Imcc - T95 - Memorial For The Petitioner

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,PARTICIPANT
2022 CODE – T95
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF CHERAMANADU
W.P NO: ____/ 2022
OGDEN MILOSEVIC AND THE NATIONAL

PETITIONER
ORGANISATION AGAINST VACCINE
MANDATE (NOVAC-M)
V.
UNION OF CHERAMANADU AND STATE

OF KISHKINDA RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................................. II
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES .............................................................................................................. II
CASES CITED ............................................................................................................................................. II
ACTS, RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................................................... III
WEBSITES REFERRED............................................................................................................................. III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... V
ISSUE RAISED ............................................................................................................................................. VII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................. VIII
ARGUMENT ADVANCED / PLEADING ...................................................................................................... 1
1. WHETHER OGDEN MILSOVIC’S DEPORTATION, DETENTION AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO
FAIR TRIAL IS LEGALLY VALID? .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT NOBODY CAN BE FORCED TO TAKE
VACCINATION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN UPHELD .................................... 1
1.3. RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AND PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW WERE VIOLATED . 2
1.4. THE DETENTION ORDER WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5. MR OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER
SECTION 188 OF THE CHERAMANADU PENAL CODE .................................................................. 4
1.6. THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS INVALID ACCORDING TO
CRPC6
2. WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS CONSTITUITIONALLY VALID.?.............. 7
2.1. AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2. EPIDEMICS DISEASES ACT, 1915 FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEST
OF PROPORTIONALITY AND REASONABLENESS ....................................................................... 10
3. WHETHER THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE UNDER THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE STATE OF KISHKINDA ARE VALID?.................................................... 11
3.1. THE ORDER THAT GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO SOME CLASSES OF PERSONS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ......................................................................................................................... 11
4. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KISHKINDA REGARDING VACCINE
MANDATES IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID ........................................................................... 12
4.1. The Orders Fail The Test Of Proportionality .................................................................................... 12
4.2. The Orders Issued By The State Of Kishkinda Violates The Golden Triangle ................................ 13
4.3. The Orders Issued By The State Of Kishkindha Are Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution 14
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................................................... 16

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 Page |I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &: AND
2. @: AT
3. Sec.: SECTION
4. A.I.R: ALL INDIA REPORTER
5. ART.: ARTICLE
6. UOI: UNION OF INDIA
7. Co.: Company
8. App: Appeal
9. Civ: Civil
10. Cri: Criminal
11. No.: Number
12. Hon’ble: Honourable
13. ANR: ANOTHER
14. ORS: OTHERS
15. SC: SUPREME COURT
16. HC: HIGH COURT
17. SSC: SC CASES

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. DD Basu’s Shorter Constitution of India,382(J. A.R. Lakshmanan, V.R. Manohar, 14th ed.,2008).
2. H. M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 4th ed., vol. 2, 2007 at p. 1586.
3. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th ed., 1962 at p.576.
4. Ashok K Jain, Administrative Law (2nd edn, Ascent Publications 2015)
5. C K Thakker, Administrative Law (2nd edn, Eastern Book Company 2012)
6. Durga Das Basu, Basu Administrative Law (7th edn, Kamal Law House 2019)
7. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa 2008)
8. ECS Wade, Constitutional and Administrative Law (9th edn, Paperback 1977)
9. ECS Wade, Constitutional and Administrative Law (9th edn, Paperback 1977)
10. Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th edn, Lexis Nexis 2008)
11. SA De Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1995)
CASES CITED
1. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0566/2022

2. Deoman Upadhyaya vs State (AIR 1960 All 1)
3. Navodaya Education Trust vs Union Of India (Writ App. No..836-840 of 2018)
4. The Collector vs K. Krishnaveni (Madras - Writ App. No.1995 of 2018)
5. C.H.Ashique vs The Chancellor (Kerala HC - WP(C).No. 27560 of 2011 (T))
6. Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P (Writ Petition (civil) 79 of 1959)
7. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65.
8. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dam, (1978) 2 SCC 424.
9. BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
10. Sarath Kumar Dash v. Biswajit Patnaik, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 38.
11. Pearlberg v. Varly, (1972) 2 All ER 6.
12. Maulana Ala Hadrami vs Union Of India (Cri. misc. Writ petition No. - 9392 of 2020)
13. Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors (Civ. App. No. 6469 of 1998)
14. Board of High School v. Kumari Chitra (1970 AIR 1039)
15. Shri Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs State (2002 IVAD Delhi 419)
16. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0231/1999
17. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0559/2014
18. Devarshi Pragneshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (Writ Petition (PIL) no. 33 of 2015).
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | III
19. Gandharva Jena v. State (MANU/OR/0185/1965) V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P (2008) 13 SCC 730
20. Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan (1999) 6 SCC 259
21. EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR SC 555 [85]
22. DS Nakara v Union of India 1983 AIR SC 120 [13], [14]
23. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597
24. Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan (1999) 6 SCC 259
ACTS, RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Constitution of India 1950, art 12
7. Consumer Protection Act 2019
8. Epidemic (Amendment) Act, s 6
9. Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, s 2
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
4. www.indiakanoon.com
5. www.timesofindia.com
6. www.thehindu.com

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Cheramanadu.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 Page |V
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. History
The union of Cheramandu is a constitutional republic with a democratic system of governance, the state is
divided into states on the basis of language and cultural similarities. The constitution of the Country envisages
a strong federation with significant state autonomy; however, the term “federation” is not mentioned anywhere
in the constitution and it has created friction.
II. Covid and Impact
In the year 2020, Cheramanadu was affected by Covid-19. The country handled the first wave of Covid-19
Pandemic effectively by imposing lockdowns, strict quarantine for 14 days for those who are infected with
Covid and other means, which in turn helped in reducing the number of deaths
III. Reduction of Covid Cases, Easing of Restrictions and surge of the new strain
By the end of 2020, the severity of the cases has reduced substantially, and people in Chermanadu slowly
started embracing the pre-pandemic lifestyle. This lifestyle continued into the early months of 2021, till new
reports of a new variant of the Covid-19 virus started emerging. This particular strain of virus spreads much
faster and makes those individuals who are affected by this virus was taken severely ill this particular strain
of virus even affected the young population of the country, unlike the previous strain.
IV. During the spread of the New Strain and aftermath of the spread
The second wave, however, unlike the first wave receded quickly as it spread. However, due to the staggered
nature of the commencement of the second wave, which started at different times in different regions and
States, the decisions to impose lockdowns, quarantines, and other containment measures were left to the States.
However, the second wave had a lasting impact on the minds of the populace and the government. In order to
prevent a similar situation to arise in future, the government started implementing many proactive measures,
such as in September 2021, the government mandated that every citizen who was eligible to get a vaccine to
get a vaccine. The vaccine was administered in two doses, with a gap of 12 weeks between each vaccine.
Further, around this time it was notified by government of Chermanadu, that all persons entering Chermanadu
must be vaccinated, in the absence of which they would be deported to the home country.
V. Elavanka Open and Subsequent Events
The state of Kishkinda hosts the Elavanka Open, which is one of the four prestigious badminton tournaments
in the world. The previous edition in 2021 was cancelled due to Covid-19. The Chermanadu was keen to
conduct the tournament, according to the schedule in January 2022. They were of the belief that it would boost
economic activity not just in Kishkinda, but also in the other states and territories of Chermanadu. It would

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | VI
also provide a much-needed impetus to the aviation and tourism industries that were gasping for breath in the
post-pandemic world. The state of Kishkinda mandated that the vaccine mandate be adhered to strictly and
insited that no person would be allowed to enter the territory unless they had been completely vaccinated.
VI. The arrival of Ogden Milosevic and the subsequent havoc
Badminton star Ogden Milosevic, who was ranked number 1 in the world arrived at Elavanka Airport, he was
from a country that did not have a compulsory vaccine mandate. Ogden Milosevic was quite popular since he
has won the Elavanka open the most number of times and also since he married women whose parents
migrated from Kishkinda. group known as the National Organisation against Vaccine Mandates or NOVac-
M, were already preparing to approach the Supreme Court of Chermanadu at New Cheraman. While on the
other hand the Union Government of Chermanadu was also trying to convince the State Government of
Kishkinda to allow Ogden Milosevic to participate in the Elavanka Open. This led to a severe dilemma, as the
government had to choose between continuing to impose the vaccine mandate or striking the vaccine mandate
off. The group known as the National Organisation against Vaccine Mandates or NOVac-M, were already
preparing to approach the Supreme Court of Chermanadu at New Cheraman. While on the other hand, the
Union Government of Chermanadu was also trying to convince the State Government of Kishkinda to allow
Ogden Milosevic to participate in the Elavanka Open. Further, it became clear to the Union Government that
Ogden intended to seek judicial recourse against, what he believed and termed was an “illegal” detention.

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | VII
ISSUE RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER OGDEN MILSOVIC’S DEPORTATION, DETENTION AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IS
LEGALLY VALID?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS CONSTITUITIONALLY VALID.?

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE UNDER THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE STATE OF KISHKINDA ARE VALID?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS LEGALLY VALID?

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS NOT LEGALLY VALID

It is submitted that although the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons who
may or may not be citizens, the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or
settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed u/a Article 19(1)(e). Article 21 which guarantees the right
to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing
orders of release from illegal detention. There must be evidence that the accused had knowledge of the order
with the disobedience of which he is charged. Mere proof of a general notification promulgating the order
does not satisfy the requirements of the section. Mere disobedience of the order does not constitute an offence
in itself, it must be shown that the disobedience has or tends to a certain consequence. It is given that every
action of the State must be guided by reason for public order and welfare and not by whim, caprice or abuse
of power. However, the impugned Order passed by the Respondent is an attempt at curtailing the citizen’s
fundamental rights by eliminating any form of dissent towards the government and its policies.
2. EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It is submitted that despite recent amendments, the act has major limitations in this era of changing dynamics
in public health emergency management. Firstly, it consists of merely five sections which firstly, do not define
an epidemic disease or provide an eligibility criterion for when the Act may enable. It does not provide the
standard operating procedure or the manner in which the extraordinary powers may be exercised. It merely
provides the governments at the state level a legislative basis to assume extraordinary powers in case the
Government thinks that their ordinary powers do not suffice in mitigating the epidemic. Failing to give any
definition to an epidemic, does not provide an objective basis for the Government to assume extraordinary
powers. More importantly, the Act does not provide for the fundamental principle of proportionality - the state
is under no obligation to respond to the pandemic within time, and the response is also not graded in any
manner under the Act, which basically establishes a ‘do as you may regime.
3. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KISHKINDA REGARDING VACCINE MANDATES IS NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
It is humbly submitted that the orders do not pass the four-pronged test of proportionality which is
essential when restricting the fundamental rights a citizen. Firstly, the measure restricting a right must
have a legitimate goal; secondly, the measure must be a suitable means of furthering this goal; thirdly,
there must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative; fourthly, the measure must not
have a disproportionate impact on the right holder. Moreover, there existed other mechanisms, which
would have been less restrictive and equally effective. Mask Mandates in public places, restriction of
unvaccinated persons only in certain designated areas. The Disaster Management Act and Epidemic

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | IX
Diseases Act also provide for provisions for the State to adopt appropriate measures to mitigate the
damage caused by the epidemic. Those are enforceable, with penal provisions against non-compliance.
4. THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE UNDER THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE
STATE OF KISHKINDA ARE VALID
Classification of persons into groups for differential treatment of such groups is permissible if there is a
reasonable nexus for such difference. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but does
not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. The power of
making classification, however, is not without limit. A classification to be valid must be reasonable. It must
always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing reasonable and just needs in respect of which
the classification is made.

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 Page |1
ARGUMENT ADVANCED / PLEADING
1. WHETHER OGDEN MILSOVIC’S DEPORTATION, DETENTION

AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IS LEGALLY VALID?
1.1.THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT NOBODY CAN BE FORCED TO TAKE
VACCINATION
Mr Ogden Milosevic was prohibited from visiting the city of Elavanka by the executive authorities of the
State of Kishkinda because he had violated the nation's vaccination regimen. Later, without following the
proper legal procedure to give Ogden a fair chance of representation, the authorities ordered Ogden to take a
flight to the National Capital, the new Charaman city1.
In Jacob Puliyel,2 although immunizations are helpful to enhance general public health and immunity against
Covid-19, the Supreme Court has determined that they must be voluntary. On the grounds that they have
received one or both doses of the immunisation, no person may be refused access to resources or benefits.
Also in the same case, Justice Rao reiterated that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated. The Supreme Court also stated that the current
Covid-19 vaccine policy could not be said to be manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable, but the suggestion
would be to set aside the restrictions imposed and follow relevant orders as long as the case numbers remain
low. It stated that no restriction to public areas must be imposed on persons who have not received the
vaccination3.
Therefore, the government cannot differentially treat a person or take an arbitrary against the person just
because the individual is unvaccinated.
1.2.THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN UPHELD
Mr. Ogden Milosevic was prohibited from visiting the city of Elavanka by the executive authorities of the
State of Kishkinda because he had violated the nation's vaccination regimen. Later, without following the
proper legal procedure to give Ogden a fair chance of representation, the authorities ordered Ogden to take a
flight to the National Capital, the new Charaman city.
1
See Paragraph 1 on Page 3
2
Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0566/2022.
3
“Covid-19 Vaccination: No Individual Can Be Forced to Be Vaccinated, Says SC; ‘Bodily Integrity Protected under Constitution’ -
The Economic Times.” The Economic Times, economictimes.indiatimes.com,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/nobody-can-be-forced-to-undergo-covid-19-vaccinations-supreme-
court/articleshow/91251555.cms?from=mdr. Accessed 25 Aug. 2022.
The term notice, in the legal sense, embraces knowledge of circumstances that ought to induce suspicion or
belief, as well as direct information of that fact. Notice embodies the rule of fairness and must precede an
adverse order. It must be clear and precise so as to give the party adequate information about the case he has
to meet. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond, make the administrative decision completely invalid4.
In the present instance, the Petitioner was not given notice nor the opportunity to respond to the same before
he was detained or deported. The test of adequacy of a notice will be whether it gives sufficient information
and material so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence5.
Article 216 of the Indian Constitution requires that the reason for the detention must be disclosed to the
detainee, and if the reason is not clear, the court may revoke the detention order. The petitioner was held in
custody by the government of Cheramanadu without being given any explanation as to why, which prevented
him from successfully arguing his case. Consequently, the Petitioner's aforementioned detention is illegal.
1.3.RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AND PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW WERE

VIOLATED
Every adjudicatory body must afford a reasonable opportunity to the party to present his case7. This may be
done orally or in writing, unless the statute that the authority is functioning under, directs otherwise. The
opportunity to be heard in light of the proposed action is necessary to satisfy the criteria of natural justice.
Even though the person being prosecuted has been given the information that forms the basis of the action,
if it is given casually or for another reason, the requirements of natural justice are not met 8. The administrative
authority must further provide fullopportunity to present evidence - testimonials or documentary9.
According to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional to deny the assessee access to relevant evidence during
a hearing.10 The Court further ruled that everyone who is in front of a government agency with adjudicatory
jurisdiction has a right to be aware of the evidence that will be used against him. Whatever the method, it is
well-established that nothing that hasn't been properly disclosed to the individual in question should be used
against them. In Nandini Satpathy’s case,11 the Supreme Court ruled that the police must wait a reasonable
amount of time for the arrival of a lawyer and that the accused must be permitted legal assistance during
custodial interrogation.
Audi alteram partem, or the rule of fair hearing, is the second long arm of natural justice which protects the
4
Deoman Upadhyaya vs State (AIR 1960 All 1)
5
Navodaya Education Trust vs Union Of India (Writ App. No..836-840 of 2018)
6
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
7
The Collector vs K. Krishnaveni (Madras - Writ App. No.1995 of 2018)
8
C.H.Ashique vs The Chancellor (Kerala HC - WP(C).No. 27560 of 2011 (T))
9
Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P (Writ Petition (civil) 79 of 1959)
10
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65.
11
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dam, (1978) 2 SCC 424.
little man from arbitrary administrative actions whenever his right to person or property is jeopardised. Before
passing an administrative order, a fair opportunity may need to be offered because any incorrect order could
have a negative impact on a person.12 Thus, preventing an illegal action or judgement from occurring is one
of the goals of holding a hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The chosen process
must be impartial and just.13 Audi alteram partem, which essentially says that someone must be given a
chance to defend themselves, is a requirement of every civilised society..
Since the right to a fair hearing is a matter of process, it applies to every phase of an administrative
adjudication, from the notification to the decision. The need to act judicially, that is, to strictly adhere to the
principles of natural justice, exists in situations that are deemed to be "quasi-judicial" in accordance with the
law. However, there is only a duty to behave fairly in administrative proceedings, which entails that the
administrative power must act justly and fairly rather than arbitrarily and capriciously.14
Lord Pearson has stated this position in Pearlberg v. Varly,15 explaining that there is no presumption that
compliance with the principles of natural justice is necessary when a person or body is given administrative
or executive functions by the Parliament; however, because the Parliament is not presumed to act unfairly,
the courts may occasionally be able to imply an obligation to act fairly.16
The petitioner was detained by the Cheramanadu government without being given a reason, which made it
impossible for him to convince a judge of his argument. The Petitioner's aforementioned detention is
therefore unlawful.
1.4.THE DETENTION ORDER WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF

THE STATE
The executive authorities of the State of Kishkinda forbade Mr. Ogden Milosevic from entering the city of
Elavanka due to not abiding by the vaccine protocol of the country. Ogden was later forced to fly to the
National Capital, the new Charaman city by the authorities without following the due procedure of law of
providing a fair chance of representation17.
According to Sec.3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1915, the power to detent, inspect. etc comes under the
purview of the Central Government while the State Government only had the power to enact exceptional
measures or temporary regulations under the purview of Sec. 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1915. Similar
12
BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
13
Sarath Kumar Dash v. Biswajit Patnaik, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 38.
14
Thakker, C.K., From Duty to Act Judicially to Duty to Act Fairly, (2003) 4 SCC (Jour) 1.
15
Pearlberg v. Varly, (1972) 2 All ER 6.
16
Pearlberg v. Varly, (1972) 2 All ER 6.
17
unique powers to deport and imprison18 any “foreigner” or “any designated class or description of foreigners”
is granted by the Sec.3 of the Foreigners Act of 1864.
Mr Ogden Milosevic is a "foreigner," hence being "detained" illegally is outside the purview of the State
Government's authority. According to the Union list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, parliament
has exclusive powers to make laws regarding admission into, emigration, expulsion from the country and
matters under Passport and Visa.
The power of the centre to determine matters regarding internal affairs is more dominant than the state
powers19. As a corollary, the State Government of Kishkinda lacks the legal power to pass laws or take other
action in this regard to detention. As a result, in detaining Mr Ogden Milosevic, the executive branch of the
State of Kishkinda overstepped its bounds, and the detention order was beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the
state.
1.5. MR OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

UNDER SECTION 188 OF THE CHERAMANADU PENAL CODE
The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1915 was enacted by the government to make orders to deport Mr Ogden
Milosevic, create the vaccine mandate, restrict the unvaccinated people and grant exemptions to certain classes
of people20 Sec. 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act states that anyone who violates a regulation or order issued
according to this Act is considered to have committed a crime punishable under section 188 of the Cheramandu
Penal Code.
The counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that Mr Ogden Milosevic does not meet the requirements
listed in Sec.188 of the Cheramandu Penal Code. According to Sec.188's explanation, the following is
adequate
1.5.1. Ogden is unaware of the infringed order passed under the Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1915
According to the overall policy criteria pertaining to Cheramanadu visas, Ogden Milosevic could not have
entered Elavanka without a valid visa approved by the government to participate in the tournament. In this
circumstance, Mr Ogden Milosevic with good intention believed that he had met all the requirements to enter
the State of Kishkinda and the authority is aware of the fact that he is coming from a nation which did not
have a mandatory vaccination. But the state authority arbitrarily denied him the basic right to a fair trial and
18
Maulana Ala Hadrami vs Union Of India (Cri. misc. Writ petition No. - 9392 of 2020)
19
Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors (Civ. App. No. 6469 of 1998)
20
violated the principle of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’21by not providing justification for his detention. Inferring that
there was no knowledge of the order, which negates Mr Ogden's liability under the first condition of section
188, is possible from the aforementioned facts and provisions. Hence it can be inferred from the foregoing
facts and provisions that there was an absence of knowledge about the order22, vitiating Ogden’s liability under
the first condition of section 188.
Arguendo, even if he had knowledge of the order, Mr Ogden Milosovic is exempted from the entry restriction
as he was infected by the virus within the 3 months23 and satisfies the recommendations of the National Expert
Group on Vaccine Administration for COVID-19 to defray the vaccine by 3 months after recovery from the
infection which has been adopted by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare24.
The counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits that Ogden is exempt from Section 3 of the Act and, as
a result, from Section 188 of the CPC, as set forth in the NEGVAC recommendations accepted by the Union
Ministry of Health on May 19, 2021.
1.5.2. Mr Ogden Milosovic doesn’t pose as harm to the State
Ogden Milosevic did not pose harm according to section 188 of the CPC, and specifically, public health harm
when read with section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1915. In order for the Central Government to be
satisfied for the purposes of section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Central Government needed to form
a positive state of satisfaction that the presence of Mr Milosevic in Cheramandu leads to a situation where it
becomes necessary for inspection, detention and subsequent necessary actions against25 him to be taken to
prevent the outbreak of such a disease”26. Unless the authorities have no evidence to prove that Mr Odgen
poses a threat, the cancellation of his visa is arbitrary.
The anticipated harm can be categorized into two sections:
A) The harm to public health is that his actions would lead to the outbreak of COVID-19 according to
Section 3 of the EDA.
The medical profession as a whole agrees that the danger of reinfection is minimal for at least the first six
months after contracting COVID-1927. Mr Ogden Milosevic, who recovered from COVID-19 three months
ago, fits this description perfectly. The likelihood of transmission of the virus is very low in an event
21
Board of High School v. Kumari Chitra (1970 AIR 1039)
22
Shri Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs State (2002 IVAD Delhi 419)
23
24
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1719925
25
Section 3 EDA
26
Section 3 EDA
27
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/about-covid-19/antibodies.html
involving Milosevic given the enhanced control measures applied at the Elavanka Open resulting from the
strong public opinion in favour of the conduct of the tournament28. Since he is naturally immunized by the
infection, there is very little or no threat to the public's health.
B) The harm to public health in that anti-vaccination sentiment would be fostered
The events following Milosevic's wrongful detention and deportation demonstrate that some members of the
populace objected to being coerced into receiving medical treatment29. To claim that his refusal of the vaccine
will encourage anti-vaccination sentiment would be a ridiculous claim devoid of any supporting evidence.
1.6.THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS INVALID ACCORDING

TO CRPC
The goverment enacted the Epidemic Diseases Act in 1915 in order to issue orders for Mr. Ogden Milosevic's
deportation, establish the vaccine requirement, impose restrictions on persons who have not received
vaccinations, and offer exemptions to specific groups of people. According to Section 4 of the Epidemic
Diseases Act, anybody who disobeys a directive made under this Act is deemed to have committed a crime
subject to punishment under Section 188 of the Cheramandu Penal Code.
Under section 5730 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and article 22(2)31 of the Indian
Constitution, No one who is arrested without a warrant should be held in jail for more than a fair amount of
time, which is in any case 24 hours. Within the expiry of this 24-hour period, the detainee is required to be
produced before a magistrate in accordance with section 167,32 CrPC. Further, under section 97,33 The
magistrate has the authority to issue a search warrant in order to look for prisoners who were unjustly detained.
According to the Supreme Court, there are only two circumstances in which the constitutional requirement
that production takes place within 24 hours may be disregarded: either the person who has been arrested is an
enemy alien, or the arrest was made in accordance with a law governing preventive detention.34 In every other
situation, the court has explicitly stated that no individual may be held in custody or detained for a longer
period of time than is permitted without a magistrate's approval. The arrest and detention are invalid in certain
circumstances, and the accused is entitled to release.35
28
29
30
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 57.
31
INDIA CONST. art. 22(2).
32
33
34
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0231/1999.
35
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0231/1999.
The Supreme Court has also issued several directives on prison overcrowding and unlawful detention of
people in light of the second wave of Covid-19.36 It demanded that those accused of breaking any Covid-19
rules that have been imposed in the nation be released without being arrested.37
2. WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS

CONSTITUITIONALLY VALID.?
2.1. AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE
2.1.1. The Act does not define “epidemic”
Five provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1915 were created to regulate the nation during widespread
outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act fails to define "dangerous," "infectious," or "contagious
diseases," much alone a "epidemic," which is a glaring omission. Not defining the term has significant
ramifications for the powers granted to the government when an epidemic occurs for an Act that seeks to
mitigate the impacts of an epidemic.
The inherent ambiguity and lack of impartiality regarding what constitutes an epidemic leaves a lot of
opportunity for interpretation and permits government abuse of power. Despite the fact that the Government
is endowed with a certain set of capabilities, the absence of a definition suggests that there is no requirement
for it to use those powers within a specific time frame.
2.1.2. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1915 suffers from the vice of vagueness
The Epidemic Diseases Act, which is intended to be implemented during an epidemic, makes no mention of
what will be deemed to be an "epidemic." Although the phrase "serious epidemic disease" has been used, there
is absolutely no definition in the act that would indicate the context in which it should be applied. The
government's subjective satisfaction and the absence of any metrics have been used to determine if an
epidemic has occurred.
The Supreme Court’s in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Baldeo Prasad38, The "Goonda Act" was
invalidated because it lacked a definition of what a Goonda is in the first place. Similar to the last point,
36
In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons (MANU/SC/0380/2021.)
37
Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar, (MANU/SC/0559/2014)
38
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Baldeo Prasad (1961 AIR 293)

nowhere in the EDA does the word "epidemic" become defined. Without any kind of guidance or clarification
to that effect, the law cannot apply in hypothetical situations; as a result, the law is inherently ambiguous.
In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab39, the Supreme Court adopted the American constitutional notion
of "void for ambiguity." whereby the court considered whether ambiguity may be used to nullify a statute.
The same was further relied on in the case of KA Abbas Vs. UOI40 by the Supreme Court. Since the EDA is
so all-encompassing, there is concern that practically anything may be moulded to fit into its framework.
2.1.3. The Executive is granted unfettered powers under the Epidemic Diseases Act, which lacks any
checks or balances.
The EDA lacks any system of checks and balances and is only of an administrative nature. All individuals,
entities, and authorities operating in accordance with this Act are completely immune from legal liability under
Section 5 of the Act. A situation is bordering on an emergency-like scenario if it is so serious that a dangerous
sickness or infection is a possibility. The crucial thing to keep in mind in this situation is that even the
Constitution's emergency clauses cannot be used arbitrarily, so how can the provisions of the epidemic
operate? The legislation does not contain a single clause requiring the states or the federal government to
consult the legislature or get any kind of constitutional authorization before taking action. Additionally, there
is no clause that imposes limitations or constraints on the actions of the government. Without regard for the
public's basic rights, the law is susceptible to be abused. The law's enormously broad scope is in effect here,
and there is a breadth-ness at work.The legislation does not contain a single clause requiring the states or the
federal government to consult the legislature or get any kind of constitutional authorization before taking
action. Additionally, there is no clause that imposes limitations or constraints on the actions of the government.
Without regard for the public's basic rights, the law is susceptible to be abused. The law's enormously broad
scope is in effect here, and there is a breadth-ness at work.This refers to a precedent set by the Supreme Court
in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India41, where the court considered the overreaching of the law and
the violation of fundamental rights.
The Courts have been extending the purview of fundamental rights as the country's constitutional situation
changes. The alleged epidemic act does not even come close to meeting modern constitutional requirements.
The state government may enact "special" measures and regulations under Section 2 of the Act. The act makes
no provision for indicative measures and leaves it up to the administration to decide what they should be. This
law essentially gives the government carte blanche to do what it pleases, disregarding fundamental rights.
39
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961 AIR 1787)
40
KA Abbas Vs. UOI (1971 AIR 481)
41
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 1523)
Absolute discretion is a path to constitutional heresy, according to this. I contend that the law at issue should
be repealed since it is a shadow rather than a shade.
2.1.4. The Act does not provide for effective machinery to combat epidemics
The Act naturally allows for a quick, knee-jerk response. The Act basically gives state authorities the authority
to disregard any and all current rules and regulations while addressing an epidemic, as opposed to anticipating
that a public health emergency would require a comprehensive and well-planned administrative framework.
As a result, there is a danger that the citizens will do nothing42 and excessive coercion43 by the State.
Equal access to healthcare services must be the main tenet of a national pandemic law. The EDA also falls
short on this front. Along with the responsibility of civil society during such a crisis, it is also necessary to
define the duties of healthcare professionals and other workers in contrast to their rights and the safety
standards to which they would otherwise be entitled. After all, situations like the Air India crew returning
from missions to save Indian residents who were stuck in other countries are common in India, where they
were shunned by neighbourhood groups rather than honoured.44
Equal access to healthcare services ought to be the main tenet of a national epidemic law. On this front, too,
the EDA falls short. Along with the responsibilities of civic society in such a crisis, it is also necessary to
define the duties of healthcare professionals and other workers in contrast to their rights and the safety
standards to which they would otherwise be entitled. After all, situations like the Air India crew being shunned
by neighbourhood associations instead of feted after returning from rescue operations of Indian people stuck
in other countries are common in India.
2.1.5. The Act does not balance the rights of individuals with the power of the State.
The COVID-19 standards permit states to use coercive tactics like to those used by the colonial authorities.
These behaviours limit motion45, free speech, religion, profession and privacy. State coercive practises like to
those used by the colonial authority are permitted under COVID-19 legislation. Such conduct impedes motion
The Act does not contain any procedural safeguards against the misuse of public authority or infringements
on people's privacy. For instance, there is no definition or guidance in the legislation about what constitutes a
42 Devarshi Pragneshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (Writ Petition (PIL) no. 33 of 2015).
43 Gandharva Jena v. State (MANU/OR/0185/1965)
44 Debanish Achom (ed.), “‘Vigilante’ Residents Ostracising Crew For Duty Amid Coronavirus: Air India”, NDTV, (23 March
2020).https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-air-india-says-vigilante-residents-ostracising-crew-for-going-abroad-t o-
bring-stranded-i-2198862.
45 See PTI, “Government Decides to Shut down 75 Coronavirus-Hit Districts,” The Economic Times (Economic Times, March 22,
2020).
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 P a g e | 10
serious epidemic disease. The State may abuse the law to target particular people and conduct mass
quarantines and profiling. Public employees who work under it are nonetheless granted legal immunity. As a
result, the law ignores any procedural safeguards against the abuse of its authority in favour of the public
interest. The Epidemic Diseases Act fails to meet the criteria for imposing justifiable limitations on people's
basic right to privacy as a result.
2.2. EPIDEMICS DISEASES ACT, 1915 FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEST
OF PROPORTIONALITY AND REASONABLENESS
Any administrative action taken for justifiable grounds must be evaluated in accordance with the law's
reasonableness criteria.. A new dimension of Article 14 was laid down in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu46 where the Court stated:-
“Where, an administrative action is challenged as ‘arbitrary’ under Article 14 on the basis of Royappa the
question will be whether the administrative order is ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ and the test then is the
Wednesbury test.”
Furthermore, India has implemented Article 14 and the proportionality principle, which is a component of the
"Wednesbury test." The "Doctrine of Proportionality," which the Supreme Court of India adopted in the case
Om Kumar v. Union of India, is a rule where the court places a lot of emphasis on how the decision-maker
orders the priorities in order to get to a decision. The precedent-setting decision of KS Puttaswamy v. Union
of India47 established the prerequisites for the notion of proportionality, which are as follows:
I. The action must be sanctioned by law
II. The proposed action must be necessary for a legitimate aim
III. The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference
IV. There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference
The Epidemic Diseases Act, of 1897 passes the criteria for a reasonable objective because one of its purposes
is to stop the spread of a harmful epidemic disease. In parent legislation, it is hard to specify precise
proportionate rules for a novel infectious disease. As a result, the legislation grants the states a limited amount
of legislative authority.
The parent law, however, does not offer procedural safeguards against the abuse of the State's authority to
intrude on people's privacy. For example, the law does not define or give instructions on what a serious
epidemic disease means. The citizens are thus at risk of both state inaction and excessive compulsion. The
State may abuse the law to target particular people and conduct mass quarantines and profiling. Public
46
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 AIR 555)
47
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4161)
employees who work under it are nonetheless granted legal immunity. As a result, the law ignores any
procedural safeguards against the abuse of its authority in favour of the public interest. The Epidemic Diseases
Act fails to meet the criteria for imposing justifiable limitations on people's basic right to privacy as a result.
3. WHETHER THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES

OF PEOPLE UNDER THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE STATE OF
KISHKINDA ARE VALID?
3.1. THE ORDER THAT GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO SOME CLASSES OF PERSONS IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The State of Kishkinda announced that it would permit people who had only received one dose of the vaccine
as long as they were entering the State for specific purposes like business, cultural, or athletic events and the
required 12-week period between the two doses had not passed between the time they received their first dose
and the date they intended to enter.This differential treatment is against the principles of Article 14 and thus
it is unconstituitional and not valid.
If a difference is irrational and arbitrary, it is discrimination.48; It is crucial to demonstrate that the disparity is
irrational and arbitrary in order to invoke the equal protection guarantee and protection under Article 14. 49.
The differentiation must be shown to be irrational and arbitrary in order to invoke the equal protection clause
and Article 14 protection.50, this gave Article 14 a fresh perspective, protecting an individual's fundamental
rights by guarding against arbitrariness51 and proving the unarbitrariness of a statute or an action.
The state's contested action must not be discriminatory and free from arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or
unfairness in order to satisfy the trial requirements of Article 1452.
3.1.1. THERE IS NO RATIONAL NEXUS FOR THE DIFFERENTIATION
In Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan53 the Supreme Court held that :-
48
V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P (2008) 13 SCC 730
49
Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan (1999) 6 SCC 259
50
EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR SC 555 [85]
51
DS Nakara v Union of India 1983 AIR SC 120 [13], [14]
52
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597
53
Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan (1999) 6 SCC 259
“If there is a rational nexus on the basis of which differentiation has been made with the object sought to be
achieved by the particular provision, then such differentiation is not discriminatory and does not violate the
principles of Article 14 of the Constitution"
In this case, the differentiation is to use all the opportunities available to improve the economic and social
conditions54 of the covid-affected state. The State of Kishkinda stated that it was willing to admit people who
had only received one dose of the vaccine, provided that they were entering the State for specific reasons like
business, cultural, or athletic events which are economically beneficial for the state.
The counsel humbly submits that the detention and deportation of the world no.1 player . Ogden was under
the hidden motives of the government and the extreme treatment provided to him was discriminatory. It was
stated that the absence of a Federal structure created administrative friction between the Union and the states55.
The Union of Cheramandu believed that there would be an economic boost as an outcome of the tournament
and this was crucial for the administration that was facing the repercussions and financial stress because of a
mismanaged second wave56. Whereas the State was hesitant to conduct the event and it was after the strong
public opinion and pressure from the centre, that the State agreed to the same. It was more focussed on strictly
adhering to the restrictions and maintaining the social security commitments57. The political tussle between
state and federal authorities exists because each wants something different from this. The circumstances of
the government existed such as to project their need to make a public statement, and this was laid on Ogden,
and he was subjected to discriminatory treatment. In conclusion, there was no rational nexus in this issue.
The main arguments of the government that the differential treatment to the citizens is to control the covid
situation is itself false since there is no evidence that the vaccination will reduce the number of cases and there
is not scientific backing which states that vaccinated person wont get infected again. The state is promoting
its pure financial interest for which the principle of equality is violated.
4. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KISHKINDA

REGARDING VACCINE MANDATES IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID
4.1. The Orders Fail The Test Of Proportionality
It is humbly submitted that the orders do not pass the four-pronged test of proportionality58 which is essential
when restricting the fundamental rights of a citizen.59 Firstly, the measure restricting a right must have a
54
55
56
57
58
Justice K S Puttaswamy (n 6).
59
Anuradha Bhasin (n 5).
legitimate goal; secondly, the measure must be a suitable means of furthering this goal; thirdly, there must not
be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative; fourthly, the measure must not have a disproportionate
impact on the right holder. Moreover, there existed other mechanisms, which would have been less restrictive
and equally effective. Mask Mandates in public places, restriction of unvaccinated persons only in certain
designated areas. The Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act also provide for provisions for
the State to adopt appropriate measures to mitigate the damage caused by the epidemic. 60 Those are
enforceable, with penal provisions against non-compliance.
4.2. The Orders Issued By The State Of Kishkinda Violates The Golden Triangle
4.2.1. The Orders Issued By The State Of Kishkinda Violates Article 21 Under The Constitution Of India
The orders issued by the State of Kishkinda restrict unvaccinated people from entering the State. Mandating
vaccination for access to resources, public places, and means of earning livelihood would be in violation of
the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The vaccine mandate issued by the State is grossly
violative of Article 21 and the same shall be proved herein.
A. Firstly, The Orders violate the Right to Livelihood Guaranteed under Article 21.
By restricting access to the public and the State, these orders cause extreme inconvenience to all those
depending on such facilities for their daily bread. This includes the Petitioner as well. The Petitioner has been
deprived of the chance in play in the Elavanka Opens, which has resulted in his Right to livelihood being
violated. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that Article 21 is available to both citizens and foreigners
alike.
• The same was held in the Supreme Court of India a judgment of Hans Muller of Nurenburg V.
Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, and Others. It can be stated without doubt that Article 21
carries within it the Right to Livelihood. The same has been upheld in various judgments.
• In Delhi Transport Corporation DTC V, MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND OTHERS, The Supreme
Court emphasized that “The right to Life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood, therefore
cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority” The Court has reiterated the same principle
and observed that Article 19 assures freedoms including the right to reside and settle in any part of the
country and Article 21 extends to the right of livelihood.61
60
The Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, s 2; Disaster Management Act 2005, s 35.
61
LIC of India and Ors V. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors 1995 AIR SC 1811 [14]
• In Olga Tellis and Others V. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others62, it was observed that “ An
equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without
the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of
the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to
deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation” The vendors, shop owners, daily
laborers, and even white-collar workers to some extent, are greatly affected by the Orders of the State
of Kishkinda. Coercive Vaccination would result in interfering with the principle of informed self-
determination of individuals, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
B. Secondly, The Orders issued by the State of Kishkindha violate the Right to Health of persons
guaranteed under Article 21
By mandating the vaccine, the State grossly and unjustly violates the Right to Health vested under Article 21
the Supreme Court of India in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India & Ors63 interpreted the right to health
under Article 21 which guarantees the right to life. In State of Punjab & Ors v, Mohinder Singh Chawla the
apex court reaffirmed that the right to health is fundamental to the right to life and should be put on record
that the government had a constitutional obligation to provide health services. In State of Punjab & Ors v Ram
Lubhaya Bagga, the court went on to endorse the State’s responsibility to maintain health services.
4.3. The Orders Issued By The State Of Kishkindha Are Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution
The orders issued by the State of Kishkinda, by unreasonably differentiating between fully vaccinated,
partially vaccinated and un-vaccinated persons violate Article 14 of the Constitution. In Registrar General,
High Court of Meghalaya V. State of Meghalaya, it was held that compulsory or forceful vaccination does
not find any force in law, due to which such vaccination becomes unconstitutional. The principles of natural
justice have been designed to ensure fairness in action by the State and public bodies and, therefore, an
important facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order issued by the State is a clear violation of
the principle of equality and is not on the basis of Intelligible Differentia. The Test of Reasonable Differentia
lays down that the classification must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing
reasonable and just needs in respect of which it is made. Here, in so far as the spread of Covid- 19 Virus to
others is concerned, the Covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated person or persons are the same. Both can
equally be a potential spreader if they are infected with the Covid-19 Virus in them. Hence, if the sole object
of issuing the impugned order was for containment of the Covid-19 pandemic and its further spread in the
State of Kishkinda, the classification sought to be made between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons was,
prima facie, a classification not founded on intelligible differentia nor it was found to have a rational
62
Olga Tellis and Ors V. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR SC 180
63
Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union Of India & Ors 1984 AIR 802
relation/nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification, namely, containment and further
spread of Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned order, therefore, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(d) & 21 of the
Constitution.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is submitted that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Cheramanadu may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. Petitions filed by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Cheramanadu are maintainable.
2. Epidemic Diseases Act, 1915 is Unconstitutional.
3. Orders passed by the passed by the Government of Kishkinda regarding vaccine mandates is
Unconstitutional.
4. Petitioner’s detention and deportation is illegal.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper, and for this act of
kindness the Respondent shall duty bound pray.
All Of Which Is Respectfully Submitted
Place: S/d_________________
Date: (Counsel for Petitioner)

Imcc - T95 - Memorial For The Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imcc - T95 - Memorial For The Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,PARTICIPANT

2022 CODE – T95

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF CHERAMANADU

W.P NO: ____/ 2022

OGDEN MILOSEVIC AND THE NATIONAL

UNION OF CHERAMANADU AND STATE

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ I

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

4. A.I.R: ALL INDIA REPORTER

6. UOI: UNION OF INDIA

10. Cri: Criminal

11. No.: Number

12. Hon’ble: Honourable

13. ANR: ANOTHER

14. ORS: OTHERS

15. SC: SUPREME COURT

16. HC: HIGH COURT

17. SSC: SC CASES

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0566/2022

ACTS, RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

II. Covid and Impact

V. Elavanka Open and Subsequent Events

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

VI. The arrival of Ogden Milosevic and the subsequent havoc

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS CONSTITUITIONALLY VALID.?

WHETHER THE DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS LEGALLY VALID?

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

1. THE DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS NOT LEGALLY VALID

2. EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

ARGUMENT ADVANCED / PLEADING

1. WHETHER OGDEN MILSOVIC’S DEPORTATION, DETENTION

1.2.THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN UPHELD

1.3.RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AND PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW WERE

1.4.THE DETENTION ORDER WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF

1.5. MR OGDEN MILOSEVIC IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

1.5.2. Mr Ogden Milosovic doesn’t pose as harm to the State

The anticipated harm can be categorized into two sections:

B) The harm to public health in that anti-vaccination sentiment would be fostered

1.6.THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS INVALID ACCORDING

2. WHETHER THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1915 IS

2.1. AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE

2.1.1. The Act does not define “epidemic”

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER

I. The action must be sanctioned by law

II. The proposed action must be necessary for a legitimate aim

IV. There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference

3. WHETHER THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES

3.1. THE ORDER THAT GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO SOME CLASSES OF PERSONS IS

3.1.1. THERE IS NO RATIONAL NEXUS FOR THE DIFFERENTIATION

In Union of India v. M.V. Vallaiappan53 the Supreme Court held that :-

4. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KISHKINDA