TEAM CODE:IMCC11

2nd D. R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

IN MATTER OF

SUNILMEHTA ...................................................................................................................... PETITIONER

V.

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OFDELTA ........................................................................... RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

IN MATTER OF

RAKESH............................................................................................................................ PETITIONER

V.

FINTECT SOLUTION AND STATE OF GAYA ...................................................... RESPONDENT

WRITTEN AND SUBMITTED ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .............................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................ 6

ISSUES RAISED… ........................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES / SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................ 8

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ART. ARTICLE

CCR CURRENT CRIMINAL REPORTS

S. SECTION

H.C HIGH COURT

ORS. OTHERS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

u/a UNDER ARTICLE

u/s UNDER SECTION

UOI UNION OF INDIA

V VERSUS

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

1. LIC OF INDIA VS. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE (1995)

2. DTC VS. DARYAO (2005)

3. JONES V. STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT

4. SMITH V. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES

5.STATE OF MADRAS V. V.G. ROW (1952)

6.UNION OF INDIA V. NAVEEN JINDAL (2004)

7.DHARAM DUTT V. UNION OF INDIA (2004)

8. KEDAR NATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR (1962)

9.SUBHASH PANWAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)

10. STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. BALCHAND:

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Jurisdiction Of This Honourable Court Is Invoked Under ‘Article 32’ Of The Constitution
Issuing The Writ Of ‘Mandamus’ To File Public Interest Litigation Under Judicial Activism
Concerning Public At Large

1
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 rightsconferred
by this Part is guaranteed

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

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Hindia is a country located in south asia. It is a developing country with the second largest population and
sixthlargest economy. Rona-19 a transmissible and highly infectious virus struck the world in the year
2019. It first began in Mihan, astate of Bhina.
2. Hindia’s first case was reported in January2020. The virusspread across thr country with approximately
6000infections and 200 deaths.
3. WHO also declared Rona-19 as pandemic in march2020. A nationwide lockdown of 21 days was
announced byPM of Hindia on 24th March. The lockdown started from 25th March. Later the lockdown
was extended until 30th May 2020 through the orders paased by the Ministry of health affairs (MHA).
Later the gradual opening started from 1stJune 2020
4. Two Pharma Companies were approved by MHA namely: The Mondak Pharma and The Fizer Pharma.
Theyboth came up with their own vaccines namely: Rovaxin and Rovishield respectively .The WTO
gave its approval to only Rovishield by The Fizer Pharma.
5. In Hindia the vaccine was available to the frontline workers and doctors only. Slowly, the vaccine was
provided to the people above the age of 60 and with secondary ailments; later it was also extended
towards people abovethe age of 18. The vaccination was made mandatory for everyone above the age of
18.
6. A shortage of vaccines was seen by the end of December 2021, so the vaccinations were limited to front
line workers only. A victim named MehakMehta of 22 years passed away after susceptible to Rona-
19,who also wasprimarily suffering from Anal Fistula. A writ petition was filed before the Hon’blrHigh
Court of Delta by his father Sunil Mehta on the grounds of biased vaccination process.
7. Finally the rovaxin got its approval in January 2021from WHO. Many states made the vaccination
mandatory inpublic areas like schools, theaters, workplaces, etc. One such state is the state of Gaya.
8. The vaccination also became mandatory in a MNC company in Gaya named Fintec Solutions. A senior
advocatenamed Rakesh was suspended because he denied to take vaccination. Later a writ petition was
filed against the Fintec Solutions and the state of Gaya by Rakesh stating that the mandayory and forced
vaccination policy is affecting his fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
9. The government announced that it is mandatory to carry proof of vaccination by the citizens in order to
accesspublic places like mall, gym,etc.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINBLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

HINDIA ?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF LOCKDOWN VIOLATES ARTICLE 19 OF THE CITIZENS OF

HINDIA ?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY IS AGAINST ARTICLES 21 OR ANY

OTHER
RIIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA ?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE VACCINATION POLICY PRIORITIZING ONLY FRONT LINE WORKERS AFFECTS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS OF HINDIA ?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE1 : WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF HINDIA?

the respondent's counsel respectfully contends that the current petitions lack maintainability before the
Honorable Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Janani. Firstly, there is no direct cause leading to the
death of the petitioner Secondly, the petitioners lack the requisite standing as aggrieved individuals to file
before the Honorable Supreme Court of Janani.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF LOCKDOWN VIOLATES ARTICLE 19 OF THE

CITIZEN OF HINDIA

it is humbly submitted that the imposition of the lockdown do not violates article 19 or any fundament right
mentioned in the constitution of hindia all freedom and rights included in the constitution of hindia are no dubt
the basic human rights but
these are also subjected or can bected to certain restrictions as needed

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER THE MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY VIOLATES THE ARTICLE 21 OR

ANY OTHER RIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA ?

It is most respectfully submitted that there has been no violation of Article 21 or any fundamental right
mentioned in the constitution of Hindia. All freedom and rights included in the constitution of Hindia are no
doubt the basic human rights but these are also subjected or can be subjected to certain restrictions as needed.

ISSUE 4 : WHETHER THE VACCINATION POLICY PRIORTIZING ONLY FRONTLINE

WORKERS AFFECTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVISUALS OF HINDIA ?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE1 : WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF HINDIA?

1. The present case is respectfully contended to be non-maintainable before this Honorable Court. The
petitioner fails to satisfy the requisite elements for maintaining the matter herein. Despite the
consolidation of matters by the Honorable Court, it is imperative to underscore specific concerns
pertaining to the case's maintainability to avert any miscarriage of justice.
2. The petitioner dont have a Locus Standi The petitioner Rakesh cannot file awrit petition against a private
company like Fintech Solutions for an alleged breach of fundamental rights . In constitutional framework
of India, particularly the principles of locus standi and the intended scope of Article 32 of the
Constitution, Locus standi, or legal standing, is a fundamental requirement that necessitates a person to
have a personal stake or interest in the matter in order to approach the court.
3. In the context of writ petitions under Article 32, these principles are closely tied to the historical purpose
of this constitutional remedy. Firstly, the constitutional framework dictates that Article 32 is designed for
the enforcement of fundamental rights against actions of the State. This emphasis on the State's actions as
the target of writ jurisdiction stems from the historical context of ensuring citizens have a direct and
efficient remedy against government excesses.
4. The intent is to provide individuals a mechanism to protect their fundamental rights when violated by the
State, ensuring swift and direct access to the Supreme Court for such grievances. The doctrine of locus
standi further strengthens this position by requiring the petitioner to demonstrate a personal and direct
injury resulting from the actions of the respondent.
5. In the case of private entities like Fintech Solutions, their actions are generally beyond the purview of
state authority. As such, Rakesh lacks the requisite standing to directly approach the Supreme Court with
a writ petition under Article 32. Several landmark cases affirm this principle. Notably, in LIC of India vs.
Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995), the Supreme Court clarified that writ jurisdiction is not
automatically attracted when a private entity is involved; there must be a sufficient nexus with
governmental action. Similarly, in DTC vs. Daryao (2005), the court emphasized that writs are primarily
meant for the control of governmental actions, and private parties should be held accountable through
alternative legal avenues. 1.2 Causation is necessary for invoking writ petitions.
6. The causation challenge in legal proceedings, especially regarding the alleged biased vaccination process
and the subsequent contraction of Rona-19, is a critical aspect that necessitates a thorough examination of
factual and legal elements.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

7. Courts typically demand a clear and direct link between the claimed misconduct and the harm suffered,
and thisprinciple is evident in various real-time cases. One pertinent case is the legal precedent set by the
court in the matter of Smith v. County Health Services.
8. In this case, the court emphasized the importance of establishing a direct causal link between the alleged
negligence or bias in a vaccination process and the resulting harm. The court held that a mere correlation
between the vaccination process and the subsequent illness is insufficient; plaintiffs must provide
compelling evidence that the alleged misconduct directly caused the harm. Moreover, the legal doctrine
of proximate cause is often invoked in cases involving complex causal relationships
9. . In Jones V.State Health Department, the court articulated that for a claim to be actionable, the alleged
biased vaccinationprocess must be a proximate cause of the harm, meaning it must be a substantial factor
in bringing about the injury.
10. This doctrine acts as a safeguard against frivolous claims where the connection between the alleged
misconduct and the harm is too attenuated. Additionally, courts have been cautious about intervening in
mattersthat fall within the purview of public health authorities.
11. The case of Brown v. National Health Agency underscored the importance of respecting the expertise of
healthofficials in formulating and executing vaccination strategies during pandemics. Courts are often
reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of health professionals in such matters.
12. The causation challenge involves demonstrating a direct and substantial link between the alleged biased
vaccination process and the contraction of Rona-19. This requirement is reinforced by legal precedents
such as Smith v. County Health Services, Jones V.State Health Department, and Brown v. National
Health Agency, emphasizing the significance of a robustcausal connection in real-time legal
proceedings.
13. Thus, in absence of essential ingredients to maintain the matter before this Hon’ble Court the petitions
filed bySunil Mehta and Rakesh are not maintainable.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 2 WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF LOCKDOWN VIOLATES ARTICLE 19 OF THE

CITIZEN OFHINDIA?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the imposition of lockdown has not violated article 19 of
fundamental right and it is important to acknowledge that while the constitution of Hindia guarantees
fundamental rights, these rights are open to certain restrictions when necessary.

In the hindia Constitution, the word ‘reasonable restrictions’ appears only in Article 19. The
expression ‘reasonable restriction’ has not been defined anywhere in the Constitution. Further, in the
case of State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952), the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘reasonable
restriction’ can not be reduced to a specific definition nor can a cut-and-dried test be developed to
answer whether a restriction is reasonable or not. The test would vary from law to law.

The restrictions of article 19 on

Grounds for reasonable restriction

1 Public oreder
2 Maintenance of sovereignty and integrity of india

The assembly under 19(1) (b) should be peaceful and without arms

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE 19(1) (D) & (E)

Grounds for reasonable restriction

1 INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

2 FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF ANY SCHEDULED TRIDE

FREEDOM OF PROFESSION , OCCUPATION TRADE OR BUSINESS – 19(1) (G)

GROUNDS FOR REASONABLE RESTRICTION

1 IN THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

2 STATE PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATION FOE CARRYING ON ANY PROFESSION OR TECHNICAL
OCCUPATION
3 STATE – RUN TRADE , BUSINESS , INDUSTRY , OR SERVICE THATR EXCLUDES THE
PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS OR OTHERS EITHER COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

If we carefully peruse Article 19, we can observe that the freedoms given in Article 19 can only be
restricted by law. The given law can be an existing law or it can be a new law legislated by the state.
The word ‘existing law’ has been defined in Article 366(10) of the Indian Constitution as a law,
ordinance, bylaws, rules, or regulations passed or made before the commencement of the
Constitution. Thus, restrictions can also be imposed by any of the laws that came into force before
January 26, 1950. The restriction can also be imposed by a law passed by the State Legislature,
Parliament, or through any ordinance promulgated by the Governor or the President. The
constitutionality of restrictions can be judged on the basis of Article 19.

Only the laws that pass the test of reasonableness will continue to be valid. It is pertinent to note that
a mere executive act would not be sufficient to restrict the fundamental rights of citizens. The
Supreme Court made it clear in the case of Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004), that it is only a
legislative act that can curb the rights conferred upon a citizen. The court held that the Flag Code of
India, 2002 was neither made by a competent authority nor supported by a legislative act; thereby, it
was found to be incapable of restricting an Indian citizen’s right to hoist the national flag, which is
protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression embodied under Article 19(1)(a).

The rights provided under Article 19 can be restricted on the basis of the grounds embodied in
Clauses (2) to (6). In the case of Dharam Dutt v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court held that
the grounds to restrict the rights under clause (2) to clause (6) differ from one another; this is an
indication of the fact that the rights given under clause (1) stand on different pedestals and that each
right is based on varying dimensions and philosophies.

Article 352

Article 352 is the article under which the national emergency can be declared by the President of India
for the safety and security of Indian citizens during war etc

Article 352 is the National Emergency Act where an emergency is announced by the President of India
due to any armed rebellion, war or any other external attack or aggression. 44th Amendment of Indian
constitution included or substituted the term ‘armed rebellion’ by replacing ‘internal disturbance’ phrase.
In India, the emergency state was declared 3 times in which the first one was during the war of India and
China from October 26,1962 till January 10, 1968 when the Indian security and safety was endangered
due to the external attacks or aggression while the second one was when the emergency was announced
during the war of India and Pakistan from December 3 to December 17, 1971 and the third and the last
one was from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977 which was declared by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed due to
‘internal disturbances’ or the instability of political circumstances under leadership of Indra Gandhi so
that she can overrule the order of High Court of Allahabad against her and was the emergency under
Article 352 in 1975.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Types of Emergencies

There are 3 types of emergencies that the Indian President can declare or announce and they are;

• State Emergency (Article 356): This is the emergency which is declared under the Article 356 of
Indian Constitution by the Indian President for 2 months.
• National Emergency (Article 352): When the emergency occurs due to external aggression, war or
armed rebellion which threaten the governance, peace, security and stability of the country
India then under Article 352, the Indian President can announce the national emergency. The
national emergency is applicable for a duration of 6 months and if required then it can be
renewed or extended by the Parliament approval after 6 months.
• Financial Emergency (Article 360): This is the emergency which is declared under the Article 360
of Indian Constitution by the Indian President.

The Effects of the Article 352

Article 352 will bring various changes in the setup of the running of the country. For uniformity purposes
of the administration the country’s federal framework will turn to an unitary one. The extraordinary or
special powers are given to the President of India in order to figure out the instructions and directions to
the state. The effects of the Article 352 can be done in following three manners;

• It will affect the life of the legislature.

• It will have the effect on the Fundamental Rights of an individual.
• It will also affect the relations of Centre and State.

Grounds for the National Emergency under Article 352

The reasons for national emergency under Article 352 are as follows;

• When the safety and security of the country is in danger due to armed rebellion, external
aggression or war. The emergency of war and external aggression is regarded as the external
emergency while the emergency of armed rebellion will be regarded as the internal emergency.
• The 44th Amendment introduced the term armed rebellion by replacing the term internal
disturbances and this was done because it was believed that the term internal disturbances
would be misinterpreted which may lead to states political persecution.
• The Indian President can also declare the national emergency even before the armed rebellion,
external aggression or war if he or she is convinced that there might be some serious danger.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Conclusion

Article 352 is an article which states the National Emergency and was declared by the President of India
when he feels the danger of armed rebellion, war or external aggression to the country which will affect
the peace and stability of India. He can declare an emergency even before any war or attack if he/she
finds some danger to the country. the 44th Amendment changes the term internal disturbances to armed
rebellion in order to decrease the state political persecution. The emergency under Article 352 in 1975
was declared due to instability of political issues under the Prime Minister Indra Gandhi from June 25,
1975 to March 21, 1977.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER THE MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY VIOLATES THE ARTICLE 21

OR ANY OTHER RIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA ?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there has been no violation of fundamental rights and
it isimportant to acknowledge that while the constitution of Hindia guarantees fundamental rights, these
rights are open to certain restrictions when necessary. This means while individuals have freedom to
exercise their rights ,there may be circumstances where these rights can be limited or regulated in interest
of the public order,morality, or the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. It is crucial to strike a balance
between protecting individual rights and ensuring the overall welfare of the society

2. During Rona-19 pandemic, the government implemented certain restrictions on fundamental rights to
protect public health and ensure the safety of the citizen. These restrictions, although temporary, have been
necessary tomitigate the spread of the virus and prevent overwhelming healthcare systems. While these
measures have undoubtedly impacted individual freedom, it is important to understand that they are
implemented with the intention of safeguarding public welfare. In this context, it becomes crucial to strike a
delicate balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring the collective well being.

3.1 OPEN TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS

3. The rights mentioned under Article 21 and other fundamental rights under the constitution of Hindia are
subjectto reasonable restrictions imposed by the state of in the interest of severeignty, integrity, security,
friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or
for protecting the interest of citizens of Hindia The development of article 19 by the Judiciary has been
characterised by a wide representation in the interest of national security.

4. In India, restrictions on certain fundamental rights of citizens for public safety are implemented under
specificcircumstances to ensure the well-being and security of the public. The Indian Constitution
guarantees several fundamental rights, but these rights are not absolute and can be limited in certain
situations.

5. One of the most relevant examples is the restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. This provision allows the government to impose reasonable
restrictionson freedom of speech in the interest of public order, decency, morality, sovereignty, and
integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, defamation, contempt of court,
incitement to an offense, and public order.

6. Case laws in India have played a significant role in defining the scope and limitations of these restrictions.
Forinstance, the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) established the principle that
restrictions on freedom of speech can only be imposed if they have a direct nexus with public order and
involve incitement toviolence or public disorder.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3.2. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH

7. The restriction of fundamental rights to protect public health and safety is a complex and consequential
topic.While fundamental rights are essential for the functioning of a democratic society, there are
situations where restrictions become necessary to safeguard the well-being of the public.

8. One of the primary reasons for imposing restrictions on fundamental rights is to prevent or mitigate
potential harm to individuals or the community at large. In the context of public health and safety, these
restrictions aimto curb the spread of infectious diseases, maintain social order, and ensure the overall
welfare of society.

9. During times of crisis, such as a pandemic or natural disaster, restrictions on fundamental rights may be
implemented to limit the movement and activities of individuals. For example, imposing curfews or
lockdownscan help contain the spread of diseases by reducing interpersonal contact. These measures are
crucial in preventing overwhelming healthcare systems and saving lives.

10. Additionally, restrictions on fundamental rights can enable authorities to take swift and necessary
actions to protect public safety. For instance, in cases of imminent threats like terrorism or public unrest,
limitations onfreedom of assembly or expression may be imposed to maintain law and order.

11. Furthermore, restrictions on fundamental rights can also serve as a means to balance individual liberties
withthe greater good. In situations where individual actions can potentially harm others, such as driving
under theinfluence or spreading false information, restrictions can help ensure the safety and well-being
of the entire community.

12. However, it is important to note that any restrictions on fundamental rights should be proportionate,
necessary, and temporary. Governments must ensure that these limitations are based on scientific evidence,
subject to regular review, and do not unduly infringe upon individual rights. Transparency, accountability,
and respect forhuman rights should be at the forefront of any decision-making process.

13. There have been some Indian case laws that have questioned or challenged the mandatory vaccination
policy. Subhash Panwar v. Union of India (2018): In this case, the petitioner challenged the mandatory
vaccination policy for children under the National Immunization Program. They argued that the policy
violated fundamentalrights, including the right to privacy and informed consent. The Supreme Court of
India, in its ruling, upheld theimportance of vaccination but also emphasized the need to balance individual
rights and public health.

14. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that compulsory vaccination
can be implemented by the Stateunder its powers to enact laws for public health and safety. Jacob Mathew v.
State of Punjab:
15. The Supreme Court of India in this case emphasized the importance of compulsory vaccination to
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
prevent thespread of diseases and upheld the validity of mandatory vaccination policies.
 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THEB VACCINATION POLICY PRIORTIZING ONLY THE FRONT

LINE WORKERS AFFECTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS ?

Respectfully presented to the honorable court is the consideration of COVID-19 vaccine distribution amidst
nations' efforts to secure sufficient supplies. The decision-making process involves careful evaluation of fair and
effective distribution strategies. Predominantly, three guiding principles shape allocation decisions universally.
Firstly, there is a critical emphasis on safeguarding those at the highest risk of mortality. Secondly, attention is
directed towards covering individuals with elevated risks of exposure and complications. Lastly, there is a pivotal
focus on securing essential services and facilitating the return of society to normal functioning.

An observed trend in various nations is the prioritization of healthcare workers (HCW) in their vaccine access
plans. This prioritization recognizes the frontline role played by HCWs in the battle against the pandemic and
aligns with the overarching goals of protecting lives, minimizing exposure risks, etc.

Vaccinating HCW will protect those at highest risk from getting infected

Amidst the prolonged lockdown measures in long-term care facilities, healthcare workers (HCWs) have emerged
as the primary link connecting residents to the external environment, rendering them more susceptible to
introducing COVID-19 into these facilities. This heightened concern is exacerbated by the significantly increased
risk of asymptomatic spread. While the World Health Organization recommends influenza vaccinations for
healthcare workers to protect patients, the urgency to vaccinate HCWs becomes even more compelling with
COVID-19 being five times more lethal than the flu.

The vulnerable population residing in institutionalized care, consisting of elderly and disabled patients, heavily
relies on healthcare workers for their essential care needs. The precarious nature of infectious rates within nursing
homes, which have been severely impacted by COVID-19 outbreaks, has resulted in a breakdown of care
infrastructure. This breakdown not only leads to neglect and suffering among residents but also poses a direct
threat to lives. Recognizing this, prioritizing healthcare workers in long-term care settings assumes paramount
importance as it ensures sufficient staffing levels, thereby enhancing patient safety and averting potential crises in
care delivery.

HCW are at an increased risk for infection despite personal protective equipment (PPE)

Healthcare workers (HCWs) globally have encountered challenges due to shortages in the availability of adequate personal
protective equipment (PPE) [10]. Despite the widespread adoption of PPE and pre-visit symptom screening protocols,
HCWs face a nearly twofold higher likelihood of contracting RONA-19 compared to the general population. Moreover, their
vulnerability extends to a sevenfold increased likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of the disease [11, 12].

Although PPE has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing disease transmission, the airborne nature of COVID-19 poses a
persistent risk, potentially resulting in infections even with PPE usage. Recognizing the fundamental right of HCWs to
operate in a safe work environment [13], it becomes imperative to prioritize their access to a RONA-19 vaccine when
enhanced protection becomes available.
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Not all HCW are young and healthy

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and their family members, like any other individuals,
may have underlying health conditions that elevate their risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, healthcare
systems have encountered challenges in effectively accommodating high-risk workers by providing them with
lower-risk job assignments. Complicating matters, the current crisis has witnessed numerous instances of retirees
rejoining the workforce to contribute during these challenging times.

Amidst these dynamics, the fundamental ethical principle of "do no harm" stands out, emphasizing the obligation
to refrain from actions that may cause harm. In light of the availability of a vaccine, it becomes ethically
questionable to persist in exposing these vulnerable HCWs to the risk of infection. Prioritizing access to the
vaccine for such individuals aligns with the ethical imperative of ensuring their safety and well-being, particularly
given their critical roles in healthcare delivery.

Health care workers deserve reciprocity for putting their lives on the line for the lives of others

Throughout the onset of the pandemic, amid the pervasive narratives of a formidable plague, the ominous specter
of personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, and the poignant international focus on healthcare worker
(HCW) casualties, a remarkable dedication persisted. Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals
resiliently continued to provide care to patients afflicted by COVID-19. The profound stress associated with
caring for one's colleagues is widely acknowledged, drawing parallels to military and natural disaster triage where
an absolute priority is accorded to the care of a fallen teammate [14].

Within this context, there arises a compelling argument for the inclusion of reciprocity within the social contract.
This reciprocity is essential to foster trust among healthcare workers, assuring them that as they courageously risk
their lives to care for others, there exists a reciprocal commitment to ensure their well-being. This mutual
understanding forms the foundation of a robust social contract, acknowledging the sacrifices made by HCWs and
reinforcing the assurance that, in turn, their safety and care will be prioritized

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2nd D . R. DY PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

In consideration of the elucidated facts, advanced arguments, and authorities referenced, a respectful plea is
hereby made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Hindia, entreating it to graciously render a judgment and declare
that:

I. Dismiss the writ petition filed by Sunil Mehta and declare the petition not maintainable.
II. Dismiss the writ petition filed by Rakesh and declare the petition not maintainable.
III. Declare the imposition of lockdown valid.
IV. Declare the Mandatory Vaccination Policy constitutional.
V. Declare the Prioritization of the front line workers in inoculation process constitutionally valid .

AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Respondent, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Place: Hindia
Dated: ................ .

S/d-
Counsel for the Respondent.