()

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

58

CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

INTRA CLASS
MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020
IN THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF BANGALORE

In The Matter Of

MR. PRITHVIRAJ (PETITIONER)

Vs
UNION OF INDIA (RESPONDENT)

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICE ON THE 5TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION OF
CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW , BANGLORE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ()
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
………………………………………………………………………………i

List of Abbreviations
………………………………………………………………………….ii
Index of Authorities
…………………………………………………………………………..iii
a. Cases Cited …………………………………………………………………………..iii
b. Books and Treatises…………………………………………………………………..iii
c. Legal Databases ……………………………………………………………………..iii
d. Legislations …………………………………………………………………………..iii
Statement of Jurisdiction
……………………………………………………………………..iv
Synopsis of Facts
………………………………………………………………………………v
Summary of Arguments ……………...
………………………………………………………………vi
Advanced Arguments...................................................................................vii
Prayer.........................................
……………………………………………………………………..5
 ()
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

Cal Calcutta

IC Indian Cases

Del Delhi

Cr.LJ Criminal Law Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCJ Supreme court journal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 ()
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A. CASES CITED

1.Suo moto vs. state of Gujrat.

B. BOOKS AND TREATISES

1.Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.
2.Disaster Management Act, 2005.

C. LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra.
2. Scc online.
3. Westlaw.
4. Lexis Nexis.
5. Indian Kanoon.

D. LEGISLATIONS
1. Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.
2. Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

SSTATEMENT
TATEMENT O
OFF JJURISDICTION
URISDICTION
 ()
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under

Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this chapter-

(1)Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this chapter in respect with the corona
virus pandemic being declared as a notified disaster under the Disaster Management Act,
2005, the question of exercise of civil liberties does not arise thus, this act shall be instituted
to the district court having jurisdiction.

(2)For the purpose of sub-section (1).a ‘district court having jurisdiction’ shall, not
withstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(5 of 1908),or any other
law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding ,the person
instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one persons, any of them
actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
 ()
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

In March 2015, the Microsoft co-founder and billionaire philanthropist Mr. Bill Gates gave a
TED talk in which he said that the United States of America and other countries were not
prepared for the future pandemic that was going to hit them. His prediction was “If anything
kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious
virus rather than a war”. He further added “Not missiles, but microbes”
In December 2019, a 57-year-old female shrimp seller in China's Wuhan city, developed
symptoms that resembled a common cold. As her health deteriorated, she was admitted to a
hospital where she was diagnosed of having been infected with a Novel strain of Corona
virus- COVID 19.
The virus quickly spread all across the city of Wuhan and from there to several parts of the
world. As of 29th March 2020, there have been at least 30,847 confirmed deaths and more
than 6,64,695 confirmed cases of the corona virus globally.
The World Health Organization classified the situation as a pandemic and called for
collective action by countries to tackle the danger. Considering the deteriorating situation
especially in Europe and United States of America, several countries imposed stringent travel
restrictions on flights and cancelled issuance of fresh visas. Flights were suspended leaving
hundreds of people stranded.
Bharat is a democratic country whose constitution and laws are in parimateria with the
Union of India. It is the second most populous country in the world with several cities having
a high density of population. Though the country was striving to be a $5 Trillion economy,
the government spent only 1.28 per cent of its GDP for health in the year 2017-18.
Considering the huge population and the challenges associated with tackling the novel corona
virus, the government decided to take swift action before the situation becomes
unmanageable. The Government of Bharat on 24.03.2020 imposed a “lockdown” for a period
of 21 days. The news was telecasted at 8 pm giving the public a little less than 4 hours to
prepare for it.
With a lockdown, the free movement of goods was restricted by the government with the
exception of essential items declared by the Government under Section 2, 3, 4 of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Considering virtually, there was no heads-up for the
 ()
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

lockdown, several people were out on the streets to buy groceries, medical supplies and basic
essentials.
On 25.03.2020, several videos emerged wherein it was seen that the police were lathi
charging and beating up anybody who is on the street. On a news channel, Mr. Prithviraj, a
lawyer by profession protested against this high-handedness of the police. He pointed out that
the act of the police in brutally lathi charging civilians raised several concerns. While Section
144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not imposed, the question of blindly
beating up civilians would not abruptly arise. Despite the fact that in a lockdown unlike a
curfew, state enforcement authorities like the police cannot arrest persons for not following
the lockdown without the permission of the competent court.
On 26.03.2020, the government of Bharat operated special flights to ‘rescue’ its citizens
stranded in countries that were badly affected with the corona virus. Ironically, thousands of
migrant labourers and daily wage workers were left stranded in the cities with all modes of
transportation closed. With no other option left, many started travelling hundreds of miles on
foot to reach their villages. This presented a stark contrasting picture of the situation to the
nation.
Being aggrieved by this, Mr. Prithviraj filed a P.I.L. before the Supreme Court seeking for an
order to direct the Government to provide basic essentials and travel facilities to the
thousands of migrant labourers and daily wage workers. Further the Petitioner also sought for
strict guidelines to prevent the assault on civilians by the police authorities.
The Government objected to the same by stating that under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
the government is empowered to take steps to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
Further, with the corona virus pandemic being declared as a notified disaster under the
Disaster Management Act, 2005, the question of exercise of civil liberties does not arise. The
State also justified its actions by placing reliance upon the provisions under
Section188, Section 269 and Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code.
 ()
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1

Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not ?

In P.I.L. it is being stated that While Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was not imposed, the question of blindly beating up civilians would not abruptly arise. BUT,
according to Section 188 , Section 269, Section 270 of IPC government or government
officials may restrict those civilians who are not abiding by the law.

Secondly, it is being mentioned that government should provide travel facilities to the
thousands of migrant laborers and daily wage workers. BUT, in situation of Lockdown if
Government takes such steps then it will have to start transportation services, which would be
the violation of Social Distancing at large. Social Distancing is only method to break the
chain of spread of Corona virus, stated by the WHO.

Issue 2

Whether the citizens are violating the rule of Lockdown, imposed by the government ?

According to WHO, if such disease like Corona virus is being spread through human beings
then only one method is there to prevent that disease. And that method is known as Social
Distancing. Lockdown is the only option to follow Social Distancing in country like India.
But unfortunately it was being found that at many places people at large were ignoring to
practice Social Distancing in a country. It was found that in situation of Lockdown people
were coming out from there houses without any rational reason behind it. So, Government
officials were bound to restrict them from doing so. (In case of Suo Moto vs. State of Gujrat
which held under section 4 of Epidemic Disease Act).
 ()
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 3

Whether the Government Of India is liable for lathi charging on civilians, by police
officials ?

It is being stated in P.I.L that police officials are brutally lathi charging on civilians and
petitioner is seeking remedy for it. BUT The Government Of India cannot be held liable for
such acts of Police officials, as Under Section 34 (b)(c), Section 51 and Section 73 of The
Disaster Management Act. Police officials or any other authority working under the guidance
of The Government Of India can restrict the civilians from doing such acts which is irrational
at the time Lockdown.
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not ?

 In P.I.L it is being stated that while Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was not imposed, the question of blindly beating up civilians would not abruptly arise. BUT,
under Section 188, Section 269, Section 270 of Indian Penal Code, police officials, who are
working under Government Of India can restrict those civilians and those civilians who are
not obeying rules and regulations can be punished by the State. As, following section states,

SECTION 188 - prescribes punishment for disobeying any order duly promulgated by a
public servant. The punishment includes imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six
months, or with fine which may extend to Rs 1,000, or both.

SECTION 269 - Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.—
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason
to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 270 - Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.—
Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to
be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.

SECONDLY, in P.I.L it is being asked to direct the Government to provide travel facilities
to the thousands of migrant laborers and daily wage workers. BUT,
IN a situation of such pandemic, it is not possible to do so. Because while keeping in mind,
spread of such disease, World Health Organization asked every countries to follow Social
Distancing , as it is the only possible to tackle such situation. Considering the huge
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
population and the challenges associated with tackling the novel corona virus, the
government decided to take swift action before the situation becomes unmanageable. The
Government of Bharat on 24.03.2020 imposed a “lockdown” for a period of 21 days.
WHO has released data as on 30th March, 2020

No. of cases No. of deaths

World 7,35,000 25000
US 1,42,000 2500
Italy 98,000 10,800
Spain 7,340 7,340
China 82,000 3,500
India 1,234 38
*approx. values

Source: THE INDIAN EXPRESS, 30TH MARCH, 2020.

So, from the above data we can conclude that the India received lots of advantages by
following “LOCKDOWN” as a method of “SOCIAL DISTANCING”. There are other
countries like US which didn’t followed social distancing, lockdown didn’t took place there
and as a result, from the above data it can be easily find out that the US is having highest
number of cases in the world.

So, while following Social Distancing and Lockdown, it was not possible for the government
to provide transport facilities to those laborers , who all were far away from there home.
So, we Plea in a Court Of Justice that the P.I.L is not maintainable in the Court.
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 2

ISSUE 2

Whether the citizens are violating the rule of Lockdown, imposed by the government ?

Considering the huge population and the challenges associated with tackling the novel corona
virus, the government decided to take swift action before the situation becomes
unmanageable. The Government of Bharat on 24.03.2020 imposed a “lockdown” for a period
of 21 days. After imposing Lockdown within a country it was found that still general public
was violating the rules and regulations. Many of them found ignoring social distancing,
which was the only possible way to tackle with novel corona virus.
With a lockdown, the free movement of goods was restricted by the government with the
exception of essential items declared by the Government under Section 2, 3, 4 of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

SECTION 2- Power to take special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous

epidemic disease-(1) When at any time the State Government is satisfied that the State or
any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic
disease, the State Government, if it thinks that the ordinary provisions of the law for the
time being in force are insufficient for the purpose, may take, or require or empower any
person to take, such me assures and, by public notice, prescribe such temporary regulations to
be observed by the public or by any person or class of persons as it shall deem necessary to
prevent the outbreak of such disease or the spread thereof, and may determine in what
manner and by whom any expenses incurred (including compensation if any) shall be
defrayed.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the 7
[State Government] may take measures and prescribe regulations for-
the inspection of persons travelling by railway or otherwise, and the segregation, in hospital,
temporary accommodation or otherwise, of persons suspected by the inspecting officer of
being infected with any such disease.

SECTION 2[A]- Powers of Central Government.-When the Central Government is satisfied

that India or any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous
epidemic disease and that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in force are
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 2
insufficient to prevent the outbreak of such disease or the spread thereof, the Central
Government may take measures and prescribe regulations for the inspection of any ship or
vessel leaving or arriving at any port in the territories to which this Act extends and for such
detention thereof, or of any person intending to sail therein, or arriving thereby, as may be
necessary.

SECTION 3- Penalty.-Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act
shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).

SECTION 4- Protection to persons acting under Act.-No suit or other legal proceeding shall
lie against any person for anything done or in good faith intended to be done under this Act.

So, it was found that the citizens were found violating the rule of Lockdown, imposed by
The Government Of India. And authorities like police, were bound to restrict them and to
punish them under stated Sections 2,3,4 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 3

ISSUE 3

Whether the Government Of India is liable for lathi charging on civilians, by police
officials ?

In the P.I.L filed by the petitioner, it is being stated that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was not imposed, the question of blindly beating up civilians would not
abruptly arise. BUT I plea that, above section is imposed only in urgent cases and on 30th
march, 2020 India was not facing such urgent cases where Section 144 should be imposed.
As shown in a data, India was having very less cases of novel corona virus.

THE act of police officers is being protected under the following sections of The Disaster
Management Act, 2005.

SECTION 34 - For the purpose of assisting, protecting or providing relief to the community,
in response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster, the District Authority may-
(b) control and restrict vehicular traffic to, from and within, the vulnerable or affected area.
(c) control and restrict the entry of any person into, his movement within and departure from,
a vulnerable or affected area.

SECTION 51 - Punishment for obstruction, etc.-Whoever, without reasonable cause-

(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or
a person authorized by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the
discharge of his functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or
the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive
Committee or the District Authority under this Act,
shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions
results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.
 ()
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 3

SECTION 73 - Action taken in good faith.-No suit or prosecution or other proceeding shall
lie in any court against the Central Government or the National Authority or the State
Government or the State Authority or the District Authority or local authority or any officer
or employee of the Central Government or the National Authority or the State Government or
the State Authority or the District Authority or local authority or any person working for on
behalf of such Government or authority in respect of any work done or purported to have
been done or intended to be done in good faith by such authority or Government or such
officer or employee or such person under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations
made there under.
 ()
PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:

1.Declare that Citizens were violating the rule of LOCKDOWN, imposed by The
Government Of India.
2.Pass that the Police officials working under The Government Of India, is not liable for lathi
charging on civilians who were not following Lockdown.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the {respondent} shall as in duty bound, forever humbly pray.
Counsels for the {respondent}