Memorial moot court, Study notes of Mock Trial and Moot Court

Download Memorial moot court and more Study notes Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity!

I

TEAM CODE – CM

CLEA MOOTING (SOUTH ASIA ROUNDS) COMPETITION – 2022

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Before THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF ROSEHILL WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS………………………………………………………………. Petitioner Versus UNION OF ROSEHILL…………………………………………….... Respondent PETITION (CIVIL) PIL NO / 2022 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 4 Index of Authorities 5 LIST OF CASES 5 STATUTES, RULES AND MISCELLANEOUS 6 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS REPORTS AND ARTICLES 6 BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES 7 ONLINE SOURCES 7 Statement of Jurisdiction 8 Statement of Facts 9 Statement of Issues 10 Summary of Arguments 11 Arguments Advanced 13 PRAYER 27 ISSUE 1:WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVT OF ROSEHILL DECLARING THE LOCKDOWN ON 25.03.2020 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? WHETHER SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL. ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS DATED, 25. 04.2020 WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS, VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS. ISSUE 3: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? ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH

III

ENUMERATEDAND UNEMUNERATED UNDER THE NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME DURING THE POST COVID REGIME?

ISSUE 5: 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?

IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATIONS FULL FORMS

AIR All India Record Acc. According Art Article CTO Commissioner Tax Officer DMA Disaster Management Act 2005 DPSP Directive Principle Of State Policy Etc Et Cetera EDA Epidemic Disease Act 1897 FR Fundamental Rights Govt Government Hon’ble Honorable i.e. That Is ILO International Labour Organization Ltd Limited MHA Ministry Of Home Affairs NDMA National Disaster Management Authority Ors. Others SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Cases Sec Section UOI Union Of India UT Union Territory WHO World Health Organization & And Vs./V. Versus

V

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory, AIR 1981 SC 746  K. S. Puttuswamy v. UOI, AIR 2017 SC 4161  Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597  Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180  Sivani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 1770  State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 294 : AIR 1997  A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCC 228 : 1950 SCC OnLine SC 17 : 1950 SCR 88 : (1950)  Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625  Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1992 AIR 999, 1992 SCR (2) 164  Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180  Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018  payelbiswas v. the commisiner of police  registrar general v. state of meghalaya  olgatellis v. BMC  X v. Netherlands  X v. Austria  registrar general v. state of meghalaya  Madras v. VG Rows  State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors  D. S. Patel and Co. v. Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd  Bannari Amman Sugar Ltd v. CTO  Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India  G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India  Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. v. Union of India  Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts  Zucht v. King

VI  Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 21, 24  State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1696; Welfare Assn. ARP v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (  Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191, ¶ 7.  State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, ¶ 39.  Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872, ¶ 70.  Omkumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689, ¶ 59; Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corpn., AIR 2001 SC 3887, ¶ 12, 16.  Sharma Transport v. Govt of A.P, AIR 2002 SC 322.  Kalra A.L v. Project and Equipping Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361.  Mahajan v. J.M.C, AIR 1992 SC 409.  Aeltemesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1768  Kasturi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992.  E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.  Maharashtra Land Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 15 SC 616, ¶

 Associated Provisional Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 ALL E.R 680  Ghan Shyam Kapoor v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2015 SCC Online Del 14180  Haridas v Usha Rani Banik AIR 2007 S.C. 2688 STATUTES, RULES AND MISCELLANEOUS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950. the payment of wages act The Industrial Dispute Act, the Epidemic Act, 1897 Minimum Wages Act, 1947 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS Universal Declaration of Human Rights Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) REPORTS AND ARTICLES https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11001/11001_2021_35_301_28040_Judgement_31- May-2021.pdf

VII https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/suspension-of-labour-laws-in-utar-pradesh-amidst-covid- 19 - a- fundamental-rights-emergency/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8250373/ file:///C:/Users/vikra/Downloads/6dd76d37-a5a7-4d17-b8b7-76dd054badcd.pdf BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES ARVIND P. DATAR, THE LAW AND PRACTICES OF INCOME TAX (10TH ED., 2014). DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (JUSTICE S. S. SUBRAMANI ET AL., 9TH ED., 2014). DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER ET AL. EDS., 8TH ED., 2012). DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (11TH ED.). H.M SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH ED., 2010). M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (SAMARADITYA PAL ET AL. EDS., 7TH ED. 2010). ONLINE SOURCES www.heinonline.com www.jstor.org www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal www.manupatra.com www.scconline.com www.westlawindia.com

VIII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner most humbly and respectfully invokes the writ jurisdiction of the hon’ble Supreme Court under Art. 32^1 of the Constitution of Rosehill. (^1) Art.32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1 ) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2) The right guaranteed by this art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Background The Republic of Rosehill is a country in South Asia, with Braavos as its capital. It is the second most populous country, seventh-largest by area, and the most populous democracy in the world  Timeline The World Health Organisation on 30.01.2020 declared coronavirus as a global emergency. On 11.03.2020 the World Health Organisation declared Covid-19 a pandemic. To restrict the spread of the virus the Ministry of Home Affairs on 25.03.2020 imposed a countrywide lockdown. Many of which were arrested by law enforcement officials for violating lockdown. On 10.04.2020 a new scheme under the head of Pradhan Mantri Mitr Kalyan Yojana was launched by the Government. An ordinance was passed by the state government of Braavos to temporarily suspend labour laws for three years except for section 5 of the payment of wages act 1936 in view to incentivize the economic and industrial activities in the state.  Steps Taken By The Govt. To control the virus from spreading, the Government launched CoviTrack, an app. to track Covid- 19, which was made mandatory for all citizen to upload their information in. In June 2020, the Government started developing the vaccine, CoviSave, against the virus through a public-private partnership. The Government spread the news about the benefits of the vaccine. Government made it mandatory to carry Vaccination Certificate under the Epidemic Act, 1897 on 15. 7. 2020  Issues The alleged use of mysterious drones by the Government was reported in Braavos. The CoviTrack app sought continuous access to location information which caused uproar amongst the public who as the app. is completely silent on the security of the data provided. Health and family welfare department of Braavos published the details of the quarantined citizens who came from abroad, which has further aggravated the privacy concerns of the public. There were reports that the private labs straight away conducted trials on humans without any preclinical trials on animals. The compulsion of the vaccination certificate to be carried at all times has been alleged as the violation of human rights by the public.

X

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

- 1 -

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?

• 2 - Whether 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 Organisation Conventions?
• 3 - 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?
• 4 - 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?
• 5 - 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?

XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN ON 25. 03. 2020 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? WHETHER

SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES

ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

Firstly, [1.1] The order is constitutionally invalid as it abrogates the rights of equality to underprivileged sections of the society, secondly, [1.2]The order is a negligence of the Doctrine of Reasonable classification. Thirdly,[1.3.]The impugned notification manifests arbitrariness and is invasive of art. 14. ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE STATE OF BRAAVOS DATED

25. 4. 2020 WHICH SUSPENDED SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS, VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS? Firstly, Ordinance passed by the government of Braavos, suspending significant labour laws is in direct violation of Article 21 and the reasons for the same are 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.The consequence of suspension of the Minimum Wages Act will force labourers into bonded labour as employers can pay below The aforesaid suspension of workers' rights would also be against the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, ratified by India. Therefore, the immediate suspension and dilution of such rights would lead to a violation but also of the International Labour Organisation's conventions, which India, being a party to, has to "respect and promote" ISSUE 3: 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? Firstly, measures such as publishing lists of affected individuals, along with their personal details are definitely unconstitutional. Not only are such lists released without the consent of the named individuals, thereby violating their reasonable expectation of privacy, it also leads to unnecessary stigma and harassment.The right to privacy is a fundamental right that is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution i.e Right to life & personal liberty.in the present case the government had clearly breached the right to privacy as the CoviTrack App is being used to track the momevemt

XII of the people more so, without asking for their consent. The app. sought continuous access to location information for its social movement graph. ISSUE 4: 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? Firstly The central Government of Rosehill and the State governments are responsible for violation of right to Livelihood and free movement under article 19 and ICESCR as the imposition of lockdown the govt, as a measure to curtail the spread of Covid lead to a huge portion of people left in shock especially being concerned for their well being. Covid 19 lockdown impacted the livelihood of people. The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly submits that both the government at Central and state level are responsible for violation of Right to Health under Article 21 and ICESCR. India is a member of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.here has been an increase in the number of cases of depression and suicide ISSUE 5: 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? Firstly,[5.1]Coercive vaccination is regressive towards the fundamental rights provided under Article21, Secondly, [5.2]Provisions under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 do not supersede the Right to life, Thirdly, [5.3] Powers of the Government of Rosehill under the Epidemic Act, 1897 is limited.

XIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROSEHILL

DECLARING LOCKDOWN ON 25.03.2020 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? WHETHER

SUDDEN IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN VIA AN EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES

ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROSEHILL?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that, the lockdown implied via executive order dated 25.03.2020 is in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of Rosehill and hence, constitutionally invalid as it abrogates the rights of equality to underprivileged sections of the society[1.1], The order is a negligence of the Doctrine of Reasonable classification[1.2], Moreover, the notification is arbitrary and disproportionate in nature [1.3]. As reiterated by the court in the Badappanavar “equality is the basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of equals unequally or unequals as equals will be violation of basic structure of the Constitution of India.” The lockdown severed the provision of equal protection of law by subjugation of the whole population under one measure. There has been an equal treatment of the unequals. It was held in the case of Indira sawhney & ors. V. the union of Rosehill &ors. that, “equality contemplated by the article 14 and other cognate article of the constitution is secured not only when equals are treated equally, but also when unequals are treated unequally.” Conversely, when unequals are treated equally, the mandate of equality before law is breached. It was established by the SC in the case of St. Stephen’s college v. the University of Delhi, that unequals are not only permitted to be treated equally but, also they have to be so treated. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, it was held by the court that, ‘the term equal protection of law is a natural consequence of the term equality before law and thus it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which there has been a violation equal protection of law is not a violation of equality before law’. The petitioners fulfil the criterion for passing the test of permissible classification as laid down in the case of Chiranjit Lal Choudhary v. union of Rosehill the criterion of intelligible differentia is met with the fact that not all economical groups could bear the lockdown’s measures which can be subjugated to their family conditions as well as their financial resources. Those with limited source are dependent on daily wages, old people living on the earnings of their family members or bedridden can’t help themselves. A complete lockdown deprieved them their resources of earning and in many cases. They were devoid of accomodation in the places they were stuck. The intelligible differentia in nexus with the object sought called for a differential treatment, denial of which causes a breach of equality conferred by the Constitution.

XIV The denial of equal protection of law, by assuming the society to be on equal grounds grossly violates the fundamental right of equality under the article 14 of the constitution. [1.1] The order is constitutionally invalid as it abrogates the rights of equality to underprivileged sections of the society The sudden implementation of lockdown by an executive order dated 25.03.2020 has violated the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. Various aspects of several provisions which entitled and empowered the citizens were struck off owing to the inadequacy of the government to meet the necessary remarks during an adverse situation like the pandemic. Article 14 corresponds to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution and adheres to the same concept of equality as in UDHR. Article 14 infers that ‘equals should be treated alike’ which deputizes the concept of differential treatment. The Supreme Court has itself asserted that constitution lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as also affirmative action. In the situation of pandemic, the power of the article to confer ‘equal protection of the laws’ has been compromised in light of the steps taken by the government. With an executive order dated 25.03.2020 a blanket application of lockdown was implied which failed in the admission of the diverse nature of Rosehill. A lockdown of unvarying form imposed the same complexities on every citizen irrespective of their differences. Pertinently, any treatment of equals unequally or unequals as equals constitutes an infringement of the principle of equality enshrined under Art. 14. Furthermore, this the principle of equality is a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be compromised in any circumstance. The impugned notification discriminates the people from the deprived sections if the society by placing them on equal footing with the upper classes. Since the object and surrounding circumstances of all such lockdown formulated by the Govt. is for controlling the pandemic, the implementation lead to a greater havoc towards the underprivileged. Their was a necessity for differential treatment of the different classes of the society. Its inadmissibility is violative of the principle of equality enshrined in the Article 14 as vice versa to unlike treatment in analogous circumstances is not permitted. [1.2] The order is a negligence of the Doctrine of Reasonable classification. The circumstances were in favor of the doctrine of Reasonable classification which is prescribed under Art. 14 as a subsidiary rule. It acts in Favour of differential treatment without a reasonable relation and envisages the twin tests of classification i.e. classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Firstly, the lockdown was sudden, which restricted the movement of people who have gone for working, away from their homes for earning a livelihood that supports for a real and substantial distinction which is in resonance with the spirit of Article 14.

XV Secondly, the objective sought is differential treatment. There are workers migrating to different parts of country in order to secure a livelihood for them and their families, and when such a situation where trains, flights, public transport, universities, schools, offices, factories, and manufacturing units are shut, it becomes vivid that their existence will become challengeable. Thereby inferring from the two points above mentioned, the pivotal rule that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, is clear in the impugned situation. It is imperative that the means adopted to achieve the object, be fair, just and reasonable, which is not the case herein as unreasonable punitive measures have been adopted when sections of society who are suffering because of same are taken into consideration. [1.3.] The impugned notification manifests arbitrariness and is invasive of art. 14. It is hereby contended that the impugned notification is arbitrary, thereby making it inconsistent with the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution [1.3.1]. Art. 14 is antithetical to arbitrary action [1.3.2] In addition to this, the notification fails to satisfy the test of Wednesbury reasonableness [1.3.1.]Art. 14 is antithetical to arbitrary action. The periphery of Art. 14 extends to the prevention of arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the State, which are ‘antithetical’ to the rule of law, equity, fair play and justice. Arbitrary action is described as one that is irrational and unreasonable and solely rests upon the unruly will of the state and it is denial of equal protection of law Any administrative act even though it may involve policy considerations may be challenged on non-application of authority’s mind or improper use of the statutory power or unfair procedure or non-conduciveness to the public interest. The notification illustrates that the Govt. acted irrationally and thus arbitrarily by not considering the situation of every class of the society, without striking a balance which is a requisite to reasonableness. [1.3.2.]The notification contradicts the principles of Wednesbury reasonableness. The position of law with respect to judicial interference in matters of administrative decisions has been well crystallised in the decision of Associated Provisional Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation. The Wednesbury principle envisages that in order to test the “reasonableness” of the order, the court has to find out whether relevant factors have been taken into account for coming to any conclusion. If the administrative order is irrational, or has been arrived at without taking into consideration relevant factors, the same can definitely be reviewed and corrected. This principle is in absentia as the Govt. has levied a blanket prohibition on movement and a shutdown of industries and institutions. [1.4] the principles violated in article 21 are discussed in ISSUE 5. In light of the above, it is hereby submitted that the right to equality and right to livelihood has been abridged by the impugned notification and it is henceforth liable to be declared ultra vires.

XVI

ISSUE 2 :WHETHER 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

ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS?

It is humbly submitted by the petitioners that the ordinance passed by the State Government of Bravoos dated 25.04.2020, which suspended several labour laws, violated fundamental rights of workers as it exposes them to the worst exploitation by taking away their legal protection. The Constitution of India confers innumerable rights for protecting safeguarding the interests of labour under Part III as well as Part IV pertaining to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), respectively. 2.1 Ordinance passed by the government of Braavos, suspending significant labour laws is in direct violation of Article 21 and the reasons for the same are 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. The Factories Act, 1948 ensures the safety of workmen and implementation of humane working conditions in the workplace which if taken away violates basic human rights. Further, out of the four laws exempted from suspension, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 remains one of them. 2.2 The consequence of suspension of the Minimum Wages Act will force labourers into bonded labour as employers can pay below minimum wage amount. This situation is undesirable, keeping in mind the surge in Covid-19 cases in India and a ban on movement, this might deprive the labourers from their basic livelihood. The intelligible differentia is questionable for such an act of the Government of Braavos. Such a step will promote movement of labour out of BRAVOS where the laws are suspended to their detriment and the prohibition of public movement worsens the situation. 2.3 The health of the working community will suffer through extended working hours and fewer safety precautions. This will further push workers into the informal economy 4. Workers' pay will fall even lower than before. Workers will lack job security and will not benefit from overtime payments.In Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.^2 , When the executive suspended state law which imposed duties on various authorities for the maintenance of law and order, thereby declining protection to managerial staff from ‘gherao', the suspension was held to be unlawful.It was pointed out by B. C. Mitra, J. that the direct result of the suspension (^2) AIR 1968 Cal 407.

XVII would be violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners, who were encircled by the respondents, and breach of statutory duties imposed on public servants. 2.4 The provisions under ILO and its infringement. The aforesaid suspension of workers' rights would also be against the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, ratified by India. Therefore, the immediate suspension and dilution of such rights would lead to a violation but also of the International Labour Organisation's conventions, which India, being a party to, has to "respect and promote". Thus, such suspensions/dilutions would amount to a gross violation of one of the ILO's fundamental principles - namely freedom of association, and the effective recognition of employees' rights, including that of collective bargaining, the abolition of forced or compulsory labour and the abolition of discrimination in respect of pay and conditions of work. 2.5 Article 51 bestows a duty to foster respect for international treaties and obligations. The freedom of citizens of India to form associations and unions has been curbed by this action. The scope with regard to Article 19 (1)(c) has also been extended with the case of Manekar Gandhi vs. the union of India^3. 2.6 A right to life does not mean merely an animal existence, rather it implies a right to live with decency and respect. In the case of Francis Coral vs. Union territory of Delhi^4 , the right to life was found to include a right to live with human dignity. 2.7 The grievance redressal mechanism for the workers as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is also not available due to the suspension of the laws despite the Supreme Court of India recognizing the right of access to justice as a fundamental right in the case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan (2016). In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, it was held that “job security” is an essential ingredient of the right to work and must be read in the light of the socio-economic philosophy of the right. By suspending labour laws, there would also be an absence of security of employment and living wage, along with a decent standard of living. ISSUE 3.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? 3.1 The Counsel on behalf of petitioner most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rosehill that mobile applications such as CoviTrack and other applications introduced by Governments, Rosehill has been using mapping techniques from contact tracing to create buffer zones for Covid-19 clusters and hot spots, along with location tracking techniques to track infected patients. Covid-19 tracking application, CoviTrack made it mandatory for all the citizens to download it and upload all the information like name, contact number, health data, location etc. (^3) AIR 1978 SC 597 (^4) AIR 1981 SC 746

XVIII 3.2 It is being humbly submitted that in the present case the Government had clearly breached the right of privacy of the citizens. While generation of maps demarcating the COVID-19 hotspots and the usage of geo fencing may make the cut, if accompanied by procedural safeguards against the abuse of interference with fundamental rights, measures such as publishing lists of affected individuals, along with their personal details are definitely unconstitutional. Not only are such lists released without the consent of the named individuals, thereby violating their reasonable expectation of privacy, it also leads to unnecessary stigma and harassment. In fact, recently, a petition was filed before the High Court of Madras, seeking to reveal the identity of COVID- 19 affected persons, wherein the Court, without delving upon the privacy aspects, held that there would definitely be social stigma and aspersions pursuant to such revelation and the petition was accordingly dismissed. 3.3 Further, With the pandemic progressing, contact tracing, surveillance and technological tools and Governments demanding for more and more Sensitive Personal Data, damage the privacy of the individual 3.4 Right to Privacy The right to privacy is a fundamental right that is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution i.e Right to life & personal liberty. Although Article 21 does not speak specifically about the right to privacy, the Supreme Court of India, in various instances, extended the meaning of Article 21.The right belongs to every person in that country .According to the court, this right is intrinsically connected with the right to life and liberty. Hence, the right to privacy is now a fundamental right. 3.5 Furthermore, Some information is considered as personal data because as the name suggests, it is private by nature and cannot be shared with others. It directly or indirectly impacts personal as well as professional life and eventually puts effect on the reputation in the society. 3.6 The fundamental right of privacy provides an individual the right to object if the personal is being collected or misused by others without his consent. Collecting data and using it without the consent of the concerned is a direct attck to his right to privacy.In fact, a person shoud have control and autonomy over the information which he wants to share or not share 3.7 It is humbly submitted that in the present case the government had clearly breached the right to privacy as the CoviTrack App is being used to track the momevemt of the people more so,

XIX without asking for their consent. The app. sought continuous access to location information for its social movement graph. 3.8 Further, the Health and Family Welfare Department of Braavos published the addresses including the names, contact details, house numbers, street numbers, and localities of 16, 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. 3.9 Henceforth , the Usage of the CoviTrack App directly points to the violation of the right to privacy of a person and this is an argument that cannot be refuted, especially considering how aggressive the measure is. 3.10 In the case of Arvind v. Ministry of home affairs, Karnataka High Court held that informed consent of the user isn’t taken while sharing data hence centre can’t share data. Court also held that the state cannot deny citizens benefits just because they don’t have the app on their phone. Moreover there no particular statues or law , center or state to this effect and therefore the app can’t be mandatory. 3.11 Privacy Protection Bill 2011 The bill forbids "any person having a place of business in India but has data using equipment located in India" from collecting or processing, using or disclosing "any data relating to individual to any person without consent of such individual".With recent judicial luminaries such as Former Supreme Court Judge B N Srikrishna, the chair of the committee that drafted the Privacy Protection Bill 2011, stating that the government’s move was “utterly illegal” (as reported in Indian Express 12th May, 2020, 1:31:56 pm, by Apurva Vishwanath), the true ends of this right need to be justified. 3.12 Furthermore,drones were allegedly used by the Braavos’s Government and these drones were seen announcing orders to pedestrians below to maintain social distance and they were also being used to scan fevers. Law enforcement officials were allegedly using drones to scan parks, beaches, and city squares for violators not complying with the social distancing protocols as mandated by the government 3.13 Through the judgement in the case of K.S. Puttuswamy, the right to Privacy has become an inalienable right. Even though the same was not originally a part of the Constitution, the Right to

XX Privacy is now protected under the Constitution of India and is Preserved by the Judiciary, which acts as the guardian of the Constitution 3.14 KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India: In the absence of any legislation regulating privacy, the only jurisprudence in this regard is provided by the landmark 2017 decision of the Supreme Court which upheld privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The apex court also held that although the expectation of privacy in public places cannot be unreasonably high, it does not mean that privacy of an individual should altogether be given up in such places. Therefore, unfettered surveillance using drones is violative of the fundamental right to privacy. Yes, privacy like any other right is not an absolute right. The court laid down a four-pronged test of proportionality that must be satisfied for restrictions on privacy to be reasonable. i) Restriction on privacy must be enabled by a law The first limiting principle against curtailment of privacy is legality. The action of the state to restrict privacy must be pursuant to an enacted statute. But these Drone Rules, 2021 do not regulate surveillance and most of the surveillance is being carried out through executive notification, without any procedural safeguards. Therefore, there is a need to enact a comprehensive legislation dealing with data protection in general and regulating drone surveillance in particular. ii) Restriction on privacy must be for a legitimate aim Most drone surveillance by the government is carried out for maintenance of law and order. However, there is no data to prove that this has facilitated in improving law and order. Some studies conducted around the world focusing on the efficacy of mass surveillance devices like CCTV cameras, can provide useful guidance.

XXI These studies suggest that such surveillance has had minimal impact on the law and order situation of the particular area. On the contrary, mass surveillance has severely hampered the free movement of women and other vulnerable groups subjecting them to constant moral policing. iii) Restriction on privacy must be proportionate The government must choose the least intrusive means. The PDP Bill empowers law enforcement agencies to grant themselves exemptions from the provisions both at the stage of data collection and data processing. Therefore, nothing prevents the law enforcement agencies from using drone surveillance for any purpose including petty offenses. The use of drone surveillance should be for defined offenses and only where less intrusive means are not available. Article 35 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, which is applicable law in the European Union, mandates the state to carry out a privacy impact assessment before carrying out large scale video monitoring. Such an assessment will increase accountability and reduce indiscriminate use. There are options of equipping the surveillance device with features that allow minimum intrusion. For example, the camera lens fitted in the drone can be installed with redaction programming which will help the authorities to carry out targeted monitoring of suspected individuals blurring out the image of other people and objects in their surroundings. ISSUE 4 WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVT. OF ROSEHILL & THE SATE OF BRAAVOS VIOLATED SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BOTH ENUMERATED, UNDER THE NATIONAL &INTERNATIONAL LEGL REGIME DURING POST COVID REGIME 4.1 The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court of Supreme Court of Rosehill that the Central Govt. and State Govt. of Braavoos violated several human rights set out in both national and international legal regime post Covid. Every individual has the most basic human right to live their life and enjoy their liberty without any undue interference from the state. This principle is enshrined under part III of the Constitution. Article 21 allows curtailment of this right only by a procedure established by law.

XXII 4.1.1 The central Government of Rosehill and the State governments are responsible for violation of right of every Human to privacy which being an essential ingredient of Right of Life and Personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of Indian Constitution The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly submits that both the government at Central and state level are responsible for violation of Right of Privacy of the individuals of Rosehill. The govt made it mandatory for citizens traveling using public transport, govt and private sector employees to download the Arogya Setu app on their mobile phones.The app. sought continuous access to location information for its social movement graph the judgment in the case of K.S. Puttuswamy, the right to Privacy has become an inalienable right. Supreme Court which upheld privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) In this case, the issue involved the constitutionality of the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC Act). The 5-judge bench stated that the balance between transparency and confidentiality is very delicate and that if some sensitive information about a particular person is made public, it can have a far-reaching impact on his or her reputation and dignity 4.1.2 Right to Livelihood and free movement under article 19 and ICESCR The central Government of Rosehill and the State governments are responsible for violation of right to Livelihood and free movement under article 19 and ICESCR as the imposition of lockdown the govt, as a measure to curtail the spread of Covid lead to a huge portion of people left in shock especially being concerned for their well being. Covid 19 lockdown impacted the livelihood of people. Since the lockdown came into effect there were many incidents of the migrant wage labours walking hundred km to get back to their native places & villages because of the shutdown of small &non-essential business and no availability of public transportation and hence they lost all the means of income. Moreover, The unemployment rate doubled in 2020 reaching as high as 20.9%. Surveys reported a steep fall in the income of informal workers i.e. from 40% to 80%. The police officials have been seen to have abused their power by beating the general public for coming out of their places during the curfew period.

XXIII Medical professionals who were the savior of people during the pandemic themselves faced many issues in the past three years. They faced infringement of their right to health and livelihood not just by the policies of the government but also by the law enforcement agencies. They were arbitrarily detained and arrested by police in various states for demanding better healthcare infrastructure, wages, PPE kits, and masks. Supreme Court at first dismissed the petition in Mahua Mitra v Union of India and later took suo moto cognizance of the matter in the writ petition ‘In Re: Problem and Miseries of Migrant Labours’ where it issued notice to central and all state governments to notify it on the steps taken to ensure their safe return.Court held that the “government cannot abdicate its duty to feed migrant workers, especially during the pandemic, merely because they did not have Ration Cards.” It directed the government to start shramik train and ensure the safe return of workers, give details about the schemes they can avail, maintain a record of the workers who traveled back to their hometowns, and establish counseling and help centers at block and district level. But before this judgment came thousands of migrant workers had already traveled on foot and hundreds had died. Bombay High Court in a case held that the ‘no work, no wages’ principle cannot apply to these extraordinary times of COVID-19 and directed the TMS Trust to pay its contractual workers.In another case, CIDCO Maharashtra was asked to pay wages to 42 temporary gardeners.29 In a petition filed by ex-employees of St. Stephens Hospital, the Delhi High court ordered their salaries to be paid.. 4.1.3 Right to Health under Article 21 and ICESCR The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly submits that both the government at Central and state level are responsible for violation of Right to Health under Article 21 and ICESCR. India is a member of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It deals with a person’s right to enjoy the highest achievable mental & physical health. Hence the govt should take a proper initiative for providing adequate health services of superior quality and satisfactory medical care should be given to people to prevent threats to public but as stated in the facts the govt of Rosehill clearly failed to provide the necessary services and resources. Both physical and psychological health needed special attention. There has been an increase in the number of cases of depression and suicide. And the risk of spreading the disease in pregnant

XXIV women and newborn babies, Limited health facilities, health workers and medical practitioners were put at risk of getting the disease due to lack of PPEs and masks in some part of the country. There has been an overall shortage of basic things like masks, sanitizer etc. Delhi High Court in May 2021 directed the state to re-consider its circular capping the cost of COVID treatment at Rs 18,000 per day. It said that this will lead the hospital towards losses as the cost of bi-pap and medicines have gone up due to the surge. ISSUE 5: 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? It is humbly submitted by the petitioners that, regulations issued by the government dated 15.07.2020 to make vaccinations compulsory under the Epidemic Act 1897, deprives the citizens of their Fundamental Right to life, Personal Choice, and Bodily Autonomy and Integrity which was guaranteed as an integral part under article 21. The act of the government for compulsory vaccination with suspended rumors afloat around the application of vaccine is not justified and the same shall be declared ultra vires ab initio. [5.1]Coercive vaccination is regressive towards the fundamental rights provided under Article21 Inaccurate assessment of the vaccines and a following mandate on vaccination is unconstitutional. The principle of informed self determination of individuals is harmed by the compulsory vaccination as protected in the article 21 of the Constitution of India. When there are news surfacing about the testing of vaccines on orphans without consent and death of a handful of test subjects, it does effect the psychology of the masses on which the vaccine is supposed to be administered. Also there has been a reluctancy in the major of population about the administration of vaccine because of the reports that it may cause side effects like blood clotting and other pulmonary issues in the body. A person has the right to not have his body or personhood interfered with. This means that the state may not do anything to harm your life or health. the words of Justice Chandrachud that emphasize the need of bodily autonomy are “ the best decisions on how life should be lived are entrusted to the individual. The duty of the state is to safeguard the ability to take decisions, the autonomy of the individuals and not, to dictate those decisions.” Justice Nariman’s three points regarding privacy includes ‘the privacy of choice which includes the freedom to make one’s most intimate and personal choice’. This when read in articulation with the Article 21 in the referred gives the population their right to choose if they want to be vaccinated or not as their Fundamental Right to Choice. The privacy as guaranteed in Article 21 takes several different forms, it includes a right to bodily autonomy, (payelbiswas v. the commisiner of police), if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character. (registrar general v. state of meghalaya).right to life includes right to means of livelihood and in the present instance

XXV an indiciduals’s right, choice and liberty has been significantly affected in comparison to any effect on the public order which forms a part of the Article 19 (6) as ‘reasonable restrictions’. Though, the Right to Privacy is not absolute, but any policy that invades the Fundamental Right to life without any nexus with reasonable classification shall be considered as void and shall be declared unconstitutional. [5.2]Provisions under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 do not supersede the Right to life A vaccine certificate was made necessary for inter-state travel and for those who worked in educational institutions, government offices, manufacturing industries and factories. It becomes necessary to understand that in such situation, the forcing of vaccination by an order under the Epidemic Act 1897, where the receiver is not in conformity of such is an infringement to the fundamental right of exercise of personal liberty. It was held in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India by the Supreme Court of India that the Right to Health is a fundamental right and is an integral part of the Right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. To provide the healthcare (vaccination) by coercive means would be an encroachment of Fundamental Right to Privacy. The order of the government is coercive and it is the negative reinforcement of policies which is in contradiction to the welfare nature of the state. The state responsible for proper implementation of policies made for the welfare of the public at large and when a situation where vaccine hesitancy persists amongst the conscience of people of Rosehill, an order for mandating the vaccination for seeking the basic necessities in perusal of means of livelihood becomes tyrannical for the citizens. A contradiction has been firmly established by the government as the order forces the citizen to avail a policy made for public welfare. The test of reasonable classification fails as the application of this order fails to establish a nexus with prohibition of continuance of the unvaccinated citizen in the places such as schools and workplaces. It was inferred in X v. Netherlands 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. Similar was established in X v. Austria. [5.3]Powers of the Government of Rosehill under the Epidemic Act, 1897 is limited. Section 2A of the Epidemic act, 1897 reads as, “WHEN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS SATISFIED THAT INDIA OR ANY PART THEREOF IS VISITED BY, OR THREATENED WITH, AN OUTBREAK OF ANY DANGEROUS EPIDEMIC DISEASE AND THAT THE ORDINARY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PREVENT THE OUTBREAK OF SUCH DISEASE OR THE SPREAD THEREOF, THE CENTRAL