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 – CM23 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 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, (2003  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, ¶ 61.  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 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. 04. 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. 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 India3. 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 Delhi4, 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 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. 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 XXVI GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE MEASURES AND PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS FOR THE INSPECTION OF ANY SHIP OR VESSEL LEAVING OR ARRIVING AT ANY PORT IN 2 [THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH THIS ACT EXTENDS] AND FOR SUCH DETENTION THEREOF, OR OF ANY PERSON INTENDING TO SAIL THEREIN, OR ARRIVING THEREBY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY.]” Which when carefully observed states that, the government has the power to make provisions regarding the inspection and detention only. Epidemic Act doesn’t empowers the act of government under which it has mandated the vaccination for inter-state travel and those employed in educational institution, government offices, manufacturing industries and factories. The mandatory vaccination can not be justified as a regulation of inspection nor as a regulation for detention until it is proven that vaccines are a complete cure or vaccinated people can’t be infected further. Until the corollary that vaccine is effective completely to combat the virus is withdrawn, the restriction on the fundamental rights of the unvaccinated individuals cannot be said to be proportionate. In a situation where reports of private laboratories conducting trials on humans without any preclinical trials, death of orphans due to trials of the vaccine and reluctance of the population regarding vaccine administration is prevalent, the regulation by the government to make the vaccine certificate mandatory is an infringement of the Fundamental Right to Life, Personal Choice and Bodily Autonomy and Integrity. XXVII PRAYER Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: Allow the instant petition. Declare the orders to be violative of the fundamental rights and thereby constitutionally ultra vires. Declare that vaccine mandates in any manner, whatsoever, is a violation of rights of citizens and unconstitutional Declare that suspension of labour laws is violative toward the rights of the workers, hence unconstitutional, and thereby, order the restoration of all the suspended laws Declare that the publishing of personal data of users of CoviTrack and usage of drones is a violation of right to privacy, hence, ultra vires to the Constitution of Rosehill. Direct the State to take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of fundamental rights in similar situation And to pass any other order or relief in favor of the petitioner in the larger interest of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted. Sd/- Counsels for the Petitioner