to establish a valid basis for holding the corporation accountable for the unfortunate
outcomes experienced by Rahul and Mahesh.
9. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria
applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offense cannot be
subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. Nor a person can claim any right arising out of his
wrong doing according to Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur.
Alternative Remedy:
10. The NHRC in India refers to the National Human Rights Commission, which is a
statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The NHRC is
mandated to promote and protect human rights across the country. It functions as an independent
entity, separate from the government, with the primary objective of addressing violations of
human rights and ensuring justice for victims.
11. In Rahul's case, the petitioner's failure to exhaust all available legal avenues before
resorting to the court is evident. Given the seriousness of the allegations concerning potential
violations of fundamental rights, particularly regarding the right to life and dignity, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to pursue remedies through specialized forums such as the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) before approaching the court. The NHRC serves
as a dedicated institution for addressing human rights violations, equipped with the expertise and
mandate to investigate such matters thoroughly. In the case of Veerappa v Raman, the hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the right and liability is created by a statute and it prescribes a remedy
or procedure for enforcing, then the court may refuse to entertain the writ petition and direct the
petitioner to seek remedy under the statute only.
12. In the case of Union of India v. T.R. Verma, the Supreme Court stated: "It is well settled
that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be
required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a prerogative writ.", which is further elaborated as "When such remedy exists, it will be a
sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there are
good grounds therefor"
13. By seeking redress through the NHRC initially, the petitioner could have ensured a more
focused and expedient resolution, tailored to the specifics of the case. Moreover, the NHRC's
interventions often involve comprehensive inquiries, including fact-finding missions and
recommendations for remedial action, which could have provided a more nuanced understanding
of the circumstances leading to Pratyaksh and Rahul's unfortunate deaths. By bypassing the
NHRC and directly approaching the court, the petitioner missed an opportunity for a more
appropriate and effective remedy, potentially prolonging the resolution process and diminishing
the chances of a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved. Therefore, the failure to engage
with the NHRC constitutes a significant lapse in the petitioner's pursuit of justice. And this
mishap by the petitioner should not be entertained in this Hon’ble Court as it being quoted in the
case of Ramakrishnan Mission and anr. v Kago Kunya and ors., the Supreme Court established
what is known as the "twin test" for determining the maintainability of a writ petition under
Article 226. According to this test, two conditions must be satisfied: firstly, the entity or
individual in question must be performing a public function or responsibility, and secondly, the
behavior being challenged must involve a violation of public law. Therefore, unless the matter
involves a violation of public law, a writ petition cannot be sustained against an authority or
individual under Article 226 for carrying out a public function or obligation. And here, no
violation of Public law or no civil rights have been violated by the state but the negligence in the
part of Rahul and Mahesh leads to the mis-happening.
ADVANCED ISSUE II
2 WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
2.1 There was no breach of Fundamental Rights in the present matter.

14. Rahul’s actions were not aligned with the responsibilities outlined in his job profile.
Rahul's role as a sanitation worker did not comprise of entering hazardous environments without
proper safety equipment. Therefore, his decision to enter the water-logged unit without adequate
precautions cannot be attributed to any failure on the part of the municipal corporation to uphold
his fundamental rights [2.1.1 and 2.1.2]. The essence of fundamental rights lies in the protection
and promotion of individuals' freedoms and liberties within the bounds of their lawful duties
[2.1.3]. In this instance, Rahul's actions deviated from the parameters of his job description,
thereby absolving the municipal corporation of any responsibility for breaching his fundamental
rights.
2.1.1 Rahul was a Sanitation Worker and not a Manual Scavenger.
15. Rahul was employed as a Full-time Sanitation Worker in the Sathinagar Municipal
Corporation1. Now, as per the Instruction released by The Government of India Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, on February
2013 - Sanitation workers or Safai Karmacharies are normally include persons engaged as
‘Sweepers’ or ‘sanitation/cleaning workers’ in municipalities, government and private offices.
They may be direct employees of these bodies (municipalities, government/private sector
organizations) or may be contract employees who happen to be working for these organizations.
However, Safai Karamcharis, per se, are not manual scavengers2.
16. Manual Scavenger means a person engaged or employed on regular or frequent basis by
an individual or a local authority or a public or private agency, for manually cleaning, carrying,
disposing of, or otherwise handling in any manner, human excreta in an insanitary latrine or in an
open drain or pit into which human excreta from insanitary latrines is disposed of, or on a
railway track, before the excreta fully decomposes.3
17. In the present matter Rahul was a sanitation working under the Sathinagar Municipal
Corporation, he was not a Manual Scavengers. Rahul was instructed to clean the road at Lane 14,
Shoppex Road, he voluntarily entered the drain unit to clear water-logging. His actions were not
mandated by his job responsibilities. Therefore, the municipal corporation cannot be held liable
for his actions.
2.1.2 Rahul’s death was the Consequence of his Personal Negligence.

18. As mentioned before Mr. Rahul had undertaken actions exceeding the scope of his
employment duties. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that Mr. Rahul entered the drain unit
without the necessary safety measures in place. While standard safety equipment may have been
provided for his role as a sanitation worker, their effectiveness in the context of the drain unit
would need to be carefully evaluated.
19. According to the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria, a willing person cannot claim
injury from a known risk to which they have voluntarily exposed themselves. Rahul willingly
entered the drain, thereby assuming the risks associated with such an action. As a result, he
1
Moot Problem.
2
India. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Instructions Manual, February, 2013 pp. 19-20
3
Ibid
cannot later claim injury or wrongfulness due to those risks. It was held in the in Ashok Kapil vs
Sana Ullah [Dead] And Others case that – "Nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua
propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity
Hence, in the normal course, petitioner cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for
enjoying the fruit of his own wrong 4. Hence in the present case Rahul cannot seek assistance or
relief from a court of law for the consequences of his actions as Rahul's voluntary and unlawful
entry into the drain constitutes his own wrongdoing, absolving the Municipal Corporation of
liability under this principle.
20. More so, if initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party
cannot sanctify the same. Subla Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed, the
superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong 5. Nor
a person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur) 6. The
principle asserts that if the foundation or basis of an action is flawed, the entire action becomes
invalid. In this case, Rahul's initial action of entering the drain unlawfully is the foundation upon
which subsequent events unfold. Hence it is evident that Rahul and Mahesh’s actions absolve the
municipal corporations of liability.
2.1.3 There is no contention regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights.

21. In the present case, there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. To
establish of the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14
and test of reasonableness under Article 19 7. Article 14 ensures fairness and guarantees against
arbitrariness8. It provides that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and
guided by public interest9.
22. In Rahul's case, his decision to enter the drain was entirely voluntary and not influenced
by any government action or policy. Thus, that there is no legal basis for invoking Article 14 of
4
Ashok Kapil vs Sana Ullah [Dead] And Others
5
Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 29 July, 2013
6
Sheo Govind Singh vs Inspector General Of Police
7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.AIR 1978 SC597
8
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101
9
LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811
the Constitution, which requires governmental actions to be fair, non-arbitrary, and in the public
interest. Since Rahul's actions were not subject to government control or intervention, Article 14
are cannot be made applicable. Since his entry into the drain was not a restriction imposed by the
government but rather a voluntary action, there is no need to assess its reasonableness under
Article 19
23. Thus now, it can be firmly established that Rahul's tragic demise does not constitute a
violation of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. Since his actions
were voluntary and out of government control/regulation hence are not subject to the tests of
equality and reasonableness under Articles 14 and 19, respectively, there is no legal basis to
argue that his rights under Article 21 were infringed upon.
2.1.4 India has adhered to the UDHR Guidelines.

24. The UDHR, while a guiding international standard, is not directly enforceable in the
same manner as domestic law. However, India, as a signatory to the UDHR, is committed to
upholding its principles. In Rahul's case, the absence of state involvement in his voluntary action
absolves the government of responsibility for violating UDHR principles. Furthermore, Rahul's
decision, while tragic, falls outside the scope of government regulation, and thus cannot be
attributed to any state-sanctioned infringement of his rights under the UDHR.
25. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as a significant international
benchmark for human rights standards, However, it does not create a binding effect. Despite this,
India, as a signatory to the UDHR, is dedicated to upholding its principles as part of its
commitment to international human rights norms. In the case of Rahul, the absence of direct state
involvement in his voluntary action relieves the government from direct responsibility for any
potential violation of UDHR principles. Moreover, Rahul's decision, although tragic, falls
outside the purview of government regulation.
26. India's adherence to the UDHR's principles, which is later on be discussed in the next
issue, reflects its broader commitment to promoting and safeguarding human rights on an
international scale.
ADVANCED ISSUE III
WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION
UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?
27. Indiana is a signatory to the UDHR. It is a fact that the Indiana constitution was greatly
influenced by the UDHR. Provisions of UDHR that prohibits manual Scavenging: Article 1 of
UDHR states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The article 5
states that no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 22 includes the
right to work, an adequate standard of living and social security. Under Article 23, right to just
and favorable conditions of work are provided.
3.1] Consonance of Indiana laws with UDHR provisions for safeguarding the rights of
sanitation workers.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
28. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "All human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This principle is in consonance with the
Indian Constitution in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers by ensuring equal protection
under the law and prohibiting discrimination based on factors such as caste, religion, or social
status.
29. In the context of sanitation workers in India, who often belong to marginalized
communities, the Indian Constitution upholds their right to equality and dignity. The
Constitution prohibits discrimination and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including
the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), the right to equality (Article 14), and the
abolition of untouchability (Article 17). By recognizing the inherent dignity and equality of all
individuals, Article 1 of the UDHR aligns with the Indian Constitution's commitment to
protecting the rights of sanitation workers and ensuring their fair treatment and access to
opportunities without discrimination.
30. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) prohibits torture and
cruel treatment. This principle resonates with the Indian Constitution's protection of sanitation
workers' rights. The Indian Constitution extends protection to all individuals, encompassing
sanitation workers, safeguarding them from inhumane treatment. Specifically, Article 21

guarantees the right to dignity, broadly interpreted to encompass the entitlement to a dignified
workplace for sanitation workers. Additionally, under Article 42, the state bears the
responsibility of ensuring the health and safety of all workers, including those in sanitation roles,
emphasizing the importance of safe working conditions. Furthermore, Article 14 ensures equal
protection under the law, preventing discrimination against sanitation workers and ensuring they
receive equitable treatment. Together, these constitutional provisions underscore the
commitment to upholding the rights and well-being of sanitation workers, emphasizing their
dignity, safety, and fair treatment within society.
31. Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) resonates with the
principles of the Indian Constitution in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers. In
accordance with this, sanitation workers are entitled to social security, as highlighted in the
UDHR. This aligns with the Indian Constitution's emphasis on providing public assistance to
ensure the welfare of all citizens, including sanitation workers. Additionally, both documents
recognize the importance of economic, social, and cultural rights for human dignity and
development. In India, these rights are enshrined in various provisions of the Constitution, such
as Article 38, which directs the state to promote the welfare of the people. Moreover, Article 22
of the UDHR underscores the right to dignity and free development, which is protected by the
Indian Constitution's provisions like Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal
liberty. Therefore, both documents emphasize the state's obligation to safeguard the rights and
well-being of sanitation workers, ensuring their dignity, safety, and welfare.
32. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Indian Constitution are
in harmony in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers. Both assert the fundamental right to
work under fair and just conditions, ensuring dignified employment and protection against
exploitation. This provision underscores the importance of creating an environment where all
individuals, including sanitation workers, can engage in gainful employment without facing
discrimination or degrading conditions. Additionally, it emphasizes the obligation of the state to
ensure adequate safeguards to protect workers from unemployment and to promote their well-
being through appropriate labor laws and social policies. In essence, these legal frameworks aim
to uphold the dignity and rights of sanitation workers, recognizing their vital role in society and
advocating for their fair treatment and protection in the workplace.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
33. Article 11 emphasizes the obligation of states to take measures to prevent occupational
hazards and ensure the health and safety of workers, including sanitation workers. This includes
providing training, resources, and support to enable sanitation workers to carry out their duties
effectively while minimizing risks to their health and safety. Article 8 of ICCPR provides the
right to not be enslaved and Article 26 confers the right to equality before law. In a country like
Indiana, manual scavenging was considered to be the work of a certain community of people.
According to the Government data, 97% of manual scavengers are Dalits. However, in the recent
decades, the government through its continues efforts has brought in stringent provisions that are
intolerant towards manual Scavenging in any form.
3.2] Steps taken by Indiana Government to Protect Sanitation workers and to fulfill the
obligation Under Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
34. Elimination of insanitary latrines and manual scavenging as well as rehabilitation of
manual scavengers in alternative occupations, have been areas of high priority of the
Government. Key legislative measures include laws prohibiting manual scavenging and
mandating rehabilitation, such as the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Rehabilitation programs offer training and support for alternative
employment. Awareness campaigns aim to change societal attitudes. Technological solutions,
like mechanized equipment, are promoted, and monitoring ensures enforcement of laws. Overall,
these efforts seek to eradicate harmful practices while empowering affected individuals.
(i) The implementation of the "Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013" signifies the prohibition of the dehumanizing act of manual
scavenging. This law not only bans manual scavenging but also focuses on the
rehabilitation of those involved in such activities. In essence, it seeks to eradicate the
inhumane practice of manual scavenging while simultaneously addressing the welfare
and rehabilitation needs of individuals previously engaged in this occupation.
(ii) In efforts to combat the inhumane practice of manual scavenging, the government has
undertaken substantial measures under the Swachh Bharat Mission. Since October 2,
2014, over 10.88 crore sanitary toilets have been constructed in rural areas and 62.64 lakh
in urban areas. Additionally, insanitary toilets have been converted into sanitary ones.
These actions demonstrate the government's commitment to not only enacting the 2013
Act but also ensuring that it fulfills its constitutional mandate.
(iii) Following the enactment of the Act, the Self-Employment Scheme for
Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS) underwent revision in November 2013 to
align with the Act's provisions as follows:
a. One-time cash assistance of Rs. 40,000 provided to each identified manual scavenger
within the family.
b. Back-end capital subsidy of up to Rs. 3.25 lakh offered to identified manual scavengers
and their dependents for self-employment projects, with a ceiling of Rs. 10.00 lakh (or
Rs. 15.00 lakh for sanitation-related projects).
c. Skill development training provided for up to two years to identified manual scavengers
and their dependents, with a stipend of Rs. 3,000 per month during the training period.
(iv) At the behest of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, two surveys were
conducted in 2013 and 2018 to identify manual scavengers. These surveys aimed to
ascertain the number of individuals engaged in manual scavenging across the country.
Based on the findings of these surveys, a total of 58,098 eligible manual scavengers were
identified. These individuals were then provided with the one-time cash assistance of Rs.
40,000 each, as stipulated by the government's rehabilitation program. This initiative
demonstrates the government's commitment to addressing the issue of manual scavenging
and providing support to those affected by it.
(v) If a municipality or panchayat fails to identify a manual scavenger, Section 12 of the Act
outlines the procedure for manual scavengers to self-identify and access government-
provided rehabilitation. It states that any individual working as a manual scavenger in an
urban area can apply to the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality, or an authorized
officer, to be recognized as a manual scavenger. This application can be made during the
municipality's survey or at any time thereafter, as per the prescribed procedure.
(vi) Rehabilitation measures include providing scholarships for the children of manual
scavengers, offering a residential plot or financial aid for constructing a house, or
providing a ready-built house with financial assistance. Additionally, training in
livelihood skills is offered to either the manual scavenger or any willing family member,
accompanied by a monthly stipend of at least three thousand rupees during the training
period. Subsidies and concessional loans are also available for transitioning to alternative
sustainable occupations. Furthermore, legal and programmatic assistance will be
provided as needed.
35. Similar measures are extended to panchayats, showcasing the government's commitment
to eradicating this injustice from grassroots levels of society and governance, while also uplifting
those affected by this inhumane practice. Consequently, the government stands ready to serve the
public, yet it also necessitates the cooperation of the people. This unfortunate incident, which
could have been prevented, highlights the importance of manual scavengers seeking assistance
from their local municipality.
3.3] Collaborative efforts of Central And state Government of Indiana in upholding the
rights of sanitation workers.
36. The collaboration between the state and central governments of Indiana to eradicate
manual scavenging is aligned with their obligations under both domestic and international law,
ensuring that it does not violate fundamental rights.
a. The Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS),
initiated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, is designed to transition
manual scavengers and their dependents into alternative occupations within a specified
timeframe.
b. In 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order mandating the government to identify
individuals who lost their lives in sewage work since 1993 and provide Rs. 10 lakh
compensation to their families.
c. The National Commission for Safai Karmacharis (NCSK) was established under the
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993, with the primary objective of
advocating for and protecting the rights of Safai Karamcharis.
d. The Swachh Indiana Mission has facilitated the construction of toilets equipped with on-
site sanitation systems such as septic tanks and pits.
37. The collaborative efforts of both the state and central governments of Indiana
demonstrate a concerted commitment to addressing the deeply ingrained issue of manual
scavenging. By adhering to constitutional mandates, enacting relevant legislation, and fulfilling

international obligations, these governments are striving to uphold the fundamental rights and
dignity of all individuals. Through coordinated initiatives aimed at eradication, rehabilitation,
and awareness-raising, they are working towards a future where manual scavenging is no longer
a reality, ensuring that every person can live and work with dignity and equality under the law.
38. Hence, the Government of Indiana on all accounts, comply with its International
Commitments in giving protection and rehabilitation of sanitation workers and their dependents,
since the practice has been prohibited in Indiana.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That, the writ petition filed by the Indiana KaramchariSafaiSanghatan (IKSS) is

maintainable before the High Court of Bomai.
2. That, to provide adequate compensation and support for the families of Pratyaksh and
Rahul and all deceased workers.
3. That, to conduct comprehensive investigations into the deaths of Pratyaksh, Rahul, and
Mahesh, along with all sanitation workers who have tragically lost their lives. Those responsible
for the lack of safety gear, protective measures, and any negligence or misconduct must be held
accountable for these unfortunate incidents.
4. That, issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Arvind and Sathinagar Municipal
Corporations to immediately implement and enforce adequate safety measures for sanitation
workers, in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Indiana Constitution and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
5. That, Declaration of the municipal corporations' actions as unconstitutional and violative

of fundamental rights.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, for this the
Appellants shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

Final Memo Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Final Memo Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHAN AND OTHERS .... APPELLANT

THE STATE OF BOMAI AND OTHERS …

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2010, ___/2012

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

S.No. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

10. Prohibition of Employment As

3|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India..................................................................................7

STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

1. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

5|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8th Ed, 2022)

2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (16th Ed, 2021)

3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (14th Ed, 2023)

4. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 3rd Ed,2018)

6|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Article 226 in Constitution of Indiana

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

7|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

9|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

2 WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

2.1 There was no breach of Fundamental Rights in the present matter.

2.1.1 Rahul was a Sanitation Worker and not a Manual Scavenger.

2.1.2 Rahul’s death was the Consequence of his Personal Negligence.

2.1.3 There is no contention regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights.

2.1.4 India has adhered to the UDHR Guidelines.

ADVANCED ISSUE III

WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

sanitation workers, safeguarding them from inhumane treatment. Specifically, Article 21

scavenging. By adhering to constitutional mandates, enacting relevant legislation, and fulfilling

1. That, the writ petition filed by the Indiana KaramchariSafaiSanghatan (IKSS) is

5. That, Declaration of the municipal corporations' actions as unconstitutional and violative

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

You might also like

WRIT PETITION NOS. _/2010, _/2012