OPEN-01

IN THE APEX COURT OF INDUS

CIVIL APPEAL NO:……………./2021

Mr. Ramesh & Ors. ...(PLAINTIFF)

V.

State of New Dalias ...(DEFENDANT)

As Submitted Before The Hon’ble Apex Court Of Indus

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Page | 1
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I- WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1897 AND THE

IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

It is humbly submitted before this court that the implementation of Section 2 of the Epidemic
Disease Act is unconstitutional and the rules framed has to be within the framework of the
Constitution and that the Delhi epidemic diseases (management of covid-19) regulations,
2020 is unconstitutional . The reasoning behind this assertion is will be corroborated in
threefold manner

(A) The regulations are violative of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India

(B) The regulations are ambiguous, arbitrary in nature and therefore opposed to public policy

(C) The said Act is filled with ambiguity, excessive delegation and provides a huge scope for
unguided discretion in administrative action

(A) THE REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
1. In Asif Hameed and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir1 it was held that the function
of this court was to examine whether the legislature has or the executive has acted
within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the Court
must strike-down the action.

2. It is submitted that there is a huge influx of population in the State of New Dalias owing
to lucrative job opportunities2. The restrictions levied are of disproportionate nature as
they put absolute restriction on freedom of movement and freedom of trade which are
very-well protected under Article 19(1)(G) and Article 19(1)(D) and hence the said
regulations are violative of constitutional principles

3. Moreover, it is submitted that the restrictions imposed by the State of New Dalias
violates Article 21 of the Constitution Of Indus as it allows “authorized persons” from

1
Asif Hameed and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,AIR 1989 SC 1899
2
Moot Proposition 31

Page | 2
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
 taking action against a person violative of these Rules however the said term is not
clarified .

4. The counsel also submits that the said guidelines are ambiguous in nature and therefore
provides the authorities with excessive powers and threatens the life and liberty of an
individual therefore violative of Article 21

5. The counsel humbly submits that due to the existing vagueness, ambiguity and
excessively disproportionate power given to “authorized person” the State of New
Dalias clearly violates Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution

(B) (B) THE REGULATIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS, ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE
OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY
6. In the landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India 3it was said that manifest
arbitrariness must be something done by the Legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or
without adequate determining Principle. When something is done, which is excessive
and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary in nature

7. The counsel humbly submits that in the present scenario the regualtion allows
authorized persons to take action against people who are violative of these rules. It is
submitted that the notification released by the State of Dalias is ambiguous in nature
because the term authorized person is never explained. Furthermore, this may lead to
abuse of due process of law because this law may be abused by any officer who may
exercise this absolute power because he may fall within the category of authority

8. It is submitted that action that has to be taken against such people is not defined and
the relevant sections against which the persons will be prosecuted against is not
mentioned which is contrary to the spirit of rule of law and allows the executive to rule
by law

9. In light of the above mentioned facts, it is contended that the regulations notified by
the State is liable to be struck down , it being arbitrary and ambiguous in nature

3
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017)9 SCC 1

Page | 3
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
 (C) (C) THE EPIDEMIC DISESEASES ACT IS FILLED WITH AMBIGUITY, EXCESSIVE
DELEGATION AND PROVIDES A HUGE SCOPE FOR UNGUIDED DISCRETION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
10. In the case of Ram Dial and Ors. v. State of Punjab,4 the notification allowed the
government to vacate the seat of municipality on the grounds of “public interest”. The
same notification was struck down the notification being arbitrary in nature and
ambiguous because the scope of public interest was wide in nature

11. In the present scenario, Section 2 of the Act empowers the State govt. to frame any
rules if it feels that the existing legislation is insufficient to counter the problem. In doing
so, the legislation transfers excessive power to state on the discretion of the State
government itself which is arbitrary and ambiguous in nature.

12. It is humbly submitted that there are no guidelines or reasoned authority to which the
government has to subscribe to while framing rules under the said legislation which is
against the spirit of the Constitution

13. It is also submitted that the Section also suffers from the vice of excessive delegation as
the legislative assembly has been confered with excessive power. 5 Furthermore, in a
rights based society, there can be no room for pre- constitutional and authoritative law.

14. It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that since the legislation suffers from the vice of
ambiguity, excessive delegeation and provides huge scope for unguided discretion in
administrative action, the court strike down this law being unconstitutional and arbitrary
in nature

4
RAM DIAL AND ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR1965SC 1518
5
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ARTICLE 245

Page | 4
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES

CITED, MAY THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO:

 ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER OF

THE HIGH COURT OF NEW DALIAS AND DECLARE THE
EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1897 UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN
NATURE

 DECLARE THE DELHI EPIDEMIC DISEASES (MANAGEMENT OF

COVID-19) REGULATIONS, 2020 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER IT MAY DEEM FIT , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , EQUITY AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED .

Page | 5
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF