Tc-A Memorial Petitioner

TC-A
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE

1ST NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED BHARAT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED BHARAT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2022
VISHWAM NATH…………………………………….……………………….…..…PETITIONER
V.
THE UNION OF THE UNITED BHARAT…………………..……………….……. RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Page|2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 7
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 9
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ 10
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12
I. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation? ............12

1.1 Maintainability of public interest litigation .................................................................. 13
1.2 That this is a matter of public interest ...........................................................................13
II. Whether The Dependents Of Deceased Migrant Workers Are Entitled To

Compensation? .................................................................................................................. 15
III. Whether The Migrant Workers Are Liable For “Trespassing” By Choosing Railway
Tracks For Their Travel To Home Town? ..................................................................... 19
IV. Whether The Right To Livelihood A Basic Human Right Falling Under Article 21 Of
Constitution Is Violated During Pandemic Covid-19? .................................................. 24
4.1 Challenges Faced By the Workers ................................................................................ 27
8. PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 30
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Page|3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

s. Section
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
w.e.f. With Effect From
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ed. Edition
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Hon’ble Honorable
Anr. Another
All Allahabad
AP Andhra Pradesh
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
Del Delhi
Kar Karnataka
P&H Punjab and Haryana
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
U.P. Uttar Pradesh

Page|4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S. Caselaw Citation FN. PG.
No No No.
1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union Of AIR 1951 SC 41 1 10
India
2 P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union AIR 1982 SC 149 4 11
of India
3 Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary AIR 1993 SC 892 ,¶ 64 5 12
4 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v AIR 1981 SC 844 6 12
Union of India
5 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya (2008) 9 SCC 527 9 13
Kumar and Ors
6 Kumari Alka and Union of India and Ors AIR 1993 Delhi 267 10 14
7 Kishan Lal and Delhi Jal Board v. Raj AIR 2006 Delhi 75 11 14
Kumar & Ors
8 H.S.E.B. & Ors. v. Ram Nath & Ors 2004 5 SCC 793 12 14
9 Re Sant Ram AIR 1960 SC 932 14 20
10 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1983 SC 109:(1983) 1 15 20
v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath SCC 124
Nandkarni
11 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal AIR 1986 SC 180 16 20
Corporation
12 M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka &Ors AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 19 21
(4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38
SC
13 MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. AIR 1997 Bom. 406 20 21
M/s. ZY

Page|5
14 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity 1996 SCC(4) 37, JT 1996(6) 21 23

v/s State of W.B. 43
15 Pratibha Shinde & Ors. v/s State of (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 22 23
Maharashtra & Ors 87
16 Shivani Kaushik v/s Union of India & CWJC No. 353/2021 23 23
Ors
STATUES REFERRED
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Disaster Management Act, 2005
4. The Indian Railways Act,1989
5. The Epidemic Act, 1897
BOOKS REFERRED
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Ed., 2019).
2. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (13th Ed., 2019).
3. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (14th Ed., 2020).
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (36th Ed., 2020).
5. A.K. Srivastava The Disaster Management (20th Ed., 2021)
6. H. Saharay Bhaumik On the Railways Act,1989 (27th Ed. 2020)
ONLINE LEGAL DATABASE

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Lexis Nexis

Page|6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
Of the Constitution of United Bharat which reads as follows:
“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, qua warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part.”

Page|7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 United Bharat is unique in its contents and Spirit. Constitution of United Bharat providing
an independent and impartial judiciary, established parliamentary system of government
and also guarantees fundamental rights to citizen which are enforceable before court of
law.
 On 30th January 2020 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, a pandemic
disease was reported in United Bharat. All the sectors were adversely affected (economic
activity as well as a loss of human lives). The government of United Bharat also declared
‘curfew’ under Sec.144 of CrPC of United Bharat. The enforcement agencies arrested and
detained the violators.
 Mr. Ashish Baiga (migrant worker) He was engaged in construction works in another
state of “United Bharat” called Rashtra. He belonged to a poor scheduled tribe family. He
lost his job and not find out a new job. So he decided to travel back to his home with his
family(parents, wife, two children and unmarried sister) but transportation not available
due to lock down. So he along with five other co-workers started their travel to Bangla.
These migrant workers chose to walk home along the railway tracks as train routes were
considered shorter than roads. But this poor labor class group had no sufficient money for
meeting their basic needs during their travel.
 On March 5th 2020, at night by 7 pm the laborers faced fatigue and lethargy because of
sleeplessness, lack of rest and less food and water intake. They walked on tracks with
confidence as they assumed that no trains would be running because of the lock down but
they met with train accident. Mr. Ashish Baiga resulting in their death. The other three
were severely injured out of whom one lost his right leg.
 Number of railway accidents By NCRB, it was found that 805 people suffered injuries
and 8,733 people died on railway track between January 2020 and December 2020.
Majority of the dead were migrant workers.

Page|8
 United Bharat railway declared that refused to pay compensation to these migrant workers.
The victims were given a very meagre compensation by the state Governments concerned.
The Government of United Bharat also denied compensation to the victims’ families.
 Mr. Vishwam Nath, a social activist took up initiative to file a suit as public interest
litigation before Hon’ble The Supreme Court of United Bharat under Article 32 of the
Constitution of United Bharat to bring in to attention the plight of migrant workers during
Pandemic Covid 19 and to direct Central Government to pay reasonable compensation to
the family of migrant workers who met with railway accidents.
 Now the case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat:

Page|9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

INTERSET LITIGATION?
II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

ENTITLED TO COMEPNSATION?
III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

CHOOSING RAILWAY TRACKS FOR THEIR TRAVEL TO HOME TOWN?
IV. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED DURING PANDEMIC
COVID-19?

P a g e | 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present PIL is maintainable against Union
of United Bharat and also against Indian Railways as it involves the interest of public at large and
there has been violation of fundamental rights, the PIL is maintainable, and on account of the same
relief is sought.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the families of the deceased are entitled to
compensation under the Indian Railways Act 1989 and under the Prime Ministers Relief Fund as
it is a matter of negligence of Railways and the families of the deceased belongs to the weaker
section of the society and has no means to survive.

P a g e | 11

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble court that the deceased are not liable for criminal
trespass as the intention to commit any offence was missing and they choose Railways to travel to
their native place as they were on the verge of dying without food and water so they opted this
way to avoid these threshes

COVID-19?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Article 21 of the constitution has been
violated on account of right to life with dignity. Right to livelihood has been violated as the
government did not ensure adequate arrangements for the migrant workers

P a g e | 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for
the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution.
1. The sole objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in
any case of violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of
India as has been observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India1
amongst the many others. The constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the
power to issue writs for the speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right
to approach the Supreme Court for such enforcement itself a fundamental right.2
2. The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any
executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes upon
the Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by
the Courts under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar also referred Art.32 as the heart and soul of the Constitution. Described
Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to
nullity. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been
made the protector and guarantor of these Rights.
4. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
5. In the present case the basic right of livelihood is violated and the government of United
Bharat was inconsistent in arranging the basic necessity as provided under article 21 to the
migrant workers during the pandemic.
1
AIR 1951 SC 41
2
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3711 (8rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa 2008).
P a g e | 13
6. Since article 21 remains prevelant even during the times of national emergencies3 and the
constitution itself provides protection against it.
7. Hence the petitioner is justified in challenging the authority of the Central Government and
filing a writ petition for the same under Art. 32.
1.1 MAINTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
8. In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India4, articulated the concept

of PIL as follows, “any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate
direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of
fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under
Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person
or determinate class of persons.”
1.2 THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
9. The fact that 805 people suffered injuries and 8,733 people died on railway track between
January 2020 and December 2020. Majority of the dead were migrant workers, and The
Government of United Bharat also denied compensation to the victims' families on the
ground that it is impossible to compensate these many families as the economic impact of
Covid-19 pandemic in United Bharat has been largely disruptive.
10. The central government did not made any effort to make availability of basic necessities as
well as there was no travel arrangements made by the government during the pandemic.
11. Since the situation was very serious one central government should make efforts for its
people and should have arrange resources for them.
12. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation for protection and enforcement of rights
of public at large and seeks remedy for the fundamental right that has been deprived for
3
44th amendment act 1978
4
AIR 1982 SC 149
P a g e | 14
them by not providing them basic amenities during the pandemic as well as by not
providing any compensation to the families.
THE PETITONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PETITION
13. It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary5 that only a person ‘acting bona
fide6’and ‘having sufficient public interest’7in the proceeding of public interest litigation
will have alone the locus standi8 but not a person for personal gain or political motive or
any oblique consideration.
14. The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine
infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration.
15. The petitioner Vishwam Nath being a social activist which actively works in the field of
public health and welfare particularly to those belonging to lower strata therefore capable
of being acting bona fide.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental rights,
the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India bought as a Public Interest Litigation.
5
AIR 1993 SC 892, ¶ 64
6
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 844
“whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or public authority
which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury.
7
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
Public Interest- Something in which community at large has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the
particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs
of local, state or national government. See also Vineet Narain v Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
8
In Blacks’s Law dictionary (6th Edition)
Locus standi- the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.
P a g e | 15

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the deceased families are liable for
compensation under the Railway Accident And Untoward Incidents (compensation) Amendments
Rules,2016 ,Prime Ministers National Relief Fund and States Relief Fund.
The section 2 (1)(e) Untoward Incidents of Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules 2020 provides compensation in case of death and injury due to untoward
incidents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and Ors9 and contended that operation of
railways has been considered as an unnatural and hazardous activity, falling within the ambit of
the rule of strict liability.
In that case, the Court considered the provisions of Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 which
expressly provides for payment of compensation on account of any untoward incident, resulting
in injury or death of a passenger, irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act,
negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration.
The principal question to be considered is whether the railways were, negligent or had failed to
discharge its duty of care.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the deceased were migrant workers who
were travelling home and they choose railways as they are the shortest way and because of the
lockdown they were aware that the trains are not running and thus it could not be held that they
were guilty of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the railway authorities were fully aware
and/or in any event ought to have known that people cross the railway tracks which are inherently
dangerous.
9
(2008) 9 SCC 527
P a g e | 16
It is submitted that in the circumstances, the Railway authorities owe the duty to properly fence
the tracks to prevent such incidents.
So the question is whether an occupier is liable in respect of an accident to a trespasser on his land
would depend on whether a conscientious humane man with his knowledge, skill and resources
could reasonably have been expected to have done or refrained from doing before the accident
something which would have avoided it.
At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 13 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 which reads
as under:-
13. Fences, screens, gates and bars.-The Central Government may require that, within a time to
be specified in the requisition, or within such further time as it may appoint in this behalf,-
(a) Boundary-marks or fences be provided or renewed by the railway administration for the railway
or any part thereof and for roads constructed in connection therewith;
(b) any works in the nature of a screen near to or adjoining the side of any public road constructed
before the making of a railway be provided or renewed by a railway administration for the purpose
or preventing danger to passengers on the road by reason of horses of other animals being
frightened by the sight or noise of the rolling-stock moving on the railway;
(c) suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or hand-rails be erected or renewed by a railway
administration at places where a railway crosses a public road on the level;
(d) Persons be employed by a railway administration to open and shut such gates, chains, or bars."
Thus, in cases where the Central Government requires that fences be placed, the Railway
Administration would be obliged to do so. In the present case, no fences were erected.
Thus, in cases where it is found that that the Railways were in breach of their duty to take adequate
measures for safety, the railway authorities could be held liable for payment of damages.

P a g e | 17
The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of this Court in Kumari Alka and Union
of India and Ors.10, Kishan Lal and Delhi Jal Board v. Raj Kumar & Ors.11. In addition, the
petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in H.S.E.B. & Ors. v. Ram Nath &
Ors12, in support of their contention that the respondent had a duty of care and since tracks had not
been fenced, the respondent had failed to discharge the said duty and, thus, was liable to pay
compensation.
The counsel would also like to highlight the importance of The Prime Minister's National Relief
Fund (PMNRF) is primarily utilized to render immediate relief to families of those affected by
natural calamities like floods, cyclones and earthquakes etc. and to victims of the major accidents
and riots. In addition to this, the PMNRF provides financial assistance to indigent patients for
treatment of major diseases at Government/PMNRF empanelled hospitals to partially defray the
expenses.
A very large proportion of the funds stands committed to be utilized in a phased manner for various
schemes announced by PM. Funds are also earmarked for medical assistance, floods, drought,
terrorist violence and other such unforeseen occurrences, with a reserve for emergencies
The sole objective of any relief fund whether it is Prime Ministers fund or States Fund is to provide
help and relief to the one in need.
During the pandemic also there was compensation provided even to the families of those who died
due to pandemic.
The Supreme Court of United Bharat has also directed Central Government to pay
Compensation to the families of the persons who died due to Covid-19 Pandemic.
The counsel would like to highlight the fact that PMNRF is for these unforeseen circumstances,
and to provide help to those who don’t have any means to survive.
10
AIR 1993 Delhi 267
11
AIR 2006 Delhi 75
12
2004 5 SCC 793
P a g e | 18
Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been negligence on the part of the Indian
Railways by not ensuring adequate safety and the families of the deceased belong to the
underprivileged section of the society and they don’t have any means for survival thus they
shall be given enough compensation for this irretrievable loss.

P a g e | 19

It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble apex Court that the deceased shall not be held liable for
trespass as
Section 441 of The India Penal Code 1860 defines Criminal Trespass as
Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with
intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such
property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with
intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence,
is said to commit “criminal trespass”.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that according to the definition given in
IPC it is clearly given that there has to be an intention to cause any offence which is absent in our
case. The migrant workers has no intention or intent to cause any harm to anyone but they are
acting out of necessity in order to save their life and they have no jobs and there is a Nationwide
lockdown in the country so they have decided to move to their respective homes and the shortest
and safest route available to them is the railway tracks.
Hence it has been found that as there was no intention on the part of the migrant workers to cause
any offence on the railways tracks hence no trespass has been committed but there was a
negligence on the part of the state and railways to protect the lives of migrant workers as state have
shown negligence to provide them with adequate food, water and basic necessities which is the
duty of the state and on part of railways their negligence to prevent the migrant workers to take
the route of railways.
It is also submitted that the migrant workers were on the urge of dying without food and water, so
they have opted to prevent threshes by moving towards their native place by the means of Road.
The persons were as poor as they didn’t have any mode of communication and decided to choose
Railways as they are the shortest and easiest way to reach any place.

P a g e | 20
The Counsel would like to highlight the negligence of railways due to which around 10000 persons
die every year because of railway accidents.13 Another 6,367 cases of "deaths due to other
negligence" were reported across the country in 2020, up from 7,912 in 2019 and 8,687 in 2018,
it showed.
Justice S M Subramaniam in Southern Railways case 2015 said “Negligence cannot be alleged
against a deceased alone, as railways is equally contributing to the negligence by not ensuring
safety of the passengers and peoples near tracks”.
“Indian Railway authorities are receiving a very decent salary from the tax payers money therefore,
they are expected to perform there public duties with high responsibilities and accountability”.
Chapter VIII the Railways Act 1989
11 (ii) Fencing as a rule, should be provided at the following locations:-
a) For specified lengths on either side of level crossings, so as to prevent trespassing when the
gates are closed;
b) Around busy station yards for 30m width on either side;
c) In municipal limits and notified-area limits and in proximity to villages or such localities where
huts or houses are close to railway line.
d) For protection of railway land from encroachments.
Pucca boundary walls may be constructed in urban areas to prevent encroachment.
811 (iii) others preventive steps as:-
(a) Identification of vulnerable areas.
13
NcRB Statistics 2020
P a g e | 21
(b) Plantation of Juli Glora of similarly effective bushes in the area.
(c) Ensuring proper maintenance of boundary pillar.
(d) Preventive unauthorized entry of road vehicles into railway land threatening side collision with
trains, through Plantation/fencing should be done.
(e) Construction of structures and unauthorized hutments obstructing the visibility to road users at
the manned level crossings should not be permitted.
(f) Interaction with local authorities' for assistance in preventing encroachments in these areas.
(g) Joints visits of the vulnerable locations by representatives of concerned departments along with
civil authorities (wherever required) with a view to create adequate impression in the locality that
Railways are serious in preventing encroachments in the areas.
Chapter X of The Railways Act 1989 patrolling of the Railway Line it is sated that there should
be daily
1001(2) Keyman's Daily Patrol - Every portion of the permanent way shall be inspected daily on
foot by the keyman of the beat in which the portion of the track falls. Provided that the interval
between such inspections may, under special instructions, issued by Chief Engineer be increased
to once in two days in the case of specified section of lines with light and infrequent traffic.
The counsel respectfully submits that if the Indian Railways would have taken appropriate
measures as provided in the Chapter VIII and X, the incident would have been avoided and the life
of the workers and public at large could have been saved.
The following are the duties of railway police officers to avoid these trespass
a. control of passenger traffic within station premises, especially on platforms, in booking

offices, waiting halls, at entrance and exit gates and wherever specially required in
emergencies by the station officials;
b. control of vehicular and other traffic in station precincts;
P a g e | 22
c. Maintenance of order in passenger trains halted at stations and prevention of over-crowding

in carriages;
d. Supervision of loaded passenger trains standing in station;
e. arrest of persons guilty of committing nuisance, removal of persons suffering from
infectious diseases and keeping of station premises clear of beggars;
f. examination of empty carriages on arrival at terminal stations for property left behind by
passengers and inspection of carriages with a view to seeing that fittings have not been
g. tampered with;
h. removal of bodies of persons who dies in trains or on station premises and conveyance to
hospital of sick passengers
Along with the railways the state also has certain duties towards the people of its country
The following are the duties of the state during an emergency situation given in the disaster
management act.
Section 24 in the Disaster Management Act, 2005
Powers and functions of State Executive Committee in the event of threatening disaster situation.
—For the purpose of, assisting and protecting the community affected by disaster or providing
relief to such community or, preventing or combating disruption or dealing with the effects of any
threatening disaster situation, the State Executive Committee may—
a) control and restrict, vehicular traffic to, from or within, the vulnerable or affected area;
b) control and restrict the entry of any person into, his movement within and departure from,
a vulnerable or affected area
c) remove debris, conduct search and carry out rescue operations;
d) provide shelter, food, drinking water, essential provisions, healthcare and services in
accordance with the standards laid down by the National Authority and State Authority;
e) give direction to the concerned Department of the Government of the State, any District
Authority or other authority, within the local limits of the State to take such measure or
P a g e | 23
Steps for rescue, evacuation or providing immediate relief saving lives or property, as
maybe necessary in its opinion;
f) procure exclusive or preferential use of amenities from any authority or person as and when
required;
g) construct temporary bridges or other necessary structures and demolish unsafe structures
which may be hazardous to public;
Hence it is humbly submitted that the Indian Railways, The Central Government and The
State Government failed to act along with The Railways Act 1989 and The Disaster
Management Act 2005 and thus the migrant workers shall not be held liable for trespass.

P a g e | 24

COVID-19?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that According to Article 21, No person
shall be deprived of life and liberty, except procedure established by law, nor shall any person be
denied equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This
fundamental right considers every individual to be equal before the eyes of law and provides
protection to anyone, whether Indian or foreigner against deprivation of life and liberty by the
state.
Earlier the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right
to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram14, a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme
Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21. The
Court said curtly:
“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in
Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument
that the word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”
But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 was read broadly. The
Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath
Nandkarni15, came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to
livelihood’.
The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation16, popularly known as the ‘Pavement
Dwellers Case’, is important. Herein, a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to
14
AIR 1960 SC 932
15
AIR 1983 SC 109 :( 1983) 1 SCC 124
16
AIR 1986 SC 180
P a g e | 25
Livelihood is borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of
living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:
“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean,
merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and
execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”
In the instant case, the Court further opined:
“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood
or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according
to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right
to life conferred in Article 21.”
Emphasizing upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the Court stated:
“That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be
deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and
you shall have deprived him of his life17.”
Article 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and,
for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Article 21 insists is that such lack ought to be
according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore,
anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can challenge
such deprivation as being against Article 21 and get it declared void18.
17
http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf
18
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315
P a g e | 26
However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which
must be fair, just and reasonable and in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the
right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.
In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka &Ors19, the Supreme Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 does protect livelihood. However, the Court added a rider that its deprivation could not
be extended too far or projected or stretched to the recreation, business or trade detrimental to the
public interest or has an insidious effect on public moral or public order.
The Court further held that regulating video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are
not violate of Article 21, nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair or unjust.
An important case that needs to be mentioned when speaking about the right to livelihood is MX
of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY20. In this case, the Court had held that a person could
not be denied employment if they tested positive for HIV. And they cannot be rendered ‘medically
unfit’ owing to the same. In interpreting the right to livelihood, the Court emphasized that the same
couldn’t hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority.
The counsel respectfully submits that the migrant workers in India, have remained the backbone
of the Indian economy, despite being highly vulnerable in terms of physical and mental health.
However, the lockdown situation in the country because of the outbreak of coronavirus, has put
them in a precarious condition.
On one hand, they have lost their jobs, while on the other, they don’t have money to survive at
their native place. This sudden lockdown has deprived these migrant workers of their right to life
& liberty, which is against article 21. As a result, the nation witnessed mass exodus, of these
migrant workers going back to their native places. Due to the lack of transport facility they have
to walk thousands of kilometers, without food & shelter and many have succumbed to death in the
process.
19
AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC
20
AIR 1997 Bom. 406
P a g e | 27
Though the lockdown was inevitable step by the government, in order to check the spread of the
coronavirus but had it been done keeping in mind the situation of these migrant workers, we would
have saved lives of many migrant workers who died last year.
4.1 Challenges faced by migrant workers
Many migrant workers lost their jobs during the lockdown, which was their only source of income.
Due to lack of job these distressed workers have to come back to their hometown without any job,
shelter, food & transportation. Around 1.14 crores migrant workers migrated to their hometown
since 25th March 2020.
During their travel many have faced the brutality of police, in one incident a migrant worker from
Orissa succumbed to death, being beaten by the police on account of violating social distancing
norms.
On 8th May 2020, a freight train killed 16 migrant workers who had stopped to rest on railway
tracks near Aurangabad in Maharashtra. On 14th May, eight migrant workers were killed and
nearly 55 injured when the truck they were in collided with a bus near Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
According to data collected by Save Life Foundation, an NGO working in road safety, 198
migrant workers were killed in road accidents, as of 2nd June 2020. According to recent reports
there have been approximately 1,000 deaths of migrant workers reported due to various reasons
like starvation and financial distress, lack of medical care, road and train accidents, suicides, police
brutality, etc.
Another major challenge faced by the migrant worker is unemployment. According to Centre for
monitoring Indian economy (CMIE), when the lockdown was first imposed in March 2020, the
unemployment rate rose to 8.8% from 7.8% in the previous month. This rate went as high as
23.5% in April 2020 and slightly reduced to 21.7% in May. On May 29th, 2020, a 50-year-old
man, working in a hotel in Shahjahanpur district (UP) allegedly committed suicide by jumping in
front of a train, leaving behind his wife, mother & four children. He mentioned in his suicide note
that he was left penniless after losing his job due to lockdown and was unable to buy other essential

P a g e | 28
Commodities, such as sugar, salt and milk. In another incident two young men aged 22 and 20,
working in Delhi & Mumbai respectively committed suicide on May 27th.
Reports show that the migrants were not able to leave the city and had to struggle to get food and
shelter. As many as 16000 people filled 220 shelter homes in Delhi last year. The number kept on
increasing but these shelter homes didn’t have enough space to accommodate them. All shelter
homes were overcrowded, breaking the protocol of social distancing norm. On 4th May 2020, in
Surat, 100 of migrant workers seeking to return to their home were arrested by police during a
protest demanding travel arrangements to return to their home. On 11th May 2020, a few migrant
workers were beaten and killed by Bangalore police at KG Halli police station who requested the
Karnataka government to make arrangements for their return to their hometown Uttar Pradesh.
In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v/s State of W.B.21 The Supreme Court
relying upon Parmanand Katara’s judgment has categorically held that it is the primary duty of
the Government to secure the welfare of the people and it is the constitutional obligation of the
State to provide adequate medical facilities for the people. In this case, the patient was denied
medical treatment in a government hospital for non-availability of bed, the Supreme Court held it
to be violative of Article 21 and directed the Government to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to
the patient.
The Bombay High Court in the case of Pratibha Shinde & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra &
Ors22. While dealing with the case of the unfortunate death of an old lady suffering from Covid-
19 on account of negligence on part of hospital administration in providing timely and proper
medical treatment, fixed the accountability on the State Government by directing to pay
compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the legal heirs of the patient for violation of her fundamental
rights.
21
1996 SCC(4) 37, JT 1996(6) 43
22
(2021) SCC Online Bom 87
P a g e | 29
The Patna High Court in the case of Shivani Kaushik v/s Union of India & Ors23 has observed
that inaction on the part of the State in providing adequate health care to the citizens, particularly
during the prevailing Covid-19 situation, would be violative of Right to Life under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court while hearing the suo-moto petition In-Re Inhuman Condition At
Quarantine Centers And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive vide its order
dated 04.05.2021 in a very ignominy and infuriated manner observed that “non-supplying of
oxygen to the hospitals is a criminal act and not less than a genocide by those who have been
entrusted the task to ensure continuous procurement and supply chain of the liquid medical
oxygen.”
The counsel humbly submits that there was violation of The Fundamental Right i.e. Right To
Livelihood (Art. 21), the right not only confers Right To basic Necessities but also Right To
live with Dignity, which was violated during the pandemic.
23
CWJC No. 353/2021
P a g e | 30
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels
for Petitioner humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court, to be graciously pleased to:
I. Provide, adequate compensation to the families of the deceased.
II. Direct, the railway authority to take measure to avoid these trespass.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that the Court may deem fit in light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this kindness, the Petitioners, as duty bound as ever, shall humbly pray.
All of which is humbly prayed by,
TC-A
Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners


Tc-A Memorial Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tc-A Memorial Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-A

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2022

THE UNION OF THE UNITED BHARAT…………………..……………….……. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 7

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ 10

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12

I. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation? ............12

II. Whether The Dependents Of Deceased Migrant Workers Are Entitled To

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

14 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity 1996 SCC(4) 37, JT 1996(6) 21 23

ONLINE LEGAL DATABASE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

IV. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

IV. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC

1.1 MAINTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

8. In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India4, articulated the concept

1.2 THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST

THE PETITONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PETITION

II. WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

III. WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Chapter VIII the Railways Act 1989

11 (ii) Fencing as a rule, should be provided at the following locations:-

b) Around busy station yards for 30m width on either side;

d) For protection of railway land from encroachments.

Pucca boundary walls may be constructed in urban areas to prevent encroachment.

811 (iii) others preventive steps as:-

(a) Identification of vulnerable areas.

(b) Plantation of Juli Glora of similarly effective bushes in the area.

(c) Ensuring proper maintenance of boundary pillar.

a. control of passenger traffic within station premises, especially on platforms, in booking

c. Maintenance of order in passenger trains halted at stations and prevention of over-crowding

Section 24 in the Disaster Management Act, 2005

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS