SCRIPT PETITIONER 1

Greetings of the day hon’ble bench , Counsel seeks permission to address the bench collectively as
your lordship, much obliged.Counsel along with her co counsel is honored to present the case of XYZ
V. union of rashtra on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel shall be dealing with issue 1 in apppx 15
minutes and her co counsel shall be dealing with issues 2 and 3 in approax 15 minutes.
Counsel seeks permission to brief yourlordships with the facts.

Counsel seeks your lordships permission to proceed with issue 1, much obliged.
Issue 1 is whether the order is violative of arrricle 19, 21 and principles pf federalism which is a
part of the basic structure of constitution.
Your lordship the counsel will adrress the issue is divided into three limbs, IE, whether the the order
order is violative of article 19, violative of article 21 and violative of principles of federalism.
Adressing the first limb, your lordhship, it is most humbly submitted that, the impunged order is
violative of article 19 of the constitution because it is not in accordance with article 19(2).
Secondly, this hon’ble court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Union of India held
that , news are published in the press from time to time to expose the weaknesses of the government.
This leads at times to the suppression of the freedom of the press by the government. Therefore, the
primary duty of the Courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions
which interfere with the freedom of the press contrary to the constitutional mandate. it is an attempt
of the respondents to suppress freedom of speech and expression when it is most needed-
Supreme court in IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING
PANDEMIC . ―with deep distress that we note that individuals seeking help on such platforms have
been targeted, by alleging that the information posted by them is false and has only been posted in
social media to create panic, defame the administration In these trying times, those desperately seeking
help for their loved ones on these platforms should not have their misery compounded through the
actions of the State and its instrumentalities with such clamdonwns on information sharing” s[ecially
when there have been multiple instances of underreporting.
Your lordship this order is also violative of right to seek and impart information,
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal,
the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) includes the right to acquire
information and to disseminate the same, state of up v raj narain, the right to know is derived from the
concept of freedom of speech”. Pucl v union of India, Without adequate information, a person cannot
form an informed opinion, in a very recent judgement Sneha Nirav Marjadi v. State of Maharashtra
the sc urged the Government to have expert opinion of all the stakeholders so that the dashboard
reflects the correct picture.
your lordship it is an established legal principle that if a law is imposing any restriction on freedom of
speech and expression enrshrined under article 19(1)(a), it must be done in accordance with article
19(2). this has been affirmed by this hon’ble court in several decisions including romesh thapar v
union of india where this court held a view that “So long as the possibility of such a provision being
applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it may be held to be wholly
unconstitutional and void”. article 19(2) provides for 5 restrictions, IE, sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality
or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Referring to the facts on para 6 page 2, reason of passing this order was unverified information was
leading to widespread panic amongst people and was derailing efficient management of the NOVID-19
disaster.2 Clearly, facts does not imply concerned restriction was imposed for any reason provided
under article 19(2) of the constitution.
Om Kumar v. Union of India9 Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Courts are entitled to
consider the proportionality‖ of these restrictions which means that the restrictions should not be
―arbitrary or of an excessive‖ nature, beyond what is required for achieving the objects of the
legislation.
IF asked- is there a relationship between public order and public panic,
This hon’ble court in Ram manohar lohia v state of bihar and V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore
Held that restriction can be said to be in the interests of public order only if the connection between the
restriction and the public order is proximate and direct. Indirect or far-fetched or unreal connection
between the restriction and public order would not fall within the purview of the expression ‗in the
interests of public order. Therefore, by imposing a resptriction to comply with only governemnt
figures wihtout imposing reasonable restriction under 19(2) is violative of article 19.

Addressing the second limb, it is humbly submitted that the order violates article 21 of the
constitution of rashtra,
Supreme court in several cases including Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v/s State of W.B and
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 812,
Has obsereved that right to access to health care is an integral part of right to life under article 21 and
it is he duty of the government to provide acess to medical care.
In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India18 the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that
preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that ‗once life is lost, status
quo ante cannot be restored‘.Especially since the state couldn‘t manage the crisis and many people
were left to fend for themselves The Court went on to say that the failure on the part of the government
hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the
violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

Reiterating this court’s decision in The apex court IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL
SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC categorically observed that, It is only
appropriate then that when many cities in India are suffering through the second wave of the COVID-
19 pandemic, many have turned to the internet, using applications/websites to find critical support. In
these trying times, those desperately seeking help for their loved ones on these platforms should not
have their misery compounded through the actions of the
State and its instrumentalities.
It is imperative to note that, the gravity of medical crisis is so high that people have to
actually rely on social media and internet to check for resources. In such a situation, the
order completely prohibits citizens and state governments from posting any alternative data, is making
it very difficult for common people to get access to covid resources such availability of beds, medicines
etc. this is a blatant violation of the said right because official website of gov was not free of
inaccuracies.
Violating principles of federalism
The highest court of the land in its historic case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala19 in 1976
has declared federalism as the basic structure of the Constitution. the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution which distributes the powers between different constituent units (Union and the States)
gives states precedence over the Centre on health. Entry 81 of the Union List grants the legislative
power for ―interstate migration; inter-state quarantine‖ to the Centre; meanwhile, Entries 1, 2 and 6
of the State List give the legislative field of ―public order,‖ ―police‖ and importantly ―public health
and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries‖ to the states; from the constitutional scheme, the state
governments are expected to play the primary role in the management of healthcare.
Section 11 DMA
It is therefore submitted that, the impugned order obligates the states to disseminate information only in
accordance with the order and not otherwise, this is a clear violation as it binds the governments
without accepting any suggestions, even the reason given by them IE, to control public panic cannot be
accepted as public order (remotely related) also falls under state list. hence, it is in clear violation of
principles of federalism enshrined the constitution.