Rough Draft - P&R

1
SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW 2ND NATIONAL MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HINDIA
(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO._____/2022
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

AGHAM …PETITIONER
VS
STATE OF MELUHA & Ors. …RESPONDENT
CLUBBED WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO._____/2022
KAILASH …PETITIONER
VS
STATE OF MELUHA & Ors. …RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................5
 CASES CITED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
 LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................
PRAYER..................................................................................................................

3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Art. Article
§ Section
Re. Reference
Vs Versus
WP Writ Petition
AIR All India Record
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Para Paragraph
VOL Volume
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
NDRF National Disaster Response Force
SDRF State Disaster Response Force
NGO Non- Governmental Organization
UOI Union of India
ACJ Amended Consent Judgment
Div. Divisional
Co Company
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4
 CASES CITED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND JOURNALS
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble High Court under
Article 226 1 of the Constitution of Hindia.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India, 1950
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

6
 Hindia is a Union of States and Union territories having a quasi-federal structure of governance
with a written constitution. Meluha, a State of Hindia being an agrarian state, farmers depend
mainly on groundwater for irrigation. With scarcity of water and urbanisation, deeper borewells
are drilled for groundwater abstraction.
 Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) submitted a report stating, “Excessive drilling of
borewells had led to exploitation of groundwater at higher rates than the rate of water recharge
and caused depletion of the groundwater levels”. To monitor this alarming issue, the
Government of Hindia has taken several initiatives and enacted prominent legislative measures
to regulate and keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.
 In a rural village Gotham, State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to construct a
borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The purpose of the common borewell
was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water shortage the drilling process
was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was
completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell
site.
 A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a
five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered defunct borewell which was drilled by
the local panchayat. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet.
 Several voluntary groups, fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices
and prior rescue experience. However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell.
During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of oxygen
was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment. Various Central
and State agencies were called in to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National Disaster
Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue
operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process live and the sensation paved
a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the District Collector not to telecast the

7
incident live.
 Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue operation
it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was monitored through
cameras, indicated the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with mud covered over him.
 Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy stuck
at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as geologists pointed out
that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. Though Fire and Rescue service
persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with all necessary
supports. They faced complications in the rescue due to bad weather/drizzling and maintaining
the speed of the drilling since there were chances of the abandoned borewell getting closed
completely in case of vibrations.
 Despite of the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be rescued.
The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the
guidelines. “Agham” NGO filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government
seeking compensation for the death of the boy. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL
seeking the Government to issue suitable directions for telecasting the sensational news around
the clock, which covered the rescue process live from close quarters and several channels
telecasted disturbing images of the trapped boy.
 The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.

8
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?
2. WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?
3. WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
4. WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATION

LIVE IS PERMISSIBLE?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS


10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitions filed by the “Agham” NGO
and Kailash- the social activist are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of Hindia.
2. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined as “(1.) A matter
of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a
love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected’.
3. Public Interest Litigation is enshrined under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of
Hindia.
4. A PIL is filed to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law. The deceased boy
in the present case belonged to the rural village of “Gotham”, State of Meluha, Hindia, it cannot
be asserted that all the people are literate and aware of their legal rights and legal procedures.
Thus, it is evident from the facts that the NGO “Agham” has filed the PIL in good faith on behalf
of the parents as their legal representative by providing a support system to the 5 year old boy’s
parents.
5. Features of PIL: (Durga Das Basu- 8th edition 2008 vol 3.)
i. By creating a new regime of human rights by expanding the meaning of fundamental

right to equality, life and personal liberty. In this process, right to speedy trial, free legal
aid dignity, means of livelihood, education, housing, medical care, clean environment,
right against torture, sexual harassment, solitary confinement, bondage and servitude,
exploitation and so on emerge as human rights. These new reconceptualised rights

11
provide legal resources to activate courts for their enforcement through PIL.
ii. By democratization of access to justice. This is done by relaxing the traditional rule of
locus standi. Any public spirited citizen or social action group can approach the court on
behalf of the oppressed classes. Courts’ attention can be drawn even by writing a letter or
sending a telegram. This has been called epistolary jurisdiction.
iii. By fashioning new kinds of reliefs under the court writ jurisdiction; for example, the
court can award interim compensation to the victim of governmental lawlessness. This
stands in sharp contrast to the Anglo- Saxon model of adjudication, where interim relief
is limited to preserving the status quo pending final adjudication. The grant of
compensation of PIL matters does not preclude the aggrieved person from bringing a
civil suit for damages. In PIL cases, the court can fashion any relief to the victim.
iv. By judicial monitoring of State institutions such as jails, women’s, protective homes,
juvenile homes, mental asylums at the like. Through judicial invigilation, the Court seeks
gradual improvement in their management and administration. This has been
characterised as “creeping jurisdiction” in which the court takes over the administration
of their institution of protecting human right.
v. By devising new techniques of fact-finding. In most cases the court has appointed its
socio-legal commissions of enquiry or has deputed its own officials for investigation.
Sometimes it has taken the help of National Human Rights Commissions or Central
Bureau of investigation (CBI) or experts to enquire into human right of violation. This
may be called investigation litigation.
6. In the current instance the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable because the “Agham”-
NGO has filed the PIL in public interest for social justice and enforcement of constitutional and
other legal rights. Parents of the dead five year old boy are vulnerably exposed to such kind of
irresponsible and dangerous acts of the Respondent Authorities because of their status of
poverty, socially and economically disadvantaged position. Therefore, they are at mercy before
this Hon’ble High Court for justice and have approached this Court for relief.
7. Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 states- Suit for compensation to the family of a

12
person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.—Whenever the death of a
person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such
as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and
recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not
ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person
injured and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in
law to felony or other crime.
[***] Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if
any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the
name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased;
and in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the
loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such
action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses,
including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before-
mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall
direct.
1. (EXPLAIN THE WHOLE ACT IN 1 PARA) As per the section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act,
1855- the death of the boy has not been caused by any wrongful act in the view of the fact that
the construction of the borewell was done by the local panchayat authorities from the funds
received from the State of Meluha. Since the State of Meluha is an agrarian state , farmers
depend mainly on groundwater for irrigation. And the erection of the borewell was to increase
the agricultural productivity in the rural village “Gotham”. It is evident from the facts that the
purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields.
Therefore the respondent authorities did not commit any wrongful act.
2. It is also submitted that no negligent act was performed on the part of the respondent authorities
since all rules and safety measures were followed by the respondent authorities as mentioned in
the matter of Measures for prevention of Fatal Acidents of small children due to
their falling into abandoned borewells and tubewells: In Re v. Union of India
(2010)15 SCC 224 in construction of the borewell and after leaving the borewell site. The
respondent authorities had complied with all said guidelines and performed their duty with utter
responsibility. There was suitable barrier erected along with a warning notice affixed station not
to enter the borewell site. All the necessary precaution were taken before leaving the borewell
site. The construction of the bore well was started within the purview of the Sarpanch of the
Local Panchayat Authorities and the District Collector, and the Exeutive of the Agricultural
Board and each of the authority were careful in executing their action. Therefore, there was no
negligence committed by the respondent authorities.

13
3. It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the petition/PIL for compensation by the
NGO “Agham” had the alternative remedy of filing before the appropriate Civil Court. As the
the petition only demands compensation for the death of five year old boy “Sanjay” and not
other concern has been shown. They could have approached the competing civil court which
also has the jurisdiction to rightly provide for the same. If aggrieved by the decision of that
court then it would rightful for them to knock at the doors of this Hon’ble High Court.
4. The Fatal accident act confers the common law right to claim damages for tortuous actsas a
statutory rights to recover compensation by dependents for loss of dependency due to the death
of a person caused by an actionable wrong by way of an action in a civil court. Polavarapu
somarajayam v. A.P.R.T.C., Hyderabad, 1984 (1) TAC 247 at p.253 (AP)
5. No mention of the legal presentative authority given the the NGO to file a PIL. There are no
particulars mentioned by the plaintiff about the parents of the dead five year old boy. The nature
of claim with respect to the damages is not mentioned. And there arises no fault or negligence
as the respondent authorities had followed necessary safety measures for avoidance of such
accidents.
6. has not stated that for whose benefit the compensation PIL has been filed and also not
mentioned any relation whether they have been entrusted as the executing or representative
party on behalf or for the parents. There shows to be no guarantee that the compensation if
received will be handed over to the parents of the deceased child.
8. As per Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 the Agham NGO has filed an action on
behalf of the parents of the dead five year old boy to provide them relief and just compensation
for the loss of their only son.
9. In the Judges Transfer case S. P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, AIR
1982 SC 149, a 7-member Bench of the Supreme Court firmly established the rule regarding
public interest litigation. It was held- Any member of the public having “sufficient interest” can
approach the Court for enforcing constitutional or legal rights of other persons and redressal of a
common grievance. The Supreme Court held that: “Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is
caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any
constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or
legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong is threatened by reason of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to
approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Art. 226 or to the Supreme Court
under Art. 32.”
10. The Petitioners humbly submit that the efforts put by the respondent authorities lacked leading to
which a five year old boy died by falling in the abandoned borewell due to negligence and

14
unsupervised attitude of the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities were negligent
and had ignored the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re v.
Union of India (2010)15 SCC 224 which caused death of a five-year-old boy.
11. A PIL is a power given by the court to the public for judicial activism. In the process of filing of
the PIL, the Petitioners- Agham NGO and Kailash (social activist) have kept in mind the
objective of welfare of the people. Their intentions are bona fide and have a public spirit. Thus,
in the case of Majdur Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai Faizulla Bhai (1976 AIR 1455, 1976 SCR (3)
591), Justice Krishna Iyer allowed a gaggle of individual to file the petitions on behalf of the
others and held that procedural prescriptions are handmaids, not mistresses of justice and failure
of fair play is the spirit in which Courts must view processual deviances. Public interest is
promoted by a spacious construction of locus stand in our socio-economic circumstances,
conceptual latitudinarianism permit taking liberties with individualisation of the right to invoke
the higher courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they
are weaker. In this instant matter, there is a violation of basic human rights of the dead five year
old boy and his parents due to the poor and faulty conduct of the respondent authorities in
executing/performing their public duty diligently.
12. The Supreme Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 7 (1982) 3 SCC
235 : (1983) 1 SCR 456 recognized that a “third party” may approach the court in the interest of
the aggrieved; the only conditions are that there must be a substantial question of law or there
must be violation of fundamental rights and the petition must be in the public spirit. The growth
of PIL has witnessed the concept of “next friend” that has been recognized in recent times. In
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (8 (2013) 2 SCC 398 the Supreme Court recognized “next
friends” as those who can file a PIL in the interest of those aggrieved persons who are disabled,
or do not have the means to file the same.
13. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 this Court considered
the scope of public interest litigation. In paragraph 53 of the said judgment, after considering
what is public interest, has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331)
“The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a
court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the

15
expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” Furthermore, the
petitioners have rightfully approached this court as the High Courts have jurisdiction to enforce
other legal rights. It has been held that the power conferred by these provisions is not merely
injunctive i.e. preventive but also remedial and includes a power to award compensation, interim
or final, in appropriate cases.
14. (ADD POINT ON 2ND PIL)
15. Therefore, it is submitted that Agham has filed this PIL on behalf of the parents of the dead five
year old boy for compensation which they rightly deserve as their legal right but have no means
to attain, thus fulfilling all criteria of the PIL .
16. SOCIAL ACTIVIST
17. It is humbly submitted by the Counsel of Petitioners that the petitions filed by Agham-NGO and
Kailash- social activist are rightly maintainable before the High Court of Meluha, because the
Constitution of Hindia has given its citizens right to approach the court under Article 226.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?
1. It is humbly submitted that the acts of the deceased attracts tortious liability as the Authorities
including the State Government of Meluha, the Local Panchayat Authorities, Executive Of
Agricultural Department and the District Collector have failed in performing their duty with
relation to the abandoned borewell resulting in loss of life of a five year old boy.
2. In the first instance it is the duty of the Government to check for all factors before providing
subsidies for the erection of borewell to improve agricultural productivity which tackles climate
change and sustainable management of natural resources. However, the Government failed in
doing so.
3. The Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) submitted a report stating that “Excessive drilling of
and caused depletion of the groundwater levels”. Regardless of the fact of this report, the
Government provided funds to the Local Panchayat Authorities of the rural village “Gotham” to

16
construct a borewell. It is stated that the Government of Hindia took several initiatives and
enacted prominent legislative measures to regulate on keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.
However, these initiatives taken were insufficient resulting the borewell to be left abandoned.
4. The respondent authorities by their own will neglected to follow the safety measures issued by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As it was their mere duty to look after the safety of the citizens and
provide them the best sustainable life.
5. The guidelines are aforesaid in the matter of Measures for prevention of Fatal Acidents of
small children due to their falling into abandoned borewells and tubewells: In Re v. Union of
India (2010)15 SCC 224- and the same following points were not followed in the maintenance
of borewells and tubewells and abandoned borewells such as:-
i. Para 4.4 states, ‘Erection of barbed wire fencing or any other suitable barrier around the
well during construction’. Falling of the boy in the uncovered defunct borewell cannot be
rightly said that the borewell site was fenced appropriately that could have restricted the
boy from entering the restrained site in the first place.
ii. Para 4.5 states, ‘Construction of cement/concrete platform measuring 0.50 m × 0.50 m ×
0.60 m (0.30 m above the ground level and 0.30 m below the ground level) around the
well casing’. If this guideline would have been adhered to, the borewell would have been
visible and such an accident of the death of the five year old boy could have been
avoided.
iii. Para 4.9 states, ‘Filling up abandoned borewells by clay/sand/boulders/pebbles/drill
cuttings, etc. from bottom to the ground level’. The uncovered abandoned borewell is
self-explanatory that the duties by the respondent authorities was inefficient due to which
the young boy accidentally fell in the borewell to which he succumbed to death.
iv. Para 4.11 states, ‘District Collector should be empowered to verify that the above
guidelines are being followed and proper monitoring check about the status of
borewells/tubewells are being taken care through the State/Central Government Agencies
concerned’. The District Collector was negligent in performing its duty in the monitoring
process.
v. Para 4.13 states, ‘In the rural areas, the monitoring of the above is to be done through
Village Sarpanch and the Executive from the Agricultural Department.’ Here too, both

17
Authorities acted negligent and attract tortious liability as failure towards performing
their duty led to the death of a five year old child in the rural village of Gotham.
6. Para 4.14 states, ‘If a borewell/tubewell is “abandoned” at any stage, a Certificate from the
Department concerned of Groundwater/Public Heath/Municipal Corporation/private contractor,
etc. must be obtained by the aforesaid agencies that the “abandoned” borewell/tubewell is
properly filled up to the ground level. Random inspection of the abandoned wells is also to be
done by the Executive of the Agency concerned. Information on all such data on the above are to
be maintained in the District Collector/Block Development Office of the State.’ There was no
certificate obtained from the concerned Department, as the abandoned borewell was not filled up
to the ground level with the required materials mentioned in the guidelines. The Executive of the
agency concerned was careless in his duty. District Collector/ Block Development Office of the
State were also irresponsible in maintaining the information regarding the status and data of
borewell.
7. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that it is an admitted fact that the respondent
authorities including the Local Panchayat authorities along with District Collector abruptly
stopped the drilling process and left the borewell uncovered. Even though the borewell site was
completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith with a warning not to enter the borewell
site. It is highly unreasonable to assume that a five year old boy would be aware of the dangers
with respect to uncovered defunct borewell. Further, the instance of a five year old boy fell into
the borewell itself proves that the fencing around the borewell was improper.
8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that even after several efforts made by the
respondent authorities they were not able to assess the boy’s condition and after hours of the
rescue operation it was detected that the five year old boy had fainted but was still breathing. The
admitted fact that the respondent authorities took so much time to assess the boys condition itself
proves the incompetency and lethargic action of the respondent authorities.
9. It is a well settled principle of democracy that the State shall work effortlessly for the welfare of
the people. However, the efforts made by the respondent authorities were not sufficient enough
to save the five year old boy.
10. A 5 year old cannot be held liable for the actions that he could not predict or could have
foreseen. Nor the motive or intention can be taken into consideration in the case of a minor child
because both the elements were absent as the five year old boy fell accidentally into the borewell

18
due to dereliction duty of the respondent authorities. The local panchayat authorities are
negligent as they knew and could have foreseen the danger of leaving the borewell uncovered.
(Sushil Ansal v. State Through C. B. I., 2014 (2) T. A. C. 391 : 2014 (2) Supreme 134 : 2014 (3) Scale 174 : 2014 (6) SCC 173
(S.C.)
11. It is evident from the case that the deceased who is 5 year old boy, died due to negligence,
misfeasance and non-feasance of the respondent authorities. (Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd vs
State Of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (4) 1, JT 1994 (3) 492, p 504)- (put the case for citation only in
footnote and not argument as it just defines these terms) The term “misfeasance” is applicable to
some improper performance of some lawful act, for example, when there is negligence. The term
“non-feasance” applies to the omission to perform some act when there is an obligation to
perform it. Not filling up the borewell with the said materials from the bottom to the ground level
in addition to not building up a concrete/cement platform around it attracts tortious liability
toward the concerning Authorities who failed to monitor the status of the abandoned well and did
nothing about it. Nor did the concerned agency take efforts in doing the inspection of the
abandoned well. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, a clock tower fell down
in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, many people were injured and many died. The clock tower was not
repaired for many years and the municipal corporation was required to maintain it. The
Municipal corporation failed to do so and the tower collapsed. The municipal corporation was
held liable as it was their duty to repair the clock which they failed to do. It can be called as
nonfeasance as there was an omission in performing the compulsory act.
12. In the case of Delhi Jal Board vs Raj Kumar And Ors., IV (2005) ACC 746, 2006 ACJ 1025,
AIR 2006 Delhi 75, 125 (2005) DLT 120, (2006) 142 PLR 33 it was stated-
When a manhole is constructed the DJB must see to it not only that it is properly covered but
also that the manhole is in line with the surface of the road. If the manhole is only covered but
the cover is below the surface of the road it is likely to cause an accident, particularly if a person
is driving a two wheeler in insufficient light and there is no caution sign. It is the duty of the
Delhi Jal Board to construct and maintain manholes properly, and not at its whims and fancies.
Maintaining a manhole with a cover which is below the surface of the road, in our opinion is
wholly improper and hazardous and in violation of the duty of the Jal Board. A Division Bench
of this Court had upheld the decision of a Single Judge in awarding compensation in respect of a

19
fatal accident that had been caused because the manhole cover was not placed on the surface
level of the road but three inches below. Also in the case of Kishan Lal v. GNCT of Delhi:
W.P.(C) 5072-73/2005, decided on 03.07.2007, a body of a young child was found in a drain. It
was concluded by the court that the minor had died due to falling in a manhole, which had been
left uncovered due to the negligence of the concerned respondent authorities. In Rakesh and
Anr. v. GNCT of Delhi and Anr.: W.P.(C) 11018-19/2006, and Matlum Ahmed & Anr. v.
GNCT: W.P. (C) 11020/2006, the Court had found the Municipal Corporation to be negligent as
a sewer and drain passing through a congested area were left uncovered and minors had lost their
lives by falling into the said drains.
So is the matter in the present case of a five year old boy losing his life because of the negligence
of the Authorities in power. With reference to the above mentioned cases, the court held them
liable for negligence and also held the accountable to provide damages and compensation to the
aggrieved party.
13. Darshan & Others (Smt.) vs Union Of India & Ors., 2000 ACJ 578, 1999 IVAD Delhi 209,
79 (1999) DLT 432, 1999 (49) DRJ 655, (1999) 122 PLR 5 1999 SCC OnLine Del 358 : 2000
ACJ 578 : PLR (1999) 122 Del 5- When untimely death is caused due to fall in uncovered
manhole, it amounts to negligence of the instrumentalities of the state and dereliction of duty
writ large in leaving the manhole uncovered. HELD: State was liable when its instrumentalities
failed to discharge its duty of care cast upon it resulting in deprivation of life or limb of a person.
Accordingly, Article 21 of the Constitution is attracted and the petitioners are entitled to invoke
Article 226 to claim monetary compensation as such a remedy is available in public law, based
on strict liability for breach of fundamental rights. In view of our case, the Constitution of Hindia
puts forth the duty on the State to ensure the safety of life of its citizens and all such measures
should be taken to do so. However, the concerned respondent authorities failed before the law as
they did not abide by their duty mentioned in the guidelines in relation to the borewells.
14. It is humbly submitted that the death of the boy attracts tortious liability of the State as no efforts
were taken by the Respondent Authorities to perform their duty diligently on following the
guidelines put forth to avoid fatal accidents due to borewells. Due to this negligence of the
Authorities, the rural village of Gotham suffered the loss of a five year old boy.

20
ISSUE 3: WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
1. The Fatal Accidents Act confers the common law the right to claim damages for tortious acts as
statutory right to recover compensation by dependents for loss of dependency due to the death of
person caused by an actionable wrong, by way of an action in a Civil Court. (Polavarapu
Somarajyam And Ors. vs Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1983 AP 407)
2. It must be mentioned that the claim for compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in respect of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy
available in public law. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri
vs State Of West Bengal, State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996), the Supreme Court had clearly
observed that the claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of the
fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the
Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private
law for damages for tortious acts of public servants.
3. By not doing what one was ought to do constitutes negligence. The Respondent authorities in the
present case failed on performing their mere duty on inspecting, monitoring the abandoned
borewell and also failed to do the needful in abiding with the guidelines put forth by the Supreme
Court to avoid such fatal accidents to take place.
4. The Preamble to the Constitution says, “Whereas no action or suit is not maintainable in any
Court against a person who, by his wrongful act, neglect, or default, may have caused the death
on another person, and it is often times right ad expedient that the wrongdoer in such case should
be answerable in damages for the injury so caused by him.”
5. The laxity of Respondent authorities in the present matter attracts the liability of torts escalating
to which they are liable to provide compensation. In the case of Charanjit Kaur vs Union Of
India on 21 January, 1994 AIR 1491, 1994 SCR (1) 200- It was held that the responsibility of
the death of the deceased was prima facie traceable to the fact of criminal omissions and
commissions on the part of Concerned Authorities. The petitioner was held entitled to suitable
compensation as well as special family allowance and children allowance according to relevant

21
rules. In the rural village of Gotham too, if the authorities would have filled up the well with
clay/ sand, etc. this sorrowful incident would not have occurred.
6. In Ashok Sharma And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 July, 2007 six children
lost their lives by drowning during an annual training camp of NCC on account of negligence on
the part of respondents. The compensation was awarded by applying the multiplier method. Also
in that case of Suraj Verma vs Delhi Development Authority, 2015 (4) T.A.C 372 (Del) the
deceased was a minor boy of age 6 years. The claimant was the father of the boy, age 39 years.
The body of the boy was found floating in the pit around the manhole. It was held by the Trial
Court that the death of the boy occurred due to negligence of the defendant and the father of the
child was awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. An appeal in the High Court for
enhancement was accepted and the total compensation computed to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Implying
from these cases, death caused due to negligence on behalf of the concerning authorities, lays
down a liability on them to provide for compensation.
7. The facts state that geologists signalized that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and
feldspar. Quartz is a hard, crystalline mineral composed of silica (silicon dioxide). Chronic
inhalation of silica dust can lead to lung disease. Feldspars are a group of rock-forming
aluminium tectosilicate minerals, containing sodium, calcium, potassium, or barium. The mineral
in Potassium feldspar contains small quantities of radioactive uranium that slowly forms radon
gas, a major cause of lung cancer. The boy being trapped with mud covered all over him which
contained silica dust and other hazardous components for health, additionally amounted in
jeopardizing his life because of the negligence of the authorities.
8. In the case of Smt. Kalawati And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr. , II (1988)
ACC 192, AIR 1989 HP 5 due to administration to the deceased nitrous oxide instead of oxygen
at the time of the surgical operation the death of patient was caused. Magisterial enquiry was
conducted and negligence of staff of Hospital was proved. High Court has power to exercise writ
jurisdiction to award damages in case where precious life is lost. Jurisdiction under Article 226
was much wider than that under Article 32. In view of our case, it is the duty of the authorities to
check the type of components present in the soil before starting the construction of the borewell
in that area. There stands a high possibility that due to the presence of those hard rocks of quartz

22
and feldspar and the components it consists of not only hampered with the rescue process but
also put the boy in a condition where he was ill at ease because of inhalation of those toxic
components.
9. In the case of Punjab Civil And Consumer Welfare Front (Regd.), Banur and another vs
Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... I (1999) ACC 636, 2000 ACJ 1281, AIR 1999 P H
32, (1998) 120 PLR 92 Death of 3 years old female child caused by drowning in an uncovered
manhole. Inspite of Administration knowing about theft of manhole-covers, neither proper
remedial measures taken nor periodical checks ever made and not even proper system was
evolved by which such thefts could be avoided. So, the administration failed in common law
duty for taking reasonable care. Held by the court- It can be said that the administration was
negligent in performing its duty. Hence, charge of not taking reasonable care proved and Rs. 1
lakh awarded as compensation. Same is the case with the Executive of the concerned agency in
not coming in for inspection of the abandoned well, also with the Executive of the Agriculture
Department, Village Sarpanch and District Collector on not monitoring on whether the
guidelines were being abided by leads to the negligence of these authorities.
10. In the case of K. Samikkannu vs The Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By The Secretary,
Department of Energy, New Delhi and others, I (1997) ACC 448: 1997 (2) TAC 568 (Mad)
The court was satisfied that the second respondent was negligent in allowing the villagers as well
as the petitioner's son to go near the mining area. Hence, the court held that the second
Respondent alone is negligent and responsible for the cause of death of petitioner's son. As seen
from the affidavit, the deceased was a bright student throughout his school days, a top ranker and
an only son of his parents. The Court with its view directed that the ends of justice would be met
by directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand
only) together with interest(r) 12% per annum from the date of writ petition till the date of
payment to the petitioner. It is humbly submitted that the authorities has acted carelessly and
casually as even with affixing a fence, the boy still fell in the borewell costing him and his
parents his life. The State stands wholly accountable to provide compensation to the parents of
the dead five year old boy.
11. In the case of Zangpo Sherpa vs State Of Sikkim And Ors, AIR 2016 Sikkim 17 the court

23
was of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to award a compensation of Rs.5, 00, 000/-
(Rupees five lakhs) only, to the parents of the victim who died due to the negligence of a Public
Company which did not take effective steps for ensuring the safety of people who are likely to
venture into the river for sports or any other purpose.
12. In C. Chinnathambi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors., 2002 ACJ 1243: AIR 2001 Mad
35- On death of two innocent students by fall of water tank on them during school hours, award
of Rs. 5000/- by way of ex gratia payment to their parents by Government was highly improper.
The Court stated- As school was a Government School, it was the duty of school authorities to
see that tank was properly constructed and would not be hazardous to the lives of the children.
They directed that considering the age of the children and them being bona fied students,
compensation was increased from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The counsel of petitioner humbly
states that in view of our case the respondent authorities were aware of the consequences on
having made a blunder in performing their duty i.e. fatal accident taking place at the abandoned
defunct borewell. This is implied as the Supreme Court has previously laid down specific
guidelines for abandoned borewells and has also put in charge certain Authorities to perform
duties for the same. Due to the dreadful negligence on the part of the respondent authorities, the
State is liable to pay for compensation not by way of ex gratia.
13. In strict liability, the law makes people pay compensation for damages even if they are not at
fault. In other words, people have to pay compensation to victims even if they took all the
necessary precautions. Here, the precautions taken were not enough as a minor child- the five
year old boy would not have knowledge or understanding of the notice board. Adding to this,
even after putting up a fence the boy fell into the borewell, indicating that either the fence was
broken or not in good condition or not affixed properly.
14. It is stated in the facts that various rescue teams, Central and State agencies were called in to
rescue the boy. Also, a heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft
to rescue the deceased. Even with all these efforts taken by them, the execution and equipment’s
still fell short enough in saving the life of the five year old boy. It proves that the equipment’s
thus available are still not advanced enough. All of this could have been avoided if the
respondent authorities would have constituted in doing their duties in the first instance.

24
15. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that due to negligence of the respondent
authorities i.e. the State Government of Meluha, the Local Panchayat Authorities, Executive Of
Agricultural Department and the District Collector in performing their duties set out through
guidelines on borewells which resulted in death of a five year old boy, the State is liable to
provide for damages and compensation jointly and severally.
ISSUE 4: WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

OPERATION LIVE IS PERMISSIBLE?
1. The Counsel of Petitioner humbly state that the Act of the Media in telecasting the rescue
operation live is not permissible for the following reasons:
2. The freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to the media under Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of Hindia. This fundamental right guarantees that every citizen has the freedom of
speech and to express their opinion. Every individual can express their thought and also raise
their voice against any wrongdoings. Nonetheless, it must not outreach the scope of the freedom
provided. However, the makers of the Constitution specified the permissible limitations on this
right i.e. No right is absolute and comes along with certain reasonable restrictions.
3. Article 19 (2) states-

Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent
the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the 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.
4. In the present matter, even after the orders of the District Collector to not telecast the news live,
the media still went forth in doing so. The rescue process of the deceased five year old boy was
covered live from close quarters. Some of the channels also telecasted disturbing images of the
trapped boy.
5. According to the TAMIL NADU PANCHAYATS ACT, 1994

25
Emergency powers of Collector and Inspector - 203. Subject to such control as may be
prescribed, the Inspector or the Collector may, in cases of emergency, direct or provide for the
execution of any work, or the doing of any act which a panchayat or executive authority or
commissioner or chief executive officer is empowered to execute or do, and the immediate
execution or doing of which is in his opinion necessary for the safety of the public, and may
direct that the expense of executing such work or doing such act shall be paid by the person
having the custody of the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or the
District Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to any other charges against such Fund except
charges for the service of authorized loans.
That is to say, as per Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 the District Collector
has been entrusted with emergency powers and has rightfully in the present case ordered the
media to not telecast the news live as the laws of the State of Meluha are pari materia to that of
the State of Tamil Nadu. Regardless of this, the media did not obey the orders and went ahead in
telecasting the news.
6. Furthermore, according to the CODE OF ETHICS & BROADCASTING STANDARDS- It is

the duty of media to keep the citizenry informed of the state of governance. Being the fourth
pillar of democracy, it encourages independent journalism and promotes democracy by letting
the people voice their opinions for or against the government’s actions. Instead of the media
telecasting the news live in the said matter, they could rather have published on how the
concerned Authorities in the rural village failed in doing their duty, whether it could be of filling
the borewell from the bottom to the ground level, constructing a concrete/cement platform
around the borewell; or even on how the Authorities failed to monitor the situation and take
appropriate action on it.
7. Indeed, it is the duty of the media to keep the general public informed of the social happenings,
but it is also the duty of the media to show a mirror to the public on where and how the
Authorities in power fail or neglect to perform their duty toward the citizens of the State. In the
present case to, the media went beyond their boundaries in the name of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 (1)(a) by telecasting disturbing images of the trapped five year old
boy.
8. The media took advantage of the situation by broadcasting the news live and also putting forth

26
disturbing images which would result in high viewing of the channels in order to increase their
ratings and engagements with the public. This was done to build their image and reputation-
management for publicity.
9. In addition, in the CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS ACT, 1955
Section 19 states - Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest.
Section 20 states- Power to prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest.
10. It is humbly submitted that even with these existing Acts and Regulations; the media in the
present case has not acted ethically in telecasting the news to the general public because of which
the sensation also paved a way for a worldwide broadcast.
11. It is humbly submitted by the counsels on behalf of the petitioners that the Act of the media in
telecasting the rescue operation live is not permissible.
PRAYER
WHEREOF, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited
the Petitioner humbly prays before this Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:
i) The petitions are maintainable before this Hon’ble High Court.
ii) The act of the deceased attracts tortious liability.
iii) The State is liable to provide damages and compensation.
iv) The act of the media in telecasting the rescue operation live is not permissible.

27
And may pass any other Order, Decree or Judgement as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the
interest of Justice, Equity, Fairness and Good Conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall be duty bound forever pray.
SD/-
Counsels on behalf of the Petitioner

28
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HINDIA
(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

PIL NO. ___/2022
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
“AGHAM” NGO
CLUBBED WITH …………PETITIONER
SOCIAL ACTIVIST
VS
STATE OF MELUHA ………..RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
COUNSEL APPEARING OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................5
 CASES CITED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................
PRAYER.................................................................................................................

30
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
Art. Article
Sec. Section
Re. Reference
WP Writ Petition
AIR All India Record
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
UOI Union of India
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
NDRF National Disaster Response Force
SDRF State Disaster Response Force
NGO Non- Governmental Organization

31
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 CASES CITED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND JOURNALS
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE

32
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted in this memorandum that the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble
High Court under Article 2262 of the Constitution of Hindia and the Respondent humbly contest
the same.
The Respondent humbly submits before the jurisdiction of the present court and accepts that it has
the power and authority to preside over the present case.
2
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India, 1950
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

33
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Hindia is a Union of States and Union territories having a quasi-federal structure of governance
with a written constitution. Meluha, a State of Hindia being an agrarian state, farmers depend
mainly on groundwater for irrigation. With scarcity of water and urbanisation, deeper borewells
are drilled for groundwater abstraction.
 Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) submitted a report stating, “Excessive drilling of
and caused depletion of the groundwater levels”. To monitor this alarming issue, the
Government of Hindia has taken several initiatives and enacted prominent legislative measures
to regulate and keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.
 In a rural village Gotham, State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to construct a
borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The purpose of the common borewell
was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water shortage the drilling process
was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was
completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell
site.
 A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a
five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered defunct borewell which was drilled by
the local panchayat. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet.
 Several voluntary groups, fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices
and prior rescue experience. However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell.
During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of oxygen
was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment. Various Central
and State agencies were called in to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National Disaster
Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue

34
operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process live and the sensation paved
a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the District Collector not to telecast the
incident live.
 Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue operation
it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was monitored through
cameras, indicated the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with mud covered over him.
 Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy stuck
at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as geologists pointed out
that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. Though Fire and Rescue service
persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with all necessary
supports. They faced complications in the rescue due to bad weather/drizzling and maintaining
the speed of the drilling since there were chances of the abandoned borewell getting closed
completely in case of vibrations.
 Despite of the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be rescued.
The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the
guidelines. “Agham” NGO filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government
seeking compensation for the death of the boy. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL
seeking the Government to issue suitable directions for telecasting the sensational news around
the clock, which covered the rescue process live from close quarters and several channels
telecasted disturbing images of the trapped boy.
 The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.

35
ISSUES RAISED


36
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS


37
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?
1. It is humbly stated that the petitions filed by the “Agham” NGO and the social activist “Kailash”
are not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Hindia.
2. No PIL filed can be entertained which has any ulterior motives and has any hidden intention of
personal gains. It is not necessary that the precise details leading up to the accident should have
been reasonably foreseen. “There is always the possibility that the instrument of PIL may be
misused by a person purportedly litigating in the public interest. PIL is recognized as a tool for
social change but in ths instant case none of the petitions seeks the Hon’ble Court for any
remedies or social change or welfare-oriented.
3. The PIL by the “Agham” NGO is not maintainable because the bona fide intentions of the ngo is
not expressed, instead only a particular concern is shown over the compensation for the death of
the boy. It is asserted that the tool of PIL is not being used for the welfare of the people or the
parents of the dead five year old boy. It is also evident fromt the facts that the PIL filed by the
social activist “Kailash” is not maintainable because Article 19 (1) (a) states- Freedom of Press
which comes under right to reedom of speech and expression and that the press works for general
public awareness and keep them acquainted with the affairs of the State/Country. Press media
has been considered as the fourth pillar of the democracy. It encourages independent journalism
and promotes democracy by letting the people voice their opinions for or against the
government’s actions.

38
4. The PIL lacks justification as to on whose behalf the PIL is being filed or whether the NGO has
been given the authoritiy by the parents of the deceased five year old boy and the
5. “Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection
and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public
interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be
used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens.
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should to be allowed to be used for
suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or
public injury and to publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above,
courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the
court is acting bona fide and to for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or
other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with
vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or
from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often
they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold.
6. The popularity of PIL, has resulted in a large number of such cases being filed, which add to the
already considerable backlog and which also require the court to spend a lot of time in dealing
with issues that should more appropriately be dealt with by the executive or the legislature.
Besides, considering the nature of the cases involved, the orders of the court are not easily
enforceable, thereby requiring the petitioners to approach the court again for subsequent
direction.
7. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie
correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and
indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a
balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief
and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive
actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely

39
careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act
ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even
of their own to protect.” P. Mayilrajaperumal v. Secretary to Govt. 2016 SCC OnLine Mad
24557
8. It is submitted that the petition by the NGO “Agham” lacks the prima facie of not showing bona
fide motive and intention. The PILs filed by the NGO “Agham” and social activist “Kailash” is
vagues and indefinite. Nothing in the PIL says the about the damage caused nor any involvement
with the parents of the dead boy. It is clear fromt he facts stated that the NGO has filed the
petition as wild and reckless allegations against the respondent authorities and which could
defame the authorities in the eyes of the people. And private interest of the Ngo lies within. The
second PIL by the social activist “Kailash” is not maintainable as the the media works in the
public interest and for public interest. The guidelines for the press for live incidents has already
been established and were being followed the same. The criteria and perception of disturbing
images is different for different people. Every person holds different definition of disturbing
images. Therefore, it is stated that what the social activist “Kailash” assumed of the disturbing
images of dead five year old boy cannot be disturbing for the other people. In this instant case
no restriction other than reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) can be imposed on media
personals and if any other restriction is imposed there will be violation of Article 19 Freedom of
Speech and Expression and most importantly Article 19 (1) (a) Freedom of Press and so every
other right of the citizens will be violated like Right to Information.
9. The views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while entertaining Public Interest Writ Petition, in
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465. At
paragraph 14, the Apex Court, observed as follows:—
This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation
filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court.
The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime,
must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore,

40
a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any
public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine
public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse
of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa. Many
societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make
an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the
need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State
of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh C
10. It is evident from the facts that the PILs filed by the NGO “Agham” and the social activist
“Kailash” is unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to the
respondent authorities. Such PILs can hamper confidence of citizens in its Government and its
functioning. Since, the borewell was being constructed for purpose of supplying water to the near
by agricultural fields for the convenience of the people of “Gotham”. The reason the construction
of the borewell was stopped due to shortage of water. There was no intentional or any other
malice motive on behalf of the respondent parties to stop the construction of the borewell, it is
well established and presumable from the facts of the case. It is evident that it was a cessation in
construction of the borewell. And that when the resources i.e., supply of water for construction
of the borewell made available the construction of the borewell would have been resumed. To
avoid any further delay in the construction of the borewell and to avoid any complexities the
borewell was not covered so that authorities could resume their work of construction of borewell
where they had stopped. If the authorities would have filled the abandoned borewell extra
resources would have been required and so wastage to resources & water the amount of work
and cleaning of the borewell to resume the work would have taken a lot of time. Therefore, the
authorities did not covered the borewell by fillin up the mud the work was stopped on temporary
basis and would have been stated as soon as the the supply of water was provided.
11. The essentials of a PIL are absent because neither the legal wrong caused to the boy nor the
violation of guidelines is been spoken off. The petitioner nurtures “reasonable suspicion as to
such failure having been deliberate.” There is not a whisper of detail or material placed before
which would merit that the PIL be entertained in public interest.
12. The Section.3 of the Fatal accitidents act, 1855 states- “Plaintiff shall deliver particulars, etc. —

41
The plaint in any such action or suit shall give a full particular of the person or persons for
whom, or on whose behalf, such action or suit shall be brought, and of the nature of the claim in
respect of which damages shall be sought to be recovered.”
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that petitions are not maintainable because both of the petitions
do not mention the particulars of the incidents as per Section 3 of the Fatal Accidents Act. there
has been no realtion shown on whose behalf the PIL by the NGO has been filed. No mention of
the legal presentative authority given the the NGO to file a PIL. There are no particulars
mentioned by the plaintiff about the parents of the dead five year old boy. The nature of claim
with respect to the damages is not mentioned. And there arises no fault or negligence as the
respondent authorities had followed necessary safety measures for avoidance of such accidents.
13. Firstly, it is evident from these justification that PIL filed bye the petitioner is within the purview
of personal interest and not for the welfare of the parents. It is personal vendetta as they seek
only for monetary purpose. No “next friend” concept has been built by the NGO while filing the
petition. The NGO has wrongfully taken the advantage of the situation and took the opportunity
for their personal gain and publicity along putting the government in jeopardy with suspicions
created by them while maintaining their PIL. Secondly, it can be noted that the PIL by social
activist “Kialash” is not maintainable because filing a pil for the guideline already establish by
the government and other press agencies for the regulation on of news and regulation for
broadcasting live incident. This PIL should be disposed of such petitions cause abuse of time and
functioning of the court.
14. It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the petition/PIL for compensation by the NGO
“Agham” is not mantaintainable the the petition only demands compensation for the death of five
year old boy “Sanjay” and no other purpose or concern has been shown whye PIL has been filed.
15. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly expounded on the imminent need to weed out
interlopers who file motivated PILs and impose a burden on precious and arguably limited,
judicial resources. In the judgment reported at (2004) 3 SCC 363 B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of
India, Arijit Pasayat, J held thus:
4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing
but a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of one's
liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, the said petition has to be thrown out. Before

42
we grapple with the issues involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue
regarding the “public interest” aspect.
Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration
of law should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or
“politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigation……”.
16. The Hon’ble Court must prevent law from such crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social
balance by interfering where the necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere and
entertain such frivolous and invalid petitons. The underlying intention in creating this special
device was to universalise access to justice.
17. It is submitted that for the avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions
seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions the PILs filed by the
petitioners are not maintainable.
18. (There is no provision under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 to constitute any tribunal for
adjudicating any “action” or “suit” under the said Act. In absence of such provision empowering
the State Government to constitute any tribunal, the person(s) aggrieved have right to seek for
remedy by filing suit in the appropriate civil court, having jurisdiction over the matter, State of
Tripura v. Sridhan Choudhury, (2003) 8 AIC 121 (Gau) : AIR 2003 Gau 66.)
ISSUE 2: WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that there was no negligence on behalf of
the respondent authorities as they had complied with the safety guidelines issued by the apex
court and also took all measures to save the five year old boy’s life.
2. The guidelines are aforesaid in the matter of Measures for prevention of Fatal Acidents of small
children due to their falling into abandoned borewells and tubewells: In Re v. Union of India
(2010)15 SCC 224-
Para 4.4 states, ‘Erection of barbed wire fencing or any other suitable barrier around the well
during construction’, falling of the boy in the uncovered defunct borewell is not a liability on the
respondent authorities because the borewell site was fenced as a suitable barrier around the well

43
along with a notice affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the bore well site. The
authorities had performed their duty beyond the guideline by affixing a notice with warning.
Para 4.5 states, ‘Construction of cement/ concrete platform measuring 0.50 m × 0.50 m × 0.60 m
(0.30 m above the ground level and 0.30 m below the ground level) around the well casing’. It is
evident from the fact that construction of the cement/concrete platform would not have been
possible, due to water shortage the same reason the construction was stopped.
Para 4.9 states, ‘Filling up abandoned borewells by clay/sand/boulders/pebbles/drill cuttings, etc.

from bottom to the ground level’. The fact that the construction of the borewell was stopped
abruptly due to shortage of water, and it was cessation/temporary closure of the the site and soon
it would have been resumed when water would have been supplied. As the borewell was being
constructed for the agricultural purpose the construction woud have been resumed, thus filing up
the bore well with clay/sand/boulders/pebbles/drill cuttings, etc would have again required water
to make the mixture which would burden the authorities to clean up the borewell and start the
construction of the borewell where they had stopped which would have been more time
consuming and would require a lot more resources.
Para 4.11 states, ‘District Collector should be empowered to verify that the above guidelines are
being followed and proper monitoring check about the status og boreholes/tubewells are being
taken care through the State/Central Government agencies concerned’. The District Collecter
was aware of the fact that the construction of borewell was abruptly stopped. And thus the
village Panchayat Authorities and other respondent authorities followed the guideline by erecting
the fencing and affixing a notice therewith, with a warning not to enter the site it was taken care
of with the knowledge of the danger lying.
All of this was done in conformity with the guidelines put forth by the Supreme Court.
3. It is submitted that the respondent authorites fulfilled their duty efficiently and does not attract
tortutious liability because the vigilant precautions were taken before hand. It could have not
been predicted by a reasonable and rational person that such an incident could take place
regardless of the efforts taken to warn and restrict the borewell site.
4. The erection of the borewell was to improve the agricultural productivity which tackled climate
change and sustainable management of the natural resources. And for the same in the rural

44
village “Gotham” the local panchayat authorities started to construct a borewell out of the funds
received from the Government. It was for the benefit and welfare of the people that the
government had issued the plans and funds.
5. It is submitted that were several voluntary groups, fire/rescue officials, with robotic devices and
prior rescue experience worked relentlessly to rescue the the five year old boy who was trapped
in the borewell at the depth of 26 Feet. The people involved in the rescuing process were experts
and did all within their purview they could do to save the dead five year old boy.
6. The boy was monitored continuously and constant supply of oxygen was given to the boy for the
survival in the deep underground environment. It is evident from the fact that there was no
carelessness or lack of support in the rescuing process by the respondent authorities and the
government. There were various Central and State agencies also called in in the process of
rescuing the boy. Along these authorities the specialised teams of the National Disaster Response
Force (NDRF) and the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue operations. All
the expertise and efforts were poured out to save the boys life.
7. The respondent authorities and the government were using all the necessary equipments and
advanced technology for which it is well known. But look after the safety of the boy the
personals were very cautious and prompt with their rescuing process. The boy was continuously
monitored through cameras, which indicated that the boy was trapped at depth of 97 feet with
mud covered over him. After hours of rescuing process it was reported that the boy “Sanjay” has
fainted but was still breathing.
8. It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the geologist had pointed out that soil in the
area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. The Feldspar contains small quantities of
radioactive uranium that slowly forms radon gas, a major cause of lung cancer. Feldspar is also a
major source of lead emissions. Feldspar dust in high concentrations may irritate the respiratory
system. And so other chemical composition of the soil had also resulted in depletion of the boy’s
conditions to survive in such a environment. some inhaled mineral dusts are retained in the lungs
where they can cause damage to humans via irritation with the production of bronchitis, scarring
with the production of fibrosis (pneumoconiosis) and cancers.The reaction of the lungs to
mineral dusts depends on the dosage and nature of the dust inhaled. Because mineral dusts are
ubiquitous in the environment due to widespread human activity (e.g. soil cultivation, quarrying),

45
and because of dissemination of particles from natural sources, all humans have a small amount
of minerals in their lungs. The considerable, and industrial exposure (e.g. coal worker’s
pneumoconiosis; silicosis due to excessive exposure to quartz dust) remains the main concern.
Thus it evident from the stated facts that the boy was covered in mud when he was trapped into
the borewell, which led him to exposure of such harmful environment underground which
increased the rate of depletion of boys health.
9. It is submitted that for the purpose of the rescue of the boy a “Heavy German-made drilling
machine” was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy but the process of drilling and Fire
and Rescue service persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with
all necessary supports rescuing. The rescue efforts were hampered by the rocky terrain where
diggers strike hard rock quara and feldspar comprised in the soil. It is also evident front the facts
of the case that due to the bad weather/ drizzling and maintaining the speed of the drilling the
complications were faced and so the chances arised of the abandoned borewell getting closed due
to vibrations and bad weather. Thus even though the best of the personals, rescuing team and
technology were working relentlessly but due tbad weather the the respondent authorities cannot
be held for attracting tortuous liability
10. The person executing the work i.e the respondent authorities had followed all the safety
measures prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Regulation
of Sinking of Wells and Safety Measures) Rules, 2015 which states -
(i) ensure that necessary permit in Form-B has been obtained by the owner of the well for executing
the work;
(ii) erect warning signboards in a conspicuous manner at the site of the well, displaying the nature,
width and depth of the well, his name, address and contact details and that of the owner of the
well;
(iii)erect barbed wire fencing or any other suitable barrier around the site of the well;
(iv)construct a cement or concrete platform measuring 0.5X0.5X0.6 metre around the well casing in
such a manner that it is 0.3 meter above the ground level and 0.3 metre below the ground level;
11. Therefore it is submitted that there can be no liability thrown on the shoulders of the
respondent authorities as all the concerned authorities worked with all consciousness in

46
discharging their duties.
12. In the case of Naveen Sharma & Ors. vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 15 April, 2015-
“Petitions were dismissed as the authorities had taken adequate measures to restrain open access
to the pieces of land in question and were not held negligent on doing their duty”. In view of our
case too, the panchayat authorities erected a fence around the borewell and even put up a notice
board with a warning for the general public of the rural village of Gotham to not enter the
borewell site.
13. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Dhanalakshmi- The petitioner who
was in the process of getting down into the well through a rope, slipped from the rope and
fell down into the well which resulted in head injuries and injuries all over the body. In
the present matter, speed of the drilling was affected due to bad weather conditions.
Sending a man down with the help of a rope in such a scenario could have been more
dangerous, resulting in putting another life at stake.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the State is not liable to pay
compensation for the death of the .
1. The PIL lacks justification as to on whose behalf the PIL is being filed or whether the NGO has
been given the authoritiy by the parents of the deceased five year old boy to seek for
compensation of their son on their behalf.
2. It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that as per Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act,
1855 [1-A.] “Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his
death by actionable wrong.—Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act,
neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have
entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party
who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for
damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been

47
caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime.
[* * *] Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if
any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the
name of the executor, administrator, or representative of the person deceased;”.
3. As per the section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855- the death of the boy has not been
caused by any wrongful act in the view of the fact that the construction of the borewell
was done by the local panchayat authorities from the funds received from the State of
Meluha. Since the State of Meluha is an agrarian state , farmers depend mainly on
groundwater for irrigation. And the erection of the borewell was to increase the
agricultural productivity in the rural village “Gotham”. It is evident from the facts that the
purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields.
Therefore the respondent authorities did not commit any wrongful act.
4. It is also submitted that no negligent act was performed on the part of the respondent
authorities since all rules and safety measures were followed by the respondent
authorities as mentioned in the matter of Measures for prevention of Fatal Acidents of
small children due to their falling into abandoned borewells and tubewells: In Re v.
Union of India (2010)15 SCC 224 in construction of the borewell and after leaving the
borewell site. The respondent authorities had complied with all said guidelines and
performed their duty with utter responsibility. There was suitable barrier erected along
with a warning notice affixed station not to enter the borewell site. All the necessary
precaution were taken before leaving the borewell site. The construction of the bore well
was started within the purview of the Sarpanch of the Local Panchayat Authorities and
the District Collector, and the Exeutive of the Agricultural Board and each of the
authority were careful in executing their action. Therefore, there was no negligence
committed by the respondent authorities.
5. It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the petition/PIL for compensation by
the NGO “Agham” had the alternative remedy of filing before the appropriate Civil
Court. As the the petition only demands compensation for the death of five year old boy
“Sanjay” and not other concern has been shown. The Fatal accident act confers the
common law right to claim damages for tortuous actsas a statutory rights to recover

48
compensation by dependents for loss of dependency due to the death of a person caused
by an actionable wrong by way of an action in a civil court. Polavarapu somarajayam v.
A.P.R.T.C., Hyderabad, 1984 (1) TAC 247 at p.253 (AP)
6. “Agham” has not stated that for whose benefit the compensation PIL has been filed and
also not mentioned any relation whether they have been entrusted as the executing or
representative party on behalf or for the parents. There shows to be no guarantee that the
compensation if received will be handed over to the parents of the deceased child.
Furthermore, AGHAM has only come forth for the compensation of the dead boy. The PIL does
not state on what grounds it claims for compensation. Nor does it put forth in the petition
whether the State stands liable to provide for the compensation or not. This clearly shows that
the NGO does not have bona fide intentions of asking for compensation. A PIL is generally filed
for the welfare of the public, however, AGHAM has no intentions for public welfare, but only in
receiving compensation of the deceased boy.
If the NGO has approached this court only for compensation, then they could have approached
the competing civil court which also has the jurisdiction to rightly provide for the same. If
aggrieved by the decision of that court then it would rightful for them to knock at the doors of
this Hon’ble High Court.
8. “If the intent is to knock out money, to exploit or blackmail, to harass, to threaten, to malign
someone merely because he is performing a public duty and holds a public office, then, it is not
PIL but something else. Now a days, statements like “I will drag you to Court” “I will see you in
court” reflect the true intent and purpose of approaching a court of law. A court of law is not
meant to settle private scores or teach a lesson to anybody. It is not an arena or place for power
politics or to show one's might or money power. Equally a court of law is not a place to gain
publicity and that too cheaply. It is not a column or a page in the newspaper nor is it a television
show or serial.They should remember that they cannot indulge in hooliganism, acts of nuisance
and mischief and then expect mercy and sympathy from Court, which is termed as Temple of
justice”. Mehmood Pracha v. Intelligence Bureau & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9499
9. The pil thus filed by AGHAM is frivolous in nature, contemting to the procedure of this
court as a private interest litigation under the term PIL by waiting time of the judicial

49
process.
1. It is submitted that personal scores, personal disputes, and political rivalries should not be
resolved through PIL, and said in the considered opinion of this court, the petition is nothing but
sheer abuse of the Doctrine of Public Interest Litigation, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
It said the apex court has held that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice, or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief – interim or
final
2. In Union of India v Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100- The High
Court granted awarded punitive damages against the concerning authorities. However, the
Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious error. It was not proper to award
damages against public authorities merely for some inaction in performance of statutory duties or
functions. The Courts could not award damages in performance of statutory duties or functions
unless there was a malice or conscious abuse. Merely because they could have performed their
duties better or more efficiently, they could not be liable to pay compensation to the victims of
tragedy.
3. It has also been held that the claimant being the brother of the deceased, was not entitled to
recover any compensation as there was no pecuniary loss to him and a brother is not entitled to
claim compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act On this reason alone the entire
claim has been dismissed against all the respondents. That has led to the filing of this appeal by
the claimant.
4. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the State has not acted negligent or has not
performed any wrongful act and has taken the necessary precautions towards safety of the public
in relation to the abandoned borewell in the rural village of Gotham. The State also took the
maximum measures that could be taken to rescue the boy form the borewell. Hence, the State is
not liable to provide for compensation.
ISSUE 4: WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

OPERATION LIVE IS PERMISSIBLE?

50
PRAYER
WHEREOF, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited
the Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:
v) The petitions are not maintainable before this Hon’ble High Court.
vi) The act of the deceased does not attract tortious liability.
vii) The State is not liable to provide compensation.
viii) The act of the media in telecasting the rescue operation live is permissible.
And may pass any other Order, Decree or Judgement as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the
interest of Justice, Equity, Fairness and Good Conscience.

51
For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall be duty bound forever pray.
SD/-
Counsels on behalf of the Respondent

Rough Draft - P&R

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

Rough Draft - P&R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW 2ND NATIONAL MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2022

SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW 2ND NATIONAL MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HINDIA

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO._____/2022

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

STATE OF MELUHA & Ors. …RESPONDENT

STATE OF MELUHA & Ors. …RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

PIL Public Interest Litigation

AIR All India Record

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

CGWB Central Ground Water Board

NDRF National Disaster Response Force

SDRF State Disaster Response Force

NGO Non- Governmental Organization

UOI Union of India

ACJ Amended Consent Judgment

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?

2. WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?

3. WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

4. WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?

2. WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?

3. WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

4. WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 1: WHETHER PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE COURT?

i. By creating a new regime of human rights by expanding the meaning of fundamental

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 2: WHETHER ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 3: WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 4: WHETHER ACT OF THE MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

3. Article 19 (2) states-

5. According to the TAMIL NADU PANCHAYATS ACT, 1994

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

6. Furthermore, according to the CODE OF ETHICS & BROADCASTING STANDARDS- It is