NOMC 2110

COVID-19 PANDEMIC NATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

In The Matter Of

SOCIETY OF PREACHERS & ORS. …………………………………...... PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF SCINDIA……………………………………………………… RESPONDENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

W.P. No. ___/2020

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................ii

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................iv

III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................vi

IV. SUMMARY OF FACTS...................................................................................................vii

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES................................................................................................ix

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................x

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................................1

1. THAT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA WAS JUSTIFIED AND THERE

WAS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE SOCIETY OF PREACHERS BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA.......................................................................................1

2. THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA IS NOT

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS..........................................................3

3. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA CANNOT BE DIRECTED TO IMPOSE

SANCTION ON CHANG FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY AND

CONVENTION............................................................................................................7

VIII. PRAYER.........................................................................................................................xi

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | ii

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. NAME ABBREVIATION

1. All India Report AIR

2. And &
3. Another Anr.
4. Article Art./art.
5. Company Co.
6. Constitution of India, 1950. India Const.
7. Edition ed./edn.
8. Editors ed./eds.
9. Gujarat Guj
10. High Court H.C.
11. Honourable Hon’ble
12. Ibid Id.
13. Incorporation Inc.
14. Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC
15. January Jan.
16. Limited Ltd.
17. March Mar.
18. National Disaster Management Act NDMA
19. National Security Act NSA
20. Number No.
21. October Oct.
22. Others Ors.
23. Paragraph ¶
24. Private Pvt.
25. Public Interest Litigation PIL
26. Rule r.
27. Section §.
28. September Sept.
29. Serial Number S.NO.
30. Society of Preachers SOP
31. Supreme Court SC
32. Supreme Court Cases SCC
33. Supreme Court Reports SCR
34. Union of India UoI
35. Versus v.
36. World Health Organisation WHO
37. Writ Petition W.P.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO. STATUTES
1. National Security Act, 1980, No. 65.
2. . Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45.
3. . The Epidemic Act, 1897, No. 3.
4. The Constitution of India, 1950.
5. National Disaster Management Act, 2005, No. 53.

S.NO. BOOKS REFERRED

1. 1 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Justice A.K. Patnaik ed., 15th
edn., Lexis Nexis, 2017).
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016).

S.NO. ARTICLES
1. Alice Hazelton, How to read the news like a scientist and avoid the COVID-19
‘infodemic’, World Economic Forum (Mar. 29, 2020).

S.NO. RESEARCH DATABASE

1. www.scconline.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | iv

S.NO. LIST OF CASES

1. Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
2. Ex- Army Men’s Protection Services P. Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1376.
3. Express New papers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 (614).
4. Girish M. Das v. Union of India, W.P. (PIL) 138 of 2013 (Gujrat H.C. Sep. 24,
2013).
5. Maganabhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783.
6. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
7. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343.
8. People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.
9. People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
10. Premium Granites v.  State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691.
11. Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana, (2006) 1 SCC 294.
12. Secretary of the State for the Home Department v. Rehman, (2013) 1 AC 153.
13. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khamalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520.
14. State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, (1983) 3 SCC 387.
15. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
16. Uttar Pradesh v. Uptron Employees Union CMD, (2006) 5 SCC 319.

S.NO. WEBSITES
1. https://knowindia.gov.in/profile/the-union/public-services.php.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia under Article 32 of
Constitution of India, 1950.

Article 32 of Constitution of India, 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) 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
(3) 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)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | vi

SUMMARY OF FACTS

OUTBREAK OF COVID-19

1¶. On 31st December 2019, WHO detected a series of pneumonic cases of unknown etiology
in Wuzan City of Chang and later the causative of the disease was found to be Coronavirus.
In mid- January 2020 other nations started reporting similar cases whereas Chang asserted
that the disease lacked any evidence of human to human transmission. On 11 th March 2020,
WHO declared it to be a pandemic. About 1.5 million people were infected and 85,000 lost
their lives to the pandemic by 1st week of April, 2020. With no vaccine in place, the world
economy has crippled due to the lockdown that had to be put across the countries.

2¶. Meanwhile, Chang had already recovered from the disease and generated a huge revenue
from the pandemic as they started exporting essential goods to other countries. Further,
various independent agencies accused Chang of intentionally spreading the disease to become
an economic power. Chang denied the accusations and also rejected and blocked the proposal
of discussion over the pandemic in the UN General Assembly.

EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON SCINDIA

3¶. Scindia is a densely populated country and is the neighbouring country of Chang. They
have history of border tensions but due to size of the markets they engage in regular trade.
The first case of the disease was reported in Scindia on 30 th January,2020. And following the
social distancing guidelines issued by WHO Scindia imposed a nationwide lockdown on 25th
March,2020 for 21 days. On 13th March 2020, when the government had started cancelling
events of mass gathering, Society of Preachers conducted an event of almost 2000 people.
The participants were from all over the country and media reported that there were people
from the countries which already had cases of Coronavirus. The Ministry of Health in
Scindia, commented in official statement that those who attended SOP event had become the
biggest cause of the disease in India. A FIR was filed against Maulana Tabdili and 7 other
leaders under Epidemic Act, 1897 and various provisions of Scindian Penal Code, 1860.
Also, relevant provisions of National Security Act were invoked against members of SOP for
non- cooperation with state government and health officials.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | vii

4¶. The Government of Scindia issued notices to all the news agencies instructing nothing
will be published without approval of government citing dissemination of fake news. And
also, many state governments started issuing notifications ordering pay cuts and deferments
of salaries of all government employees including those of All Scindia Services ranging
between 10%-50%.

GROUNDS OF THE PETITIONS FILED

5¶. The first writ petition is filed by Society of Preachers citing that they have been
discriminated as Government only invoked National Security Act against them whereas
similar violations when reported against other social, political and religious groups National
Security Act was not invoked. The letter written by Scindian Law Students Association
(SLSA) was converted as PIL by the honourable Supreme Court of Scindia in which they
have challenged that the actions of government has violated the constitutional rights of
migrant workers, press and employees of All Scindian Services. The final PIL was filed by an
NGO Citizens for Justice to issue directions to the government to impose sanctions on Chang
for violation of International Treaty and Convention.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | viii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISCRIMINATON AGAINST SOCIETY OF

PREACHERS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA?

2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA WAS IN

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA?

2.1. WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF

MIGRANTS WORKERS?
2.2. WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS AUTOHORITY TO PAY CUT THE
SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF ALL SCINDIA SERVICES?
2.3. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO NEWS
AGENCIES FOR PRIOR GOVERNMENT APPROVAL BEFORE
PUBLICATION IS VALID?

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO IMPOSE

SANCTIONS ON CHANG FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY AND
CONVENTIONS?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA WAS JUSTIFIED AND THERE WAS
NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE SOCIETY OF PREACHERS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF

SCINDIA
1¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions of Government of
Scindia was justified and there was no discrimination against the SOP because the National
Security Act, 1980 gives the authority to the central government to determine under what
circumstances National Security Act was to be invoked and it is unclear. Therefore, equality
cannot be demanded by the SOP in this circumstance.
2. THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA IS NOT AGAINST THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
2¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions taken by the
Government of Scinidia is not against the constitutional provisions and the actions were
justified by law have not violated the fundamental rights of the migrant workers because the
lockdown imposed by the government was valid and the migrant workers walking towards
their homes violated lockdown rules and defeated the purpose of lockdown, have not violated
right of press because the restriction imposed was under the reasonable restriction as
prescribed under Article-19(2) of the Constitution of Scindia and did not violate the
fundamental rights of the employees of All Scindia Services because the central government
was empowered to do it under National Disaster Management Act, 2005 and All India
Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960,
3. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA CANNOT BE DIRECTED TO IMPOSE SANCTION ON
CHANG FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY AND CONVENTION
3¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court on behalf of the defendants that the
Government of Scindia cannot be directed to impose sanction on Chang for violation of
international treaty and convention. This is because Article-73 of Indian Constitution it is the
executive duty to take decision on international treaties and convention and the policy
decision of the government. The judiciary has kept itself away from interfering with the
policy decision of the government.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA WAS JUSTIFIED AND THERE WAS
NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE SOCIETY OF PREACHERS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF

SCINDIA

1¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Government of Scindia was
justified and has not done any discrimination against the Society of Preachers. When the
global coronal virus crisis was so dangerous with 1.5 million infections and 85,000 death
worldwide as declared by WHO1 and Scindia starting to cancel all events of mass gathering 2
Society of Preachers held a mass gathering of 2000 people who were not only from within the
country but also by the members who travelled from the countries where there was already
outbreak of virus.3 The official statement released by Ministry of Health in Scindia stated that
those who attended the SOP event has become one the biggest cause of spread of Covid- 19
in the country.4

2¶. To control this spread of the virus, the Government of Scindia declared a nationwide
lockdown by exercising its power under Section- 2 & Section-2A of the Epidemic Disease
Act, 1897.5 Further, by exercising their power under Section-2(b) of the Epidemic Disease
Act, 18976, the Government directed the persons who had potential of carrying the disease or
are carrying the disease to stay in segregation. Under the same provisions the members of
SOP were also directed to remain in isolation and follow the orders of the government. But
they did not follow these orders.7 Therefore, a FIR was also lodged against them under
Section-3 of the Epidemic Disease Act.

3¶. But still there were instances of them not abiding the directions and non- cooperating with
the health officials.8 The corona virus has become the threat to the country the present time
and any mistake committed can lead to it becoming a bigger threat by transmission of the

1
Moot Proposition, ¶3.
2
Moot Proposition, ¶5.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, No. 3, § 2.
6
Id, § 2(b).
7
Moot Proposition, ¶5.
8
Id.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |2

disease as it is proven that corona virus has human to human transmission. 9 The non-
compliance to the orders of the State can lead to rise of the cases more and hence a threat to
the health and safety of the entire country. So, the Government of Scindia decided to impose
National Security Act, 198010 on those members of SOP. The object of the Act –
“An Act to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and for matters connected
therewith.”11

4¶. So, Government of Scindia in exercise of power under Section- 3(2) of the National
Security Act imposed preventive detention on them. The section states that-
“The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any
person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public
order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person
be detained.”12

5¶. The word ‘public order’ as defined in the case of Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh
Rana13is- “Public order, has a comprehensive meaning so as to include public safety in its
relation to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of public order involves
consideration of public safety.” As the actions of SOP was putting the safety of the public at
stake the imposition of National Security Act is valid and justified.

6¶. Further, on ‘security of state’ Supreme Court opined in the case of Ex- Army Men’s
Protection Services P. Ltd v. Union of India14 and in the case of Secretary of the State for the
Home Department v. Rehman15that- “ It is difficult to define in exact terms the “national
security”. It would generally include socio- political stability, territorial integrity, economic
solidarity and strength, ecological balance, cultural cohesiveness, external peace, etc. The
interest of national security is not a question of law. It is a matter of policy. It is not the court
to decide whether something is in interest of State or not, it should be left to the executive.”

9
World Health Organisation, Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005)
Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), (Jan. 30, 2020, 13:30 CEST),
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-
health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov).
10
National Security Act, 1980, No. 65.
11
Id., Preamble.
12
Id, § 3(2).
13
Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana, (2006) 1 SCC 294.
14
Ex- Army Men’s Protection Services P. Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1376.
15
Secretary of the State for the Home Department v. Rehman, (2013) 1 AC 153.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |3

7¶. The National Security Act provided the “appropriate government”, in this case the central
government16 to make detention order against persons whom they deem fit to have done
certain acts as prescribed under Section-3 of the National Security Act.17 The legislature has
left it to decision of the appropriate government to determine the circumstances and if they
deem fit to invoke National Security Act. The members of SOP are claiming discrimination
on ground that even though similar violation was reported from other parts of the country by
members of other social, political and religious groups National Security Act was not invoked
in those cases.18

8¶. Further according to Section- 16 of the National Security Act which states that- “No suit
or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or a State Government,
and no suit, prosecution or Government or a State Government, and no suit, prosecution or
other legal proceeding shall lie against any person, for anything in good faith done or
intended to be done in pursuance of this Act.” 19, the Government of Scindia is immune from
any legal proceeding so this claim of the SOP fails as the National Security Act was invoked
against them in view to protect the public order.

9¶. In relation to discrimination claim it is clear that National Security Act is invoked in extra
ordinary cases and the entire circumstance has to be observed before invoking the same.
Though similar cases were reported but it is unclear of the background circumstance and
gravity of the acts committed. Equality can’t be sought in these cases where several distinct
circumstances prevail though the result turns out to be the same. Hence, no discrimination has
taken place against members of Society of Preachers.

10¶. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the actions of the Government of Scindia is
justified and no discrimination has taken place.

16
National Security Act, 1980, No. 65, § 2(a).
17
National Security Act, 1980, No. 65, § 3.
18
Moot Proposition, ¶6.
19
National Security Act, 1980, No. 65, § 16.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |4

2. THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA IS NOT AGAINST THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

11¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions taken by the
Government of Scinidia is not against the constitutional provisions and the actions were
justified by law have not violated the fundamental rights of the [2.1] migrant workers, [2.2]
right of press and [2.3] of the employees of All Scindia Services.

[2.1] THAT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA WERE JUSTIFIED AND DID NOT
VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS

12¶. Following the social distancing guidelines issued by World Health Organization, a
lockdown was of 21 days from 25th March 2020 was declared by Government of Scindia.20
This lockdown was declared by the Government in exercise of power under Section- 221 &
2A22 of The Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. This lockdown was imposed to stop the spread of
Corona Virus by restricting the movement of the persons and implementing strict regulations.

13¶. The lockdown indeed led to putting some restriction on fundamental rights of the
citizens under Article- 14, 19 and 21 of the but no right is absolute and comes with
restrictions which are prescribed in the Constitution itself. The restriction on rights under
Article-19(1) can be issued under Article- 19(2)-(6) and restriction on Article-21 on the basis
of ‘procedure established by law’. The lockdown imposed by the Government of Scindia fell
within this reasonable restriction as prescribed under the Constitution.

14¶. Further the migrant workers by walking on roads in a crowd defeats the purpose of
lockdown as there is no way the social distancing norms are followed. The migrant workers
by defying the lockdown rule could be made liable under Section-3 of Epidemic Act,1897.23
The official order released by Ministry of Home Affairs on 29.03.202024 “restricted the
movement of these migrant workers when the incident was reported and made necessary
order to the state governments to make necessary arrangement.”

15¶. The Government of Scindia is fully aware of the various judicial pronouncements of the
Supreme Court in which “right to food and shelter has been held to be fundamental right and
20
Moot Proposition, ¶4.
21
Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, No. 3, § 2.
22
Id, § 2A.
23
Id, § 3.
24
Ministry of Home Affairs, Order restricting movement of migrants and strict enforcement of lockdown
measures, 29 March 2020, No. 40-3/2020-DM-I(A).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |5

human right as well.”25 The Government of Scindia is also aware of the decision of this
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India26,
where court held that right to food is a fundamental and human right and specified certain
schemes for implementation which would guarantee right to food. Some of the schemes are
being extended to the migrant workers for protecting their right to food as a human right.

16¶. But Scindia is a densely populated country.27 Any step for the benefit of the people to be
implemented properly needs time due to the huge population and the administrative difficulty
especially amidst the lockdown where the state has many things on its plate to deal with, lack
of staff due to offices being closed and financial constraints. The lockdown imposed was
valid and within the reasonable restriction prescribed by Constitution and government actions
are justified and should not be held liable as this Hon’ble Court should consider the
administrative difficulty being faced by the Government in extending the benefit of the
schemes to all.

[2.2] THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA IS JUSTIFIED AND DID NOT
VIOLATE THE FREEDOM TO PRESS

17¶. The government of Scindia issued notices to all the news agencies instructing that
nothing will be published without the government approval citing dissemination of fake
news. During this time of corona crisis and a sense of terror among the people any kind of
misinformation and fake information may lead to grave problems and risk to life.

18¶. Further the restriction on Freedom to Press which is implicit to freedom to speech and
expression under Article-19(1)(a) of the Constitution28 was reasonable as it is under the
permissible limit of restriction as prescribed under Article-19(2) of the Constitution.29Those
restriction are security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and
sovereignty and integrity of India.

19¶. The present requirement of pre-approval before publication of any news falls under the
restriction of “public order”. In the case of People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of

25
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, (1983) 3 SCC 387; Uttar Pradesh v. Uptron Employees Union CMD,
(2006) 5 SCC 319; Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khamalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520.
26
People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
27
Moot Proposition, ¶4.
28
Express New papers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 (614).
29
Scindia Const. art. 19, cl. 2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |6

India30 that- “The expression ‘public order’ was inserted in Article 19(2) of the Constitution
by the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951, the wide concept of 'public order' is split up
under different heads. It enables the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right to freedom of speech and expression…. Public order is therefore, something which
is demarcated from the others. In that limited sense, particularly in view of the history of the
amendment, it can be postulated that 'public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety
and tranquillity.” Any mis information or fake news if released then it can have a huge
impact on the public safety, peace and tranquillity of the nation with the prevailing sensitive
condition when people are scared and are living in uncertainty.

20¶. Further, there are provisions under Indian Penal Code, Section-18831 and Section -52 of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005.32 But punishment is a different thing which can be
levied after the mis information or fake news is spread but the result which will arise out of
the spread of fake news can be grave and the entire country can face difficulty due to that and
“public order” which includes “public peace, safety and tranquillity” 33 could be put at stake.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, World Health Organisation (WHO),
recently stated as under: “We are not just fighting an epidemic; we are fighting an infodemic.
Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous.”34

21¶. Therefore, action of Government of Scindia is justified and the restriction put on press is
valid as it falls under reasonable restriction prescribed under Article-19(2) of the
Constitution.35

[2.3] THAT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA IS JUSTIFIED AND DID NOT

VIOLATE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES OF ALL SCINDIA SERVICES

22¶. Many state governments started issuing notifications ordering pay cuts and deferments
of salaries of all government employees including those of All Scindia Services ranging
between 10%-50%. Central Government employees expressed their resentment and some

30
People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.
31
Scindian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, § 188.
32
National Disaster Management Act, 2005, No. 53, § 52.
33
People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.
34
Alice Hazelton, How to read the news like a scientist and avoid the COVID-19 ‘infodemic’, World Economic
Forum (Mar. 29, 2020, 10:05 AM), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/how-to-avoid-covid-19-fake-
news-coronavirus/.
35
Scindia Const. art. 19, cl. 2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |7

even challenged the government’s authority to do so.36 Here central government employees
mean the employees of All Scinda Services.37

23¶. Government here has the authority to pay cut and defer the salaries of employees and
due to the fight with corona as a disaster all economic activities have stopped, and
government needs huge funds to allot for the treatment and other necessities. Section- 2(d) of
Disaster Management Act, 2005 defines “disaster” as- “catastrophe, mishap, calamity or
grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man- made causes, or by accident or
negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and
destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a
nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected
area;”. The present situation of corona is a disaster according to this definition. Further
Section- 2(e) of Disaster Management Act38 defines “disaster management” as- “a continuous
and integrated process of planning, organising, coordinating and implementing measures
which are necessary or expedient for- (i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster;” and
further Section- 65 of the Disaster Management Act states that- “Power to issue direction by
Central Government.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to issue direction in writing to
the …… of its officers or employees, as the case may be, to facilitate or assist in the disaster
management and …… officer or employee shall be bound to comply with such direction.”

24¶. Therefore, according to aforesaid provisions central government can issue direction to
employees to facilitate disaster management and they are bound to follow it. Here the pay cut
and deferment will facilitate to manage the disaster Corona Virus. Further, government also
has power under Rule-2 of All India Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters)
Rules, 196039 to make rules on condition of services which did not exist before and salary is a
condition of employment.

25¶. Further, the officers such as IPS, IAS, etc have salary in lakhs and 50% of the pay cut or
deferment is reasonable and will not violate any their fundamental rights guaranteed under
the Constitution.

36
Moot Proposition, ¶7.
37
Public Services, Know India, https://knowindia.gov.in/profile/the-union/public-services.php.
38
National Disaster Management Act, 2005, No. 53, § 52.
39
All Scindia Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, No. 15, r. 2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |8

26¶. Therefore, the actions of the Government were justified and neither violate provisions of
Constitution and nor the fundamental rights of migrant worker, press and employees of All
Scindia Services.

3. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF SCINDIA CANNOT BE DIRECTED TO IMPOSE SANCTION ON

CHANG FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY AND CONVENTION

27¶. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court on behalf of the defendants that the
Government of Scindia cannot be directed to impose sanction on Chang for violation of
international treaty and convention.

[3.1] POWER RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS RESTS WITH

THE EXECUTIVE

28¶. This is because Entry 14 of List-1 of VII Schedule of the Constitution empowers the
Parliament to enact a suitable legislation on “entering into treaties and agreements with
foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign
countries40”. Till date Parliament has not enacted a law on the subject. The absence of
specific law and the void created in the Constitution allows the Union Executive to exercise
its power under Article 73 of the Constitution comes into picture which states that-
“Extent of executive power of the Union-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union
shall extend –
(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws.”41
Article 73 not only empowers the executive to enter into treaties but also authorizes to
exercise such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India
by virtue of any treaty or agreement.42

29¶. Therefore, what steps to be taken in implementation of International treaty and

convention is the decision of the Executive and the judiciary has no role to play in it. In the
case of Maganabhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India43, the Five Judge Constitution Bench
of Supreme Court observed that;
“A treaty really concerns the political rather than the judicial wing of the State.”

40
Scindia Const. Schedule VII, List-1, Entry-14.
41
Id., art. 73, cl. 1(a).
42
Id., art. 19, cl. 1(b).
43
Maganabhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Page |9

[3.2] JUDICIARY NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE POLICY DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE

30¶. The Government of Scindia and the Government of Chang engage in regular trade.
Trade is an economic activity and economic decisions are policy decisions taken by the
executive with proper discussion with the cabinet and after considering all the prevalent
situation.
In case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI 44, Supreme Court has
held that-
“The function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to
appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public
body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power.
It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith
and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is
the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over
matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such
matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected
to decide them without even the aid of experts.”

31¶. Further in the case of Premium Granites v.  State of T.N.45, while considering the court’s
powers in interfering with the policy decision, it was observed that:
“It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy
in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better
public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the
executive and legislative authorities as the case may be.”
It is also held in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga46, that-
“It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the
policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade
itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive.”
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India47, it was again held that-
“It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not
transgress into the field of policy decision, The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that

44
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343.
45
Premium Granites v.  State of T.N, (1994) 2 SCC 691.
46
State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
47
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | 10

in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people’s fundamental rights

are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution.”
32¶. Finally, the position is settled in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of
India48, that-
“In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own
policy… Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same
is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be
interfered with by the court.”
Any decision taken by the executive would be dependent on the fact that Chang has
recovered from the virus and has started exporting essential commodities to the rest of the
world.49 Any decision taken has to be taken considering all such circumstances and that has to
be done by the executive.

33¶. Further, in a similar case of Girish M. Das v. Union of India, 50 in which a similar
demand was raised in the court to direct the government to approach International Court of
Justice against Pakistan in violation of international treaty, the court had held that- They are
quite conscious of the position of law that a writ-court cannot direct the Union of India to
take any decision in a particular way regarding any of its policy towards the neighbouring
country and the writ petition filed was rejected by the court.

34¶. Therefore, due to its executive nature and involvement of policy decision making of the
executive, the Court cannot direct the Govt. of Scindia to grant any sanction against Chang
for violation of International treaty and convention even though any such violation has taken
place.

48
Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
49
Moot Proposition, ¶8.
50
Girish M. Das v. Union of India, W.P. (PIL) 138 of 2013 (Gujrat H.C. Sep. 24, 2013).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 P a g e | xi

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to adjudicate and declare that:

And/or request the Court to pass any other order as it may deem fit in the light of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed and submitted

Counsel on behalf of Defendants.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT