DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

MOOT COURT COMMITTEE

ORIENTATION BRIEF SHEET

FACTS

Pinkman-19 is a virus that has affected the world and El Camino too. Pinkman-19 is highly
contagious and infectious, affecting people of all age groups. The virus spread from China into
the entire world, with the WHO declaring it a pandemic. It caused millions of deaths, with
countries struggling to find ways to defeat it. El-Camino noted the first case of Pinkman-19 in
January 2020, but it was only in March that the Union government began to actively take
measures to contain the virus. The Government’s containment model was fairly successful, with
infection and death rates remaining comfortably below the world average. The university of RML
announced the creation of the first vaccine for Pinkman-19 with 94% efficacy and goldstandard
safety rating of 99%, called Sampark.

The government of El Camino issued the National Vaccination Policy, the Policy required all
shopkeepers, vendors, etc. to get vaccinated before opening their shops in the market. This caused
hue and cry amongst small traders, who said that the government was indirectly turning the
voluntary vaccination policy into a mandatory requirement. Some groups of traders in the state
of Meghalaya were especially angry and challenged the Policy in the High Court of Meghalaya.
The Chief Justice of Meghalaya, in the case of Registrar General v State of Meghalaya, allowed
the petition, holding the policy as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Sensing its
consequences on the country’s vaccination drive, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
promptly appealed the High Court order before the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

1
MOOT POINT

The main point of contention is whether the National Vaccination Policy is violative of Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(g) provides for the fundamental right of the citizens to
practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

The requirement of the National Vaccination policy for all shopkeepers, vendors, and other people
of the unorganized sector, to get mandatorily vaccinated before they can resume their business
imposes an arbitrary limitation to their right under article 19(1)(g).

The National Vaccination Policy violates the individual’s fundamental right to liberty which is
protected under article 21 of the Constitution. Although, Article 19(6) of the constitution
prescribes “reasonable restrictions” in the “interest of general public”, the present instance is
exemplary and clearly distinguishable. It affects an individual's right, choice and liberty
significantly more than affecting the general public as such or for that matter since the side effects
of this newly manufactured vaccine is not yet known, and the latter's interests being at stake
because of the autonomous decision of an individual human being of choosing not to be
vaccinated is limited by the vaccination policy.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

Fundamental Right conferred under Article 19(1)(g) gives the citizens the right to practice any
profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. But under the provisions of
Article19(6), which clearly stipulates that nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause can be
considered to be absolute, rather it can impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the grounds of
propagation and protections of the interests of the general public, and in the present case, a
reasonable restriction has been established in the interest of the public health, in the context of
the spread of the Pinkman-19 virus.