BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

CITIZENS FOR HEALTH AND JUSTICE (PETITIONER)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NOS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

ISSUED RAISED 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS 10-21

PRAYER 22

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

WORD ABBREVIATION

Art Article

EPA Environment Protection Act, 1956

SC Supreme Court

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

DoAE Department of Atomic Energy

GoI Government of India

Vol Volume

AIR All India Reporter

Etc Etcetera

Hon’ble Honourable

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

Govt Government

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFFERED

 P.M. Baskshi, The Constitution of India, 10th Edition, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi (2010),

 Basu D.D, Constitutional Law of India, 8th Edn, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 2008.

 Basu D.D., Shorter Constitution of India, 13th Edn. Reprint, Wadhwa& Co., Edn., 2006.

 Datar, Commentary on Constitution of India , Lexis Nexis

 De, J.D, The Constitution of India, Hyderabad, Asia Law House, 2008

 Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis Wadhwa Nagpur Publication, Justice Ruma Pal
&Samaraditya Pal, Nagpur, 6th edn., 2010.

 Dr. J.N Pandey, The Constituional Law of India,48th Edition, Cental Law Agency, Allahabad

CASES REFFERED

CASES OF THE INDIAN COURT

 Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. v. UOI And Ors. (1980)

 In Re: Noise Pollution Restricting use of loudspeakers
 Church Of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare (2000)
 Neelakandan Namboodiri v. State Of Kerala (2003)
 Rajendra Kumar Verma v. The State Of M.P. And Ors. (2015)
 Forum, Prevention of Envn & Sound Pollution v. UOI , 203 , AIR 2005 SC 3136
 Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1350
 Ms. Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 2893
 Reliance Infocom Ltd. V. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006)
 M/S Essar Telecom v. State Of Kerala (2011)
 Cellular Operators Asso Ors v. State Local Self Department (2012)
 Mrsuresh Chandergupta v. Ministry Of Envn & Forests (2015)
 Pearl Green Acres Owners v . UOI & Ors (2012)
 Vallore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. UOI (AIR 1996 SC 2715).
 Muktipark co-operative society v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
 M.M. Dinesh v. UOI (2006)
4
  Udai Singh Dagar & Ors v. UOI & Ors on (2007)
 Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner (1954)
 M.J Sivani and Ors vs. State of Karnataka (1995)
 Forum, Prevention Of Envn. & Sound v. UOI (2005) AIR 2005 SC 3136
 Neelakandan Namboodiri v. State Of Kerala (2003)
 Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State Of M.P. (2015)

 Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1350

 Ms. Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 2893
 Narmada Bachao Andolan Goa Foundation v Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court of India, (2001) 2
SCC 97
 K.M. Chinnappa & T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 2002, AIR
2003 SC 724
 Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v State of A.P. and Ors., Supreme Court of India, (2006) 3 SCC 549.
 State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, Supreme Court of India, (1995) 6 SCC 363.
 Supreme Court of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
 Sudiep Shrivastava v Union Of India Ors on 24 March, 2014
 Udai Singh Dagar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 May, 2007

CASES OF FOREIGN COURTS

 Munn v.. Illinois, (1877) 94 US 113

 Wolf v. Colorado, (1949) 338 US 25
 R. v. Chester City Council (2011) 1 All ER 476

ARTICLES AND REPORTS REFFERED

 Dimbylow, P. J.; Mann, - S. M. SAR calculations in an anatomically realistic model of the head for mobile
communication transceivers at 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz. Phys. Med. Biol. 39:1537–1553; 1994 .
 Indian Law Journal, Volume 3, Issue 2
 The Johannesburg Principles on the Role of Law and Sustainable Development’]
 Principle 10, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
 Agenda 21, in Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro,
 Raghav Sharma, ‘Green Courts in India: Strengthening Environmental Governance?’, 4/1 Law, Environment
and Development Journal (2008)
 Irvine N, Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical Sensitivity, Report for the Radiation
Protection Division of the Health Protect ion Agency, HPA-RPD-010, 2005.
 Roosli M, Moser M, Baldinini Y, Meier M, Braun-Fahrlander C. Symptoms of ill health ascribed to
electromagnetic field exposure – a questionnaire survey. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 2004; 207:141-50.
 WHO Fact Sheet No.193 Revised June 2000
 IEGMP (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, National
Radiological Protection Board (UK) 2000. See

5
  Royal Society of Canada (1999). A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless
telecommunications devices. Expert panel report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada.
Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, RSC.EPR 99-1
 Gaurav Kataria, Professor, School of Law, Wollega University, Ethiopia in Radioactive Hazardous Emission
Issues and Sustainability Rhetoric of Indian Judiciary: A Review
 IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz; The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized
agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF
Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.

ENACTMENTS REFERRED
 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 20001
 Environment (Protection) Act 1986
 Atomic Energy Act, 1962

1
Rule 5A.(2) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Citizens for Health and Justice, a well know citizens group has filed a writ petition in the Honourable
Supreme Cout of India, seeking:
a. A ban on the usage of all types if mobile phones in public places throughout the country.
b. A complete countrywide ban on the sale and useage of camera phones i.e. mobile phones with
camera capabilities.

2. With regards usage of mobile phones in public places, the petitioners have demanded a bain on the same,
on the grounds that include:
i. Potential health hazarda as being increasingly shown by the latest scientific research.
ii. Public nuisance
iii. Noise pollution

3. With regards the camera phones it is the contention of the petitioners that this technology us being
widely and commonly misused for the invasion of privacy and it is practically impossible for the law to
protect individuals from this misuse due to the nature of the technology.

4. The Supreme Court has admitted the petition and has asked the Union Governmet to file a response.

5. Mobile phone service providing companies are interveners to the petition. Mobile phone manufacturing
companieshave also been asked to file a response with regards the use and sale of camera phones.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE USAGE OF MOBILE PHONES IN PUBLIC PLACES

VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION ?

II. WHETHER A BAN ON THE USAGE OF ALL TYPES OF MOBILE

PHONES IN PUBLIC PLACES AND COMPLETE COUNTRY WIDE BAN
ON SALE AND USAGE OF CAMERA PHONES AFFECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g)?

III. WHETHER THE USAGE OF CAMERA PHONE AFFECT THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE USAGE OF MOBILE PHONES IN PUBLIC PLACES DOES NOT VIOLATES

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 21 of the Constitution will be violated if the
usage of mobile phones will be banned in public places. Right to Life and Liberty, Right to Livelihood,
Freedom of Speech and Expression will grossly be subdued if a ban is placed. Also mobile phones, mobile
base stations and mobile service providers comply and ensure the Right to Protection against Radiation and
X-Ray, Right to Safety from Hazards and Right to Protection against Noise Pollution. They provide
consumers with information regarding the specifications of the commodity, here being a cell phone.

II. A BAN ON THE USAGE OF ALL TYPES OF MOBILE PHONES IN PUBLIC PLACES AND
COMPLETE COUNTRY WIDE BAN ON SALE AND USAGE OF CAMERA PHONES WILL
AFFECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G)

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Article 19(1)(g) provides for the protection of certain
rights regarding freedom. If the sale of camera phones is banned, people will lose their Right to Freedom of
Profession and Trade and Right to Livelihood. The unreasonable ban will place a question on the
Reasonable restrictions of fundamental rights, hence the test of reasonability must be proved before doing
the same. By banning the sale and use of camera phones an eminent threat of infringement on the
fundamental rights of doing business will be generated.

III. THE USAGE OF CAMERA PHONES WILL AFFECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21?

It is humbly submitted that the ban usage of camera phones will affect the Fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 i.e. the Right to Sustainable Development , Right to Life and Liberty and the Right to
Livelihood or Work. At this stage it is essential to determine whether this writ petition is only in the interest
of public welfare or does it have a political agenda hidden behind the façade of public interest so as to curb
and restrict social meadia by means of capturing images and videos and so on.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. The usage of mobile phones in public places does not violate Fundamental Rights guranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution.

1. It is humbly submited before this Hon’ble Court that the ban on the use of mobile phones in public places
would violate fundamental rights under Article 21 as there is no noise pollution generated by mobile phones
in general or health hazards caused by the same. Moreover all precautinary measures already taken before the
manufacture and sale of these mobile phones, so that health of humans does not get affected. These measures
include a number of regulatory laws and standards that have to be complied with so as to receive govermental
licenses and permits

a) There has been no violation of the Right to Protection against Noise Pollution.

2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that one fundamental right cannot exist in solitary. It has
attached to it various other responsibilities and duties of civility. By placing a ban on the use of mobile phones
in public places, not only would the Court be curbing the Right to Freedom of Speech and Liberty it would
also be giving undue importance to the Right to Freedom from Noise Pollution which shouldn’t even be a
grounds for placing a ban considering the fact that mobile phones in no way cause noise pollution, it is in deed
the user of the commodity who provokes discord. Besides which the ban will generate an imbalance between
the weights of these fundamental rights, which must be treated with uniformity. While a mobile phone can be
argued to be an artificial device, the volume of voice over a mobile phone call is no different, and sometimes
marginally lower, than that of two people having a face-to-face conversation in public. Hence the argument of
forcefully exposing people to ‘obnoxious’ sound levels does not apply under normal circumstances of mobile
usage. Moreover the device’s maximum noise levels, even when on speaker mode, of 60-65dB(A)2 are well
within the permissible levels of 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for an area or 75 dB(A)
whichever is lower.

3. Various directives laid down by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 20003 framed by the
Central Government under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 include the following:
“There shall be complete ban on bursting sound emitting fire crackers between 10 P.M to 6 A.M (this time
period is regarded as sleeping hours)”4

4. The sound emitted from firecrackers is amongst the loudest of all recorded sounds made in public places. The
ban on these sounds is applied only between 10pm and 6am i.e. sleep hours. In the light of the logic behind
this ban, extending a full ban on use of mobile phones in public areas, whose sounds doesn’t even compare to
the level of crackers would be unreasonable.

5. In Church Of God v K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare 5 this Hon’ble Court held that, “no rights in an
organized society can be absolute. Enjoyment of ones rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights
also by others”. Here too it indicates that a balance between the Right to Freedom from Noise pollution and
the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression must be maintained. Where in a free play of social forces it is

2
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in a report on intensity comparisons with NIOSH recommended possible exposure time
3
Rule 5A.(2) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000
4
Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution v. Union of India
( In Re:Noise Pollution –V ), AIR 2005 Sc 3136: (2005) 5 SCC 733
5
AIR 2000 SC 2773

10
 not possible to bring about a voluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the imbalance between
competing interests. It was also observed in the same case that a “particular fundamental right couldn’t exist
in isolation in a watertight compartment”. One Fundamental Right of a person may have to co-exist in
harmony with the exercise of another Fundamental Right by others also with reasonable and valid exercise of
power in the interests of social welfare as a whole.

6. Hence it can be inferred that there has been no violation of the Right to Protection against Noise Pollution as
no commotion or noise is generated from mobile phones. Also an equilibrium has to be maintained between
the Right to Protection against Noise Pollution as well as the Right to Speech and Expression.

b) There are no plausible health hazards caused by the use of mobile phones

7. It has been observed by this Hon’ble Court that the use of mobile phone is a common phenomenon throughout
the country and has made drastic changes in the peoples' life style. Mobile phones produce radio frequency.
Magnetic energy moving through space is generally called radio frequency electro-magnetic radiation (EMR).
EMR is a part of everyday life. EMR is emitted by natural sources like the sun, the earth and the ionosphere
and also by artificial sources such as electrical and electronic equipment, radar facilities, broadcast towers and
mobile phone base stations etc. EMR absorbed in human body is measured in units called the specific
absorption rate (SAR), which is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (w/kg.) or milliwatts per
gram (mw/g.). There are multiple sources of exposures to electromagnetic fields including radio, FM radio,
Television and other household gadgets6 7

8. It has also been observed that in a study conducted by World Health Organization (WHO)8 in Prague in
2004,on the effects of mobile phone usage, reached the following conclusions, viz., that (1) reported
symptoms are very unspecific and could have other causes; (2) there is no casual association demonstrated
between exposure and symptoms; (3) that patients who display those symptoms should be medically
examined for alternative explanations and causes including psychiatric/psychological ones and other
environmental factors. Study conducted would show that there is no scientific evidence for a casual
relationship between the reported clusters of symptoms and exposure to microwave radiation used in cell
phones, well below the safety standards.

9. From various cases9 put before this Hon’ble Court it is inferred that till date, all expert reviews on the health
effects of exposure to RF fields had reached the same conclusion: that there have been no adverse health
consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure
limits published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998)10.
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing
scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health
effects.

10. Cell phone technology has revolutionized the tele-communication scenario in India; it has grown
exponentially in the last decade; there are more than 40-50 crore cell phone users and nearly 4.4 lakh cell
phone towers to meet communication demand . People have been debating about health risk due to EMF
radiation from cell phones and towers11. In Cellular Operators Asso Ors v. State Local Self Department (2012)

6
AIR 2007 Ker 33, 2006 (4) KLT 695
7
In Pearl Green Acres Owners v. UOI (Ministry Of Telecom)Ors D.B.PIL Petition No.2774/2012 ; a classification between the many types of radiation, both
natural and man-made radiation, to which we are exposed in our daily life, is provided. Everyone is exposed to small amount of radiation everyday from naturally
occurring radio waves. This radiation is called background radiation.
8
World Health Organization (WHO), Prague, 2004- International Workshop on Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity (2004 : Prague, Czech Republic)
9
Pearl Green Acres Owners vs UOI (Ministry Of Telecom) Ors
10
ICNIRP guidelines For limiting exposure to time‐varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 ghz) ; ICNIRP PUBLICATION – 1998
11
Gaurav Kataria, Professor, School of Law, Wollega University, Ethiopia in Radioactive Hazardous Emission Issues and Sustainability Rhetoric of Indian
Judiciary: A Review

11
 12
EMF radiation effects have been classified into thermal and non-thermal effects; thermal effects are similar
to that of cooking in the microwave oven. It is further averred that cell phone transmits 1 to 2 watt of power in
the frequency range of 824-849 MHz (CDMA), 890-915 MHz (GSM 900) and 1710-1780 MHz (GSM 1800).
It is further averred that the internationally adopted Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit for cell phones is
1.6 W/kg.13

11. It is contended that radiation from mobile phones falls under non-ionizing category which is not considered to
be harmful because it cannot break molecular bonds as shown by various studies undertaken by WHO,
ICNIRP and other international organizations14. WHO in 2006 has concluded that considering the very low
exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak
RF Signals from mobile phones and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. From all evidence
accumulated so far, no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown to occur.

12. It is further submitted that considering the media reports and public concerns, the Inter-ministerial
Committee15 set up, has examined the environmental and health related concerns and adjudicated that most of
the laboratory studies were unable to find a direct link between exposure to radio frequency radiation and
health; and the scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause and effect relationship between
radio frequency radiation and health; the effect of emission from cell phones is not known yet with certainty.

13. The WHO states that "current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted
by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers”16. It is distinctly clear
from the report made by the experts of WHO that no evidence has been generated to link any form of health
hazards caused in connection with the usage of mobile phones and the radiofrequency generated by mobile
phones. Despite extensive research conducted by scientists from different parts of the world, no evidence has
been established to prove any adverse health effects in the short or long term of radio frequency radiation
exposure from mobile phones/towers17. Without any material facts or proof it would be unjust to place a ban
on the use of mobile phones in public places as it does not have any adverse effects on the health of a human
being.

14. It is also submitted that instances have been seen where use of mobile phones has been prohibited in hospitals,
however, that prohibition is to reduce the risk of interference with electro medical equipment’s/implants in
hospitals/patients. Some of the airlines also announce for not using the mobile phones while take off and
landing, which is to avoid the interference with navigational systems. These restrictions/prohibitions have
nothing to do with the effect of radiation on human health or patients or children18. Hence it can be concluded
that the usage of mobile phones has no impact on the health of humans. Without any material facts or proof it
would be unjust to place a ban on the use of mobile phones in public places as it does not have any adverse
effects on the health of a human being.

c) Mobile Phones do not violate any Radiation or x-ray norms:

12
D.B.PIL Petition No.2774/2012

13
As adopted by Federal Communications Commission (https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones)
14
"IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz"; The International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International
EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.
15
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) consists of officers from Department of Telecommunications, Indian Council of Medical Research (Ministry of Health),
Department of Biotechnology and Ministry of Environment and Forest to examine the effect of EMF Radiation from base stations and mobile phones

16
Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health Health And Safety Guidelines by Health Sciences Authority 16 August 2001,

17
"Interphone study reports on mobile phone use and brain cancer risk" by International Agency for Research on Cancer, 17 May 2010.
18
Justice I S Israni (Retd) v. U.O.I & (Dep Of Teleco) Ors (2012) D.B.PIL Petition No.2774/2012

12
 15. Article 21 guarantees citizens the right to being safeguarded from being exposed to the ill effects of radiation.
To see to this, the court has issued directions for checks and safeguards to be adopted to guard the
environment against harmful radiation however as affirmed in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama
Panchayat (2006)19 the radio frequency waves used for mobile phones are not covered under the definition of
"radiation"20 as given in the Atomic Energy Act, 196221 and non ionizing radiations do not have the capability
to ionize the matter with which they interact. Hence it can be inferred that radiations emitted by mobile
phones do not damage the human cellular system.

d) Restriction on the use of mobile phones will be an obstruction to a response in an Emergency situation:

16. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that it is universally acknowledged and identified that mobile phones
form integral parts of every individual’s life. If a ban is to be placed on the usage of mobile phones in public
places, lack of such mobile services, which is the lifeline of every profession and trade today, will cause the
business to stall and ultimately end up in a deadlock. This will cascade into the slackening of the economy.

17. At this point it is of grave importance to keep in mind the extensive scope covered by a mobile services
whether in the case of medical emergencies, professional affairs or even the safety of women. Union Home
Minister Rajnath Singh launched ‘Himmat’, a mobile application of Delhi Police22 that will allow women to
send a distress call to Police Control Room and their relatives in case of any emergency. The application will
basically cater to women who have smartphones with android systems. Channel V founded another similar
application, VithU: V Gumrah Initiative. In the absence of the facility to use mobile phones in public this
application is deemed void. Similarly emergency services designed to cater to situations when there is no
secondary resort will leave people helpless.

18. In the landmark judgment of Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat and ors23, the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court noted “Right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes all those
aspects of life which make life meaningful, complex and worth living”24. Hence it can be concluded that the
use of mobile phones in public places should not be banned as it will deprive the public of important facets of
daily activities and coping mechanisms which make life worth living, in harmony, peace and ease.

e) Radiation emitted by Mobile Phones/Base stations are in accoradance with the rules and regulations
mandated by the State:

19. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as mandated by the State the compliance and monitoring
of the radiation levels of mobile phones and its base stations are taken care of by the technical and specialized
agencies of the 25 mobile service providing companies. The permissions to have set up trade and base stations,
granted to the mobile service providing companies includes unconditional undertaking to abide with and
follow all the rules, regulations and guidelines issued by the Central/State Government and also issued by the
Department of Telecommunication, so as to ensure that no radiation/frequency rays are harmful and/or
hazardous to human life and inhabitation. This Honourable court In the landmark judgment of Muktipark Co-

19 AIR 2007 Ker 33

20
"Radiation" means gamma rays, X-rays and rays consisting of alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons, protons and other nuclear and sub-atomic particles, but
not sound or radiowaves or visible, infrared or ultraviolet light.
21
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 ; 5180 the Gazette of India: December 31,1983/pausa 10,1905[part ii-sec.3(ii)] by the DoAE
22
Delhi Police, Shanti Sewa Nyaya; a Delhi Police initative for women Safety (http://54.169.6.175)
23
AIR 2007 Kerala 33
24
Muktipark Co Operative Society v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ; SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5548 of 2014

25
Special Civil Application No. 5548 of 2014

13
 Operative Society V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & ors held that in “the world of telecommunications,
the use of the technology is in public interest and in no manner is detrimental to the interest of the people at
large”. Thus it would be an abomination to say that the use of mobile phones should be banned only because
it causes public nuisance.

20. It is further submitted that this Honourable court in the above judgment of Muktipark Co-Operative Society
V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & ors found that the RF exposures from Mobile Base Stations are
much less than from radio, FM radio and television transmissions and that the consensus of scientific
community is that the radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations is far too low to produce health hazards. if
people are kept away from direct access to the antenna and the overall evidence indicates that they are
unlikely to pose a risk to health. The strength of radio frequency fields in front of the antennae varies with the
distance. To quote this court “Development of technology has its own ill-effects on human beings, but, at times
people will have to put up with that at the cost of their advantages.”

21. The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base
station antennae is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have
indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas
(including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards26. To date, the
only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body
temperature (> 1°C) from exposure at very high field intensity fund only in certain industrial facilities, such as
RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the
temperature increase are insignificant and do not affect human health.27

22. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in May 2006, the World Health Organization issued a
Fact Sheet, inter alia, making the following observation:
“The Radiation Protection Division (NRPB) of the U.K. Health Protection Agency in the year 2000 has
reported that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of the people living
near the base stations on the basis that the exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines”.28

23. According to International Commission on Non- ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP),29 Mobile phones
operate in the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, from several hundred MHz to several GHz, to enable
wireless phone calls and data transfer, including communication through the Internet. The exact frequency
band used differs between technologies (GSM, UMTS, 4G, etc.) and between countries.

24. It is hence humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that banning of mobile phones in public places will
generate a fear amongst the public for fictitious reasons. This will lead to a meltdown in the production of
these mobile phones, as people will feel apprehensive to even purchase cell phones. Also a ban would be
unreasonable as mobile service providers, manufacturers and base power plants first obtain licenses to
manufacture and set up bases. By obtaining mandatory licenses it remains unblemished than these companies
observe and conform with the safety standards of radiation emission.

f) A ban on the usage of mobile phones would have an adverese impact on the Right to Livelihood of
citizens :

26
Briefing for the States on Mobile Phone Masts - Dr Michael Repacholi ; Former Coordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization
From February 2007, Visiting Professor, University of Rome, Italy

27
Electromagnetic fields and public health- Base stations and wireless technologies; WHO Report
28
Gujarat High Court judgment on Reliance 4G tower; Special Civil Application No. 5548 Of 2014
29
http://www.icnirp.org ; http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf

14
 25. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the landmark judgment of Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation30, it was noted that the sweep of the Right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and
far reaching. To quote this court ‘it does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as,
for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established
by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right 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 part of the constitutional right to live, the easiest way of depriving a person of
his right to live would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such
deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life
impossible to live. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes like livable, must be
deemed to be an integral component of the right to life.”

26. Therefore it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that any claims for a ban to be placed on the usage
of mobile phones in public places should be invalidated as it would infringe upon the Right to Livelihood of
an individual and completely bring life to a standstill for a those who make a living out of activities spawned
by mobile phones.

B. A ban on the usage of all types of mobile phones in public places and complete country wide ban on sale
and usage of camera phones will have an adverse affect the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g),

27. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that a ban on the use of mobile phones in public places and a
complete countrywide ban, on the use and sale of camera phones will outrageously affect the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 19. This will cause a totally impair the manufacturing abilities of the country,
leading to a loss of employment and also take us one step back in technological advancements. Not only this,
it will retard and dissuade the growth of research and development.

a) A ban on usage of mobile phones and a complete ban on sale and usage of camera phones in will defy
and infringe upon the Freedom of practicing and profession:

28. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in case of a ban being imposed on the usage of mobile phones
and a complete ban on sale and usage of camera phones will curb the Right to Freedom of Practicing and
Profession in this particular trade i.e any activities in relation to mobile phones and camera phones.

29. In the landmark judgment of M.M. Dinesh vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry31 this court amenably
pointed out the infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India that
would dominate over the freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
This freedom must not be restricted unless, “this freedom has been abused or misused against the public
interest”.

30. Article 1932 states, that the State has the power to prohibit trades which are illegal or immoral or injurious to
the health and welfare of the public. In the radical judgment of Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The Excise

30
1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
31
AIR 2006 Mad 166, (2006) 2 MLJ 212
32
Article 19 of the Constitution, which mandates the Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. –

I. All citizens shall have the right

a) to freedom of speech and expression;
b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
c) to form associations or unions;
d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
f) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
15
 Commissioner (1954),33 this Hon’ble Court stated “It is not disputed that in order to determine the
reasonableness of the restriction concerned, the nature of the business and the conditions prevailing in that
trade must be taken into account. It cannot, be denied that the State has the power to prohibit trades which
are illegal or immoral or injurious to the health and welfare of the public. The nature of the business is,
therefore, an important element in deciding the reasonableness of the restrictions. The right of every citizen to
pursue any lawful trade or business is obviously subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by
the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, order and morals of the
community.” The sale and usage of Camera phones and regular mobile phones in public places can in no
manner be deemed to be dangerous or immoral, nor is it in the general welfare of the citizens. Keeping in
mind the nature of the commodity, it is critical to keep in mind the plenteous advantageous uses of it.

b) Applying the Test of reasonableness34:

31. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court, the phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the
limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature,
beyond what is required in the interests of the public35. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and
deliberation, that is, the choice of a course, which reason dictates. Legislation, which arbitrarily or excessively
invades the right, cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance
between the freedom guaranteed and social control, it must be held to be wanting in that quality36. In the
instant case a total ban on the use of mobile phones and the usage and sale of camera phones would not
amount to a reasonable restriction and it is of excessive nature and would be arbitrary.
32. The right to carry on business, being a fundamental right, its exercise is subject only to the restrictions
imposed by law in the interest of the general public under Article 19 (6)37. The expression ‘in the interest of
general public’ is of wide import comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals and the
economic welfare of the community.38 Nobody can dispute a law providing for basic amenities for the dignity
of human labor as a social welfare measure.39

I. Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement
to an offence
II. Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub clause
III. Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub clause
IV. Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making
any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public
or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
V. Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular,
nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
i. the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
ii. the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

33 1954 AIR 220, 1954 SCR 873.

34
(Pg 333 ) Datar, Commentary on Constitution of India , Lexis Nexis

35
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 Of 2012 ; Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

36
Chintaman Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradeshram (1950); 1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
37
Dr J.N. Pandey – The Constitutional law of India
38
N.K.Bajpai vs Union Of India (2012); CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2850 OF 2012
39
Municipal Corporation, Ahemdabad v. Jan Mohd. Usmanchai (1986) 2 SCC 20.

16
 33. In Chintaman Rao v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh40 a ban was placed on persons residing in certain areas
from engaging themselves in manufacture of Biri during the agricultural season. The Supreme Court held that
such a prohibition was invalid as it imposed unreasonable restrictions. Such a ban is much in excess of the
object, which the law seeks to achieve. It renders people without a livelihood. Hence it can be inferred that a
total ban on the use of mobile phones and the usage and sale of camera phones would be in excess of the
object that Citizens for Health and Justice seeks to achieve.

34. In applying the test of reasonableness, the broad criterion is whether the law strikes a proper balance between
social control on the one hand and the right of the individual on the other hand. The Court must take into
account factors like nature of the right enshrined, underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, evil sought to
be remedied by the law, its extent and urgency, how far the restriction is or is not proportionate to the evil and
the prevailing conditions at that time. The Court cannot proceed on general notion of what is reasonable in the
abstract or even on a consideration of what is reasonable from the point of view of the person or a class of
persons on whom the restrictions are imposed. 41

35. The expression or reasonable restrictions signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of
a right should not be arbitrary or excessive in nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. Any
restriction which is arbitrarily or excessively invades the right under Article 19(1), cannot contain the quality
of reasonableness. There must be a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the
social control permitted by clause (6).42 It is not enough that the restrictions are for the benefit of the public.43
Hence it can be concluded that a ban on use and sale would not be a reasonable restriction as it does not
satisfy the test of reasonableness as it is excessively arbitrary and extreme.

C. The usage of camera phone does not affect the fundamental right guaranteed under article 21

36. A ban on the usage of camera phones will affect various fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Such a ban will deprive workermen of their livelihood and devour their sources of
income which make their life worth living. The need for technology and its effects are known to us all.
Therefore a country wide ban being placed on the usage of mobile phones will devastate our economy, society
and the social order.

a) Ban will impede upon the right to Livelihood:

37. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the procedure prescribed for depriving a person of
livelihood must meet the requirement of Article 1444 that is, it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive. In short, it must be in conformity of the rules of natural justice. Article 21 clubs life
with liberty; dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of
person would be reduced to animal existence. In the instant case that a ban being placed on the sale and usage
of mobile phones will be an unreasonable prohibition, which will result in a torrent of eventual loss of
livelihood, of retail stores that sell camera phones, of labor put into the production and the other
manufacturing activities that go into the fabrication of these camera phones. It is of grave significance to note
that camera phones are not the only devices that are used to click images/videos or transfer data. Hence
banning a camera phone would not only be of bad cause but would also be arbitrary and excessive.

40
1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
41
M.J Sivani and Ors vs. State of Karnataka and Ors (1995) Appeal (civil) 4564 of 1995
42
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (1982) AIR 33, 1982 SCR (1)1137 ; Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi v. The State Of Uttar

Pradesh,(1954) AIR 224, 1954 SCR 803

43
Saghir Ahmad v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh. (1954) AIR 728, 1955 SCR 707
44
Article 14 : Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

17
 38. In another landmark judgment of “Consumer Education & Research v. Union Of India (1995)” 45 this Court
observed that 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. Such deprivation would not only denude life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it
would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable. Consequently by pilfering the right of
livelihood the ban will also infringe upon the Right to Life of citizens.

39. In the landmark judgment of Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 46 the words occupation, trade,
business and profession have been defined as follows:
i. “'Occupation' has a wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job, principal activity,
employment, business or a calling in which an individual is engaged.
ii. 'Trade' in its wider sense includes any bargain or sale, any occupation or business carried on for
subsistence or profit, it is an act of buying and selling of goods and services. It may include any
business carried on with a view to profit whether manual or mercantile.
iii. 'Business' is a very wide term and would include anything, which occupies the time, attention and
labor of a man for the purpose of profit. It may include in its form trade, profession, industrial and
commercial operations, purchase and sale of goods, and would include any- thing which is an
occupation as distinguished from pleasure.
iv. 'Profession' means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his personal and specialized
qualifications, training or skill.”

40. It was also held by this Hon’ble Court that the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) extends to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The object of using four analogous and
overlapping words in Article 19(l)(g) is to make the guaranteed right as comprehensive as possible to include
all the avenues and modes through which a man may earn his livelihood. In a nutshell the guarantee takes into
fold any activity carried on by a citizen of India to earn his living. The activity must of course be legitimate
and not anti-social like gambling, trafficking in women and the like. The Court also held that “There is no
justification to deny the citizens of their right to earn livelihood by using the public streets for the purpose of
trade and business.”

41. In the case of D.P. Metals v. State of Rajasthan(2000)47 it was held that “what is not just, what is not fair,
what is oppressive is unreasonable and cannot sustain the test of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness”.48

42. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is no justification to deny the citizens of their right
to earn livelihood by using the public streets for the purpose of trade and business or any activity related with
the same. The citizens have a right to hold a public meeting on a public street as it is a fundamental right
under the Constitution of India and the same cannot be arbitrarily denied.49 Similarly, many, as an extended
method of trade, use camera phones in public places and hence a ban would disallow and negate the rights
allowed to a citizen.

43. In the Landmark judgment of “Indian Hotel And Restaurants v. The State Of Maharashtra (2006)50 where a
ban was placed on performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar,
this Court stated that “dancing is a legitimate source of livelihood. The impugned amendment banning
dancing has deprived the bar dancers of their right to carry on a profession of their choice and deprives them

45
AIR 922, 1995 SCC (3) 42
46
1989 AIR 1988, 1989 SCR (3)1038)

47 2001 121 STC 311 Raj

48
121 STC 311 Raj, 2001 (4) WLC 115, 2000 (3) WLN 445
49
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and another [1973] 2 S.C.R. 266
50
2006 (3) BomCR 705

18
 of their legitimate right of livelihood. The impugned amendment does not meet the test of substantive fairness
instead it invades their right to equality, right of freedom of speech and expression, right to occupation or
profession or right to livelihood.” In the same way, a ban on sale and usage of mobile phones will not only
infringe the right to freedom of speech and expression and right to occupation or profession or right to
livelihood of far too many citizens of the country.

b) A ban would deprive citizens of the irreplaceable benefits of camera phones:

44. In today’s Gen-z era, electronics drive all our activities and a person’s evolution is proportional to the
number of devices in his possession. One among the obvious devices to own is a phone with camera
capabilities. The use of this tool goes beyond its function of clicking images/videos, to creating a virtual
identity and social space for its user, within the boundaries of what they wish to disclose.

45. Undoubtedly there are several other gadgets that have built in photo and video capabilities, however the
technological advancement seen in our country has led to the union of the same features into a multipurpose
mobile phones, i.e. a camera in a phone which has now become the most viable and economical option for
Indian users.

46. India leads in the number of users on Facebook, is second in line for WhatsApp and third for LinkedIn.51 It is
among the largest creators of mobile Internet traffic. There is a whole virtual world, running in parallel with
the physical whose enormity of data generation is almost equal. One of the initiators of this virtual revolution
is a mobile phone with camera capabilities. It has helped integrate the otherwise excluded sections of society
into the mainstream and contribute to the governance structure

47. For instance several overpowered citizens are now being given an opportunity to voice their grievances
through The Citizen Journalist show of CNN IBN52 where they click videos and images of civic issues that are
left unattended and thereby spreading awareness and bringing tangible change.

48. In R.C. Cooper v. Union of India [1973]53 this Hon’ble Court noted that it is possible that in a given case the
pith and substance of the State action may deal with a particular fundamental right but its direct and inevitable
effect may be on another fundamental right and in that case, the state action would have to meet the challenge
of the latter fundamental right, what the Courts must consider is the direct and inevitable consequence of the
State action. Otherwise the protection of the fundamental rights would subtly but surely erode. The effect of
the government regulating one’s right to privacy should not restrict the buying behavior of a well-informed
consumer.

49. Hence it can be inferred that in this situation the Hon’ble Court must consider examining whether this Writ
petition has been filed in the Interest of the Public or with another ulterior motive. A recent phase has clearly
shown the growing importance and use of camera phones as a means of uncovering and exposing illicit
activities, spread awareness, and further the cause of inclusive growth.54A motive that is seen as a way of
shielding wrongdoers amongst our society, from the revelations sought with the use of incredible technology
like Camera phones. 55

c) Right to Sustainable development

51
We Are Social - Digital, Social & Mobile in India in 2015 http://wearesocial.net/tag/india/
52
http://cj.ibnlive.in.com/what-is-cj/

53 1970 AIR 564

54
Handbook of Research on the Societal Impact of Digital Media; DESA Working Paper No. 72 January 2009
55
Role of media in curbing corruption -Monica Nogara; United Nations - Economic and Social Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs, Department Member

19
 50. The Right to Sustainable Development imposes on us a question on the balance that needs to be met between
protecting the environment and between the magnitudes of technological evolution.

51. In the landmark judgment of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union Of India & Ors (1996)56the Apex
Court has observed as under
“Sustainable Development57 has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve
the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems.”

52. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court in the case of Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti58 was
pleased to expound that it should be the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one
hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental
threat. The globalization of economic development as a result of constant endeavor of humans cannot be
whittled down or destroyed for the sake of environment and preservation of ecology. 59Indeed, the very
existence of humanity and the rapid increase in population together with the consequential demands to sustain
the population has resulted in contamination. However there need not necessarily be a deadlock between
developments on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment
should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. "
Similarly it is vital to maintain a balance of technological development and human health.

53. Hence the State is cast upon a duty, that is, to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its Constitutional
obligation in the larger public interest.60 It is also necessary that the State under the concept of 'sustainable
development'61 recognized as a fundamental right under Art. 2162to keep in mind the "principle of
proportionality"63 so as to ensure protection of environment on the one hand64 and to undertake necessary
development measures on the other hand65, since, the economic development cannot be allowed to take place
at the cost of ecology but the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and
other developments.66 Public interest requires protection and care of the environment. It also requires
economic growth which is badly needed to secure equality and opportunity to earn livelihood to the ever-
growing population67.

54. The anxiety to resolve the tension between Sustainable development , pollutive concerns and to adopt a
balanced approach is apparent in N.D. Jayal v Union of India 68 where it is held by the Hon’ble Court that the
right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand, right to development is also one. Here the right
to ‘sustainable development’ cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ is to

56
Supreme Court of India, Judgement of 28 August 1996, (1996) 5 SCC 647
57
The concept of 'sustainable development' was adopted by the World Commission of Environmental and Development (W.C.E.D.) and endorsed by 176 Nations
in the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development.
58
2004 (2) SCC 392, Para 27
59
Nature Lovers Movement v. State Of Kerala And Ors. (1999) AIR 2000 Ker 131
60
Consumer Education And Research Centre And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors. AIR 1995 SC 922.
61
Brutland Commission Report (1983); Principle 2 of Stockholm Conference (1973); Principle 1 of Rio Declaration (1992)
62
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
63
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388.
64
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) Scale 307
65
Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420; M.C.Mehta v. Union Of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India (2000) 10
SCC 664; A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812; T.N.Godavarmanthirumulkpad v. Union Of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228

66
Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 374; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606
67
170 (2009) DLT 251, p 267, para 32

68
Supreme Court of India, Judgement of 1 September 2003, (2004) 9 SCC 362
20
be treated as an integral part of ‘life’ under Article 21. And therefore a ban on the usage of mobile phones
must not be put as a balance must be struck.

21
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed before this Hon’ble Court to hold, adjudge and declare that a writ be issued in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, declaring,

1) The usage of mobile phones in public places does not violate Fundamental Rights guranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

2) A ban on the usage of all types of mobile phones in public places and complete country wide ban on sale
and usage of camera phones will have an adverse affect the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g),

3) The usage of camera phone does not affect the fundamental right guaranteed under article 21

Or pass any other order as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice for which the counsel for
the defendants shall remain duty bound as forver.

All of which is most humbly submitted.

Counsel for Respondents Sd/-

22