TEAM CODE - J

10th SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION NO. ______/2024

ADIL KHAN ………….…………………………………………………………… Petitioner

v.

UNION OF INDIA …………….…………………………………………………Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 6

5. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS 7

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11

7. PRAYER 16

1
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article
cl. Clause
Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journal (India)
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Id. Idem
Ltd. Limited
Manu Manupatra
No. Number
Ors. Others
PC Privy Council
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
v. Versus

2
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED:

Sl.
CASE CITATION
No.
1. (1982) S.C.R. (1)
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Etc.
438 (India).
2. 3 S.C.R 442
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
(India).
3. (1954) S.C.R. 1112
Behram Singh v. State of Bombay
(India).
4. 1984 A.I.R. 802
Bhandua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
(India).
5. (1955) S.C.R.
Budhan Choudhry And Other v. State of Bihar
(1)1045 (India).
6. 156 U.S. 432
Coffin, et al. v. United States
(1895).
7. A.I.R. 1955 S.C.
D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
654 (India).
8. (2005) 1 S.C.C.
E.V. Chinnah v. State of A.P
394 (India).
9. 1974 A.I.R. 555
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
(India).
10. Garda Security Screening Inc v. IAM, District 140 (Shoker [2020] OLAA
Grievance) No 162.
11. (1973) 1 S.C.C.
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad 227
(India.)
12. (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
(India).
13. (1952) S.C.R. 435
Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra
(India).
14. A.I.R. 1964 (1)
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
S.C.R. 332 (India).
15. 1978 A.I.R. 597
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(India).
16. (2003) 1 S.C.C.
Mr. X v. Hospital Z
500 (India).
17. (1996) 1 S.C.C.
Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte &Ors 130
(India).
18. T.R. Kothadaram v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board (1994) 6 S.C.C. 282

3
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

(India).

BOOKS REFERRED:
1. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Edition, 2008, Vol. 2 & 3

2. D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition, 2009, Vol. 1 & 2

3. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2018

STATUTES REFERRED:

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Epidemics Act, 1897
3. Disaster Management Act, 2005

STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION

4
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. The said provision is a way to enforce fundamental rights
granted under Part III of the Constitution of India. Article 32 reads as under:

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

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of

the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs

in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,

whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),

Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its

jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided

for by this Constitution”

The Respondents has come before this Hon’ble Court to respond to and rebut the Writ
Petition filed by the Petitioner in the present case.

5
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUES

1. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21

OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

2. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 15 AND 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION?

3. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGITIMATE

AND VALID?

6
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Adil Khan, a 35-year-old manager at Royal Orchid Hotel, was mandated to install the
'COVID Alert' app by the government for contact tracing.

2. Despite government regulations, Adil initially resisted installing the app but complied
when directed by the hotel management.

3. The app collected necessary personal details in the interest of public health and
compliance with government orders.

4. In November, Adil experienced COVID symptoms, tested positive on December 26,

2023, and quarantined for seven days, as per government orders.

5. Adil ordered essentials online and went to public places like the mosque and office
during his quarantine period, potentially endangering public health.

6. Adil resumed office duties on January 3, 2024, but was denied entry and terminated
due to his callous behavior and non-compliance with regulations.

7. The hotel contends that Adil's termination is justified, as he posed a serious threat to
public health by violating the Epidemics Act, 1897.

8. The hotel argues that the collection of personal information is reasonable and in the
interest of public health, justifying any potential privacy concerns.

9. The termination is defended on the grounds of public interest, as Adil's actions in

violation of regulations could adversely impact the lives of customers and employees.

10. There is no violation of Adil's privacy rights or discrimination based on religion;

instead, the termination is based on negligent acts and non-compliance.

7
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21

OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

The argument presented before the this Hon’ble Court asserts that the mandatory download
and use of the 'COVID Alert' application, despite its implications on privacy rights, is
justified under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution due to the pressing need to contain the
spread of COVID-19. It is contended that fundamental rights, including the right to privacy,
are not absolute and can be restricted under established laws and public policy. Citing legal
precedents such as Behram Singh v State of Bombay and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
the argument emphasizes the state's duty to protect public health, which justifies the
infringement on individual privacy rights. Additionally, it argues that the use of the COVID
Alert application meets the criteria of the three-limb test established in the case of Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, ensuring legality, necessity, and proportionality in its
implementation. The disclosure of personal information through the application is deemed
necessary to prevent the spread of the virus, following the precedent set by Mr. X v. Hospital
Z, where exceptions to confidentiality were made in medical cases to prevent harm to others.
Therefore, the argument concludes that the use of the COVID Alert application is a justified
and proportionate measure in the interest of public health.

2. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 15 AND 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION?

The argument presented before the Hon'ble Court contends that there is no violation of
Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Indian Constitution in the case at hand.

Under Article 14, the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law is
upheld, allowing for reasonable classification. Citing the EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
case, it is argued that the application's disclosure of information regarding individuals

8
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

infected with COVID-19 does not violate Article 14, as it adheres to reasonable classification
based on intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus. Thus, there is no arbitrary
discrimination.

Regarding Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth, or any of them, it is asserted that the restriction on public spaces due to
COVID-19 infection does not violate this article, as the restriction is based on health
concerns rather than discriminatory factors.

Under Article 19, which guarantees various freedoms including speech, assembly,
association, and movement, it is acknowledged that these rights are not absolute and can be
subject to reasonable restrictions. The imposition of restrictions due to public health
concerns, as allowed under Article 19(5), is deemed justifiable. Additionally, recent
constitutional revisions have recognized public health as a valid constraint on these freedoms,
further supporting the argument.

3. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGITIMATE AND VALID?

The argument presented before the Hon’ble Court delineates the jurisdictional and remedial
aspects of the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Firstly, it is underscored that Article 32 serves as the legal avenue to redress violations of
fundamental rights perpetrated by the State.

Secondly, the definition of "State" as articulated in Article 12 encompasses governmental

entities, including the Government of India, State governments, and various local authorities.

Thirdly, the argument posits that the Royal Orchid Hotel, where the petitioner faced
termination from employment, does not meet the criteria of being classified as a "State"
entity under Article 12. As such, fundamental rights cannot be enforced against it.

Moreover, the petitioner is urged to seek recourse through the relevant Labour Court in India
to adjudicate the legitimacy of their termination. This plea is bolstered by the invocation of
the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy, which mandates that aggrieved parties
exhaust available avenues for redressal in subordinate courts before approaching the Hon’ble
Court.

Lastly, a firm stance is taken that neither the Hon’ble Court nor the Hon’ble High Court
possesses the jurisdiction to entertain issues pertaining to the petitioner's termination.

9
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Therefore, the petitioner is urged to pursue legal recourse through the appropriate channels as
per the established legal framework.

10
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADANCED

1. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21

OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the there has been no violation of
the Right to Privacy which has been granted under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
No fundamental right is absolute in nature, including the Right to Life and Personal
Liberty under Article 21 through which the Right to Privacy has been carved out. The
fundamental rights under Article 21 are subject to ‘procedure established by law’. This
exception is expressly provided under Article 21 and requires no additional
interpretation. In the present case, the procedure established by law is the government
order and public policy which flow form the Section 2 of The Epidemics Diseases Act,
1897 wherein the State Government has been given the power to take special measures in
the case where there is threat of or outbreak of a dangerous epidemic disease. The
mandate to use ‘COVID Alert’ was given under this procedure which has been
established by law. This application which was mandated to be downloaded to access
public spaces to control the spread of COVID-19 which is a declared global pandemic.
The purpose of the application was to track the movement of individuals infected with
COVID-19 and ensure that healthy people can avoid those infected with COVID-19.
Therefore, COVID Alert acts as a tool to contain COVID-19 and reduce its spread.
2. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Behram Singh v State of Bombay, 1 it was
held that Fundamental Rights are provided for public policy, too, along with the fact
that it is provided for the benefit of the citizens. It is humbly submitted that in the
instant case, public policy plays an important role in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, which required the state to take steps to prevent the spread of the virus, to
secure public health. Thus, Article 21 is to be viewed from a broader perspective,

1
Behram Singh v. State of Bombay, (1954) S.C.R. 1112 (India)

11
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

keeping in mind the duty of the state to protect public health. 2 This limitation of the
right was also upheld in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 3 wherein the
court held that fundamental rights can be legitimately overlooked when there is a law
which has been enacted by any competent legislature and where the procedure is just,
fair and reasonable.
3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the instant case the
Petitioner’s claim that his Right to Privacy has been violated by the Respondents, due
to the mandatory requirement of all citizens to download the ‘Maarogya Alert’ and
disclosure of information, does not hold any merit, since this right is restricted by the
pressing issue of public health, amidst a pandemic. In the case of Mr. X v. Hospital Z, 4
this Hon’ble Court had held that in medical cases, an exception to the rule of
confidentiality can be made where there is a possibility of endangering other people,
if the information is not disclosed. Similarly in the instant case, there was a need to
disclose information of the Appellant, inclusive of information pertaining to his
identity and location, to the public authorities and his employers since there was a risk
of spreading the virus to other people.
4. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Right to Privacy was laid
down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. 5
While this Hon’ble Court had laid down the Right to Privacy, it had also stated that
this right cannot be absolute and that it can be restricted using the three-limb test. The
three limbs of the test are
a. Legality, that is the action should have been done legally under an established
law.
b. Need, that there must be a need to impose the restriction which should be
aligned with the purpose of the law under which it is enacted.
c. Proportionality, that is the restriction must be proportionate to the fulfil the
purpose of the need.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the present case, this
three-limb test has been satisfied. The orders were passed under Section 2 of The
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 which satisfies legality. There was a need to contain
the spread of COVID-19 and the COVID Alert application was launched for
2
India Const., art. 39 (e).
3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 A.I.R. 597 (India)
4
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, (2003) 1 S.C.C. 500 (India)
5
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

12
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ensure that the people are aware of infected persons around them so as to ensure
that they can distance themselves from such persons and thereby reduce the spread
of COVID-19 which aligns with the purpose of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
whose purpose is to avoid outbreak and spread of an epidemic. Finally, the use of
the application was proportionate because it only provided information regarding
infected persons to healthy persons so as to avoid risk of the healthy people
contracting COVID-19. Mr. X v. Hospital Z6 case has laid down in precedent that
such an act is justified and therefore is also proportionate approach to the ‘need’.

2. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 15 AND 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION?

5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there has been no violation of
Article 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

THERE IF NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

6. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 14 of the Constitution of
India equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Article 14 promotes
equality among equals and not equality amongst all. Therefore, under Article 14
reasonable classification is permissible. This reasonable classification is based on
intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus. In the landmark case of EP Royappa v.
State of Tamil Nadu,7 according to this Hon’ble Court, equality is antithetical to
arbitrariness from a positivistic perspective. When an act is arbitrary, it implies that it
is unequal both politically and constitutionally, and so violates Article 14. In the
present case the application does not work arbitrarily because it does not disclose
information of all individuals who are registered onto it. Instead, it satisfies the
intelligible differential and reasonable nexus to disclose information of certain
persons who are reasonably categorised.
7. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court in the present case the intelligible
differentia is the COVID-19 infection of individuals. Only the information of those
individuals who are infected with COVID-19 is being disclosed. This is to ensure that
6
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, (2003) 1 S.C.C. 500 (India)
7
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 A.I.R. 555 (India)

13
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

the healthy individuals are aware of the location of such infected individuals and
thereby avoid such locations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and also to keep
themselves at lesser risk of contracting the deadly virus. There is a reasonable nexus
of this classification with the purpose of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 which to
contain the outbreak and spread of epidemics. Therefore, the test of reasonable
classification is satisfied by the application.
8. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that since the test of reasonable
classification has been satisfied, there is no violation of Article 14 in the present case.

THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

9. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 15(1) of the Constitution
of India states that there should no discrimination amongst individuals on the grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Furthermore, Article
15(2) of the Constitution of India further states that:
“NO CITIZEN SHALL, ON GROUNDS ONLY OF RELIGION, RACE, CASTE, SEX, PLACE

OF BIRTH OR ANY OF THEM, BE SUBJECT TO ANY DISABILITY, LIABILITY,

RESTRICTION OR CONDITION WITH REGARD TO-

ACCESS TO SHOPS, PUBLIC RESTAURANTS, HOTELS AND PLACES OF PUBLIC

ENTERTAINMENT; OR

(B) THE USE OF WELLS, TANKS, BATHING GHATS, ROADS AND PLACES OF PUBLIC

RESORT MAINTAINED WHOLLY OR PARTLY OUT OF STATE FUNDS OR DEDICATED TO

THE USE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC”

10. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 15(2) of the Constitution
states that the said public spaces should not be restricted to any citizen on the grounds
of their religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. In the present case the
grounds for the restriction to public places was infection of COVID-19. Only those
individuals who had been tested positive for COVID-19 were restricted to enter into
public spaces. Infection of COVID-19 has nothing to do with the religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them of the citizens. Therefore, there is no violation of
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution and it is misbelief of the Petitioner that he has
been discriminated against upon the grounds of his religion.

THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

14
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

11. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Constitution of India confers
upon all citizens fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech and
expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to form associations or
unions under Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) respectively. It is submitted that
Article 19 (1) (d) looks into the fundamental right to freedom of movement. Here the
term freely indicates the absence of restrictions. It is to be noted that this right is
subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5). Article 19 (5) states that the
State can curtail the freedom of movement of individuals. This is done in the interest
of the general public.

12. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 19's right is not absolute and
may be subject to state-imposed constraints. The Petitioner was not banned from seeking
other employment, and his Article 19 right to work was not infringed. Additionally, a
recent revision to India's Constitution added public health as a justifiable constraint. As a
result, the same will not contradict India's Article 19 constitution. Concern for public
health is a valid justification, and the Appellants were not subjected to any breach of their
basic rights. This analysis demonstrates that appropriate constraints on these liberties are
possible. Additionally, a recent revision to India's Constitution added public health as a
justifiable constraint. As a result, the same will not contradict India's Article 19
constitution. Hansaria, J. remarked succinctly in T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water
Supply and Drainage Board,8 that “Our Constitution's golden triangle is constituted of
Articles 14, 19, and 21." Incorporating such a trinity into our supreme constitution is
intended to provide a route for the Indian people toward the trinity of liberty, equality, and
fraternity.”

8
T.R. Kothadaram v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 282 (India).

15
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGITIMATE AND VALID?

13. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that this Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The said writ is used to enforce the
fundamental rights of the individuals which have been violated by the State.
14. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that for the purposes of Part III of
the Constitution of India, State has been defined under Article 12 as follows:
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature
of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India.”
15. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is no evidence that the
Royal Orchid Hotel is controlled by the Government of India and therefore it would
not fall under the definition of State and fundamental rights are enforceable only
against the State. There has been no violation of any fundamental right of the
Petitioner caused due to his termination of service at the Royal Orchid since Royal
Orchid is not State.
16. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner should approach
the relevant Labour Court in India to determine whether his termination was
legitimate and valid. It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court should direct the
Petitioner to approach a Labour Court by enforcing the principle of exhaustion of
alternative remedy which states that the aggrieved party should first exhaust the
remedies available to them with the subordinate courts. Furthermore, this Hon’ble
Court and neither the Hon’ble High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this issue.

16
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT
IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT THAT IT MAY BE PLEASED:

TO DISMISS THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER.

AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

IN LIGHT OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED.

___________________________
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

17
10TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP