Finals RESPONDENT

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE, AURANGABAD
XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS
SPL NO. ____1110/2018
Arya Lannister
(PETITIONER)
V.
The State of Kings Landing…………………………….Respondent 1

Organisers of Stark Revolutionary Community……….Respondent 2
(RESPONDENT)
&
SPL NO. ____1111/2018
Starks Revolutionary Community through its Head Organiser

(PETITIONER)
The State of Kings Landing

(RESPONDENT)
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART.136 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTROS
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

COMPANION JUSTICE OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS
MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE, AURANGABAD.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………….....4
INDEX OFAUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………….……5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………….7
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………………...8
STATEMENT OF ISSUE…………………………………………………………………..10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………...,…11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………………….13
1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE

PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES………………………………………………………13
1.1 THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINATINABLE……….13
1.2 THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE…………………………………………………………………….13
2. WHETHER PARTIES, ASSOCIATIONS AND PERSONS, WHO ARE CALLING FOR

THE BANDH NEED TO BE MADE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE
DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION CAUSED DURING THE BANDH?..............................15
2.1 DAMAGES/SESTRUCTION CAUSED DURING THE BANDH DUE TO THE
LISTLESSNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT…………………………………15
2.2 IT WAS AN INEVITABLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE PROTESTORS
DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT………………….16
3. IN THE PRESENT CASE WHETHER THE ORGANISERS OF THE STARK

COMMUNITY ARE BOUND TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSSES
INCURRED DUE TO BANDH TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL
ASSOCIATION OF KING’S LANDING? IF YES, TO WHAT EXTENT?..............17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 1 OF 29

3.1 THERE IS WAS NO ADEQUATE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE

GOVERNMENT…………………………………………………………….17
3.2 THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF
DAMAGES/DISTRRUCTION CAUSED DURING THE BANDH………18
4 WHETHER THE CIRCULAR ISSUED ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2018 BY THE STATE

OF KING’S LANDING PROHIBITING ANY POLITICAL PARTY, COMMUNITY
OR ORGANISATION FROM DECLARING BANDH /STRIKE/HARTAL/
AGITATION IN ANY FORM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL……………………….19
4.1 PROHIBITING ANY POLITICAL PARTY, COMMUNITY, OR
ORGANISATION FROM DECLARING
BANDH/STRIKE/HARTAL/AGITATION BY THE STATE IS VOILATIVE OF
ARTICLE 21 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION…………………………19
4.2 RIGHT TO CRICTICISE, BANDH/STRIKE/HARTAL / AGITATION IS
ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY………………………………………….21
5 WHEN “RIGHT TO BANDH” HAS BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY

THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS, CAN STARK COMMUNITY DECLARE
BANDHS IN VIOLATION OF ITS RULING?..........................................................22
5.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTROS, HAS GIVEN CERTAIN
INALIENABLE RIGHTS……………………………………………………22
5.2 THE SUPREME COURT JUDEGMENT IS VOILATIVE OF THE
CONSTITUTION…………………………………………………………….23
6 WHETHER GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION LEADS TO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF
CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE? …………………………………...25
6.1 GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

COMMUNITY OR ORGANISATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT…………..25

6.2 GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

COMMUNITY OR ORGANIZATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ARTICLE 21 OF
CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE………………………….27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………………..28

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
& And
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
Ibid In the Same Source
AIR All India Reporter
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
Co. Company
Hon’ble Honorable
Ltd. Limited
M.P Member of Parliament
No. Number
Ors. Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Raj. Rajasthan
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U.P Uttar Pradesh
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
i.e) That is
Sec. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
 Constitutional Law of India…………………………………………...Durga Das Basu
 Indian Constitutional Law……………………………………………………M.P.Jain
 Black’s Law Dictionary………………….………………………...…Garner Baryan.A
 Indian Penal Code…………………………………………………………..K.D Gaur
LEGISLATIONS REFERRED:
 The Constitution of India, 1950
LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED:
 Manupatra
 Indian Kanoon
 SCC Online
 Westlaw
 Advocatekhoj.
CASES REFERRED;
1. Magan Bhai V. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC 400
2. Jamshed Hormusj Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Part of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214
3. Baldota Brothers v. Libra Mining Works AIR 1961 SC 100
4. Tungabhadra Industries V. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372
5. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Works Limited V. Employees, AIR 1959 SC 633
6. Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1951
7. Asst. Collector v. N.T. Co. of India AIR 1972 SC 2563
8. B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration AIR 1973 SC 1457
9. Mohd. Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 2 SCC 541
10. State of Haryana v. Prem AIR 1990 SC 538

11. Sambhu Das v. State of Assam IR 2010 SC 3300

12. James Marlin v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 513 SC)
13. Bharath Kumar K. Palicha And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. (AIR 1997 Ker 291)
14. Rudul Sah V. State Of Bihar, [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : A.I.R 1983 S.C 1086]
15. Sebastian M. Hongray; V. Union Of India, [(1984) 3 SCC 82 : A.I.R 1984 S.C 1026]
16. Nilabati Behere V. State Of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746]
17. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166
18. Kharak Singh v. sate of U.P and others. AIR 1963 SC 1295
19. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
20.Khedat Mazdoor of M.P. and others. (1994) 6 SCC 260
21. A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
22. State of A.P.v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712
23. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
24. Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors 1993 AIR 1960, 1993
SCR (2) 581
25. Star India P. Ltd. V. The Telecom Regulatory Authority 146 (2008) DLT 455
26. Golaknath. V. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)
27. Olga Tellis and ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors. (1985 SCC (3) 545
28. Briji Bhushan v. State of Delhi 1950 SuppSCR 245
29. Ramesh Thopper v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124)
30. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
31. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC
225)
32. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
33. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333)
34. Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bangal 1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161
35. Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors AIR (1997) 4 Supreme Court.
36. Khushboo V. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
37. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

STAMENT OF JURIRDICTION
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 1361 of constitution of
Westros by filing a Public Interest Litigation.
I. SPL NO. ___1110/2018
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court under Art.136 of Constitution of
Westros.
II. SPL NO.____1111/2018
The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art.136 of Constitution of Westros.
1
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Westros is the biggest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Westros is

committed to high ideas of socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation. The
Constitution of Westros has bestowed upon its citizens certain inalienable
fundamental rights, wherein they have right to oppose the decision of the State and
place their demands before the Government authorities. This right is being exercised
by adopting nonviolent measures such as dharna, strike and hartals since ages.
2. The Constitution of Westros provides that all citizens have the right to assemble
peacefully without arms to hold meetings and take out processions. If it appears that
the assembly is disorderly or riotous, reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the
interest of sovereignty and integrity of Westros or public order.
3. These protests have been gaining some traction based on strong political motives. A
new mode of protest is being rampantly used in the form of “BANDHS” wherein
these political parties in Westros abuse the democratic rights of the citizens by calling
these “Bandhs”.
4. The Supreme Court of Westros has unequivocally observed that such “Bandhs” or
complete closures interfere with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of other
citizens and cause grave effects on the fabric of the society, and thus are
unconstitutional.
5. In the recent past, several Bandhs have been declared by Stark Community, in the
State of King’s Landing in Westros before its Government for consideration of their
charter of demands. The Starks community originally organised silent rallies across
the state that turned violent in July 2018 with each district witnessing a huge number
of participants.
6. During one such silent protest, the leaders from the Stark community instructed the
protestors to resort to violent and forceful measures after two weeks from the
initiation of the protest in case the state authorities turn a deaf ear to the demands of
the protestors. Eventually, the situation worsened and the protestors started causing
road blockages and damaging public and private property.
7. Similar such Bandhs were held on 2nd March 2018, 5th May 2018, 24th July 2018
wherein the protests turned violent, the protesters attacked the law enforcing agency

and caused damage to public and private property by torching buses, police vehicles
and private cars and vandalising open shops and markets.
Cause of Action for filing Public Interest Litigation No.100/2018
The Starks Community announced complete Bandh/shutdown of King’s landing on 20th
August 2018 for the Government to consider their demands. On the said date, the protestors
ransacked the offices of several companies in the Industrial Zone of King’s Landing. These
events projected King’s Landing as an unsafe and volatile state and tainted the image of the
State. The protestors even stopped the produce of the farmers from reaching the market yard,
closed onion markets, emptied milk trucks on roads and caused the entire administration of
the State to collapse. There is huge loss to the agricultural and industrial sector affecting its
business. Arya Lannister, filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 100/2018, before the
Hon’ble High Court of King’s Landing challenging the Bandhs held by Starks Community
and claimed compensation from the Stark Community to make good the losses incurred by
the farmers, company and factory owners to an approximate amount of Rs. 10 Crores.
The Hon’ble High Court of King’s Landing rejected the claim of the petitioner. Arya
Lannister challenged the said order passed in PIL No. 100/2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Westros by filing Special Leave Petition No. 1110/2018.
Cause of Action for filing Writ Petition No. 1001/2018

On 1st of September 2018, the Stark Community issued a notice for the citizens, that they
would again be calling Bandh from 4th September, 2018 to 5th September, 2018 in the State
of King’s Landing for the State Government to consider their demands.
The Government of King’s Landing issued a circular on 3rd September 2018 and directed
that no Bandh/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation in any form by any Political Party, Community or
organisation will be henceforth observed in the State.
The representatives of the Stark community challenged the circular dated 3rd September,
2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of King’s Landing. The Hon’ble High Court of King’s
Landing dismissed the petition filed by the Stark Community.
The Stark Community has challenged the said order passed in Writ Petition No. 1001/2018
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westros by filing Special Leave Petition No.
1111/2018.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present circumstances?
II. Whether parties, associations and persons, who are calling for the Bandh need to be
made vicariously liable for the damage/destruction caused during the Bandh?
III. In the present case whether the organisers of the Stark Community are bound to pay
compensation for the losses incurred due to Bandh to the Industrial and Agricultural
Association of King’s Landing? If yes, to what extent?
IV. Whether the Circular issued on 3rd September 2018 by the State of King’s Landing
prohibiting any political party, community or organisation from declaring Bandh
/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation in any form is unconstitutional?
V. When “Right to Bandh” has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of
Westros, can Stark Community declare Bandhs in violation of its ruling?
VI. Whether granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation

leads to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of the public at large?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present

circumstance?
The Respondent humbly submits that the PIL filed by Arya Lannister, is not
maintainable in the present circumstance because there is no infringement of
fundamental rights by the Stark Community people, the stark community announced
about the protest but the government did not take any reasonable precautions to the
for the public, the stark community cannot be responsible for the damages due to
millions of people came together to take part in the protest with their own willingness.
Hence PIL against the Stark Community cannot be maintainable in the present
circumstance.
2. Whether parties, associations and persons, who are calling for the bandh need to
be made vicariously liable for the damage/destruction caused during the bandh?
The associations and persons, are not vicariously liable for the damages/destruction
caused during the bandh. Damages/destruction caused during the bandh due to the
listlessness of the government, it is the responsibility of the government to give
protection to the people of the state because the crowed for the protest was
uncontrollable this clearly shows that it was an Inevitable Accident caused by the
protestors due to the negligence of the government.
3. In the present case whether the organisers of the Stark Community are bound to
pay compensation for the loss incurred due to Bandh to the industrial and
Agricultural Associations of Kings Landing? If yes to what extent?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the parties, association and
persons are not vicariously liable for the damages/destruction caused during the
bandh, because the bandh was announced by the stark community earlier itself but the
government didn’t make any precautions and safety measures. In such cases the Stark
community cannot be liable it is purely the governments mistake for not being
bothered about the protest and the demands kept by the protestors. The government

did not pay attention to the protest and the protestors, the state did not consider the
needs of the people who protested this listlessness of the government made the
protestors to take forceful measures.
4. Whether the circular issued on 3rd September 2018 by the State of King’s landing
prohibiting any political party, community or organisation from declaring
Bandh/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation in any form is unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the state cannot presume or
generalize that the calling of a bandh/strike/hartal agitation is always entails actual
violence or the threat of violence therefore the circular issued by the Government of
King’s landing, is unconstitutional. Bandh/strike/hartal agitations are important in a
democratic country because it helps to express people’s thoughts with majority.
5. When ‘Right to bandh’ has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
of Westros, Can Stark Community declare bandhs in violation of its ruling?
The Constitution of Westros has given certain inalienable rights to the citizens.
Therefore the citizens of Westros have the right to oppose the decision of the state and
place their demands before the state and state authorities. Hence the given judgement by
the Supreme Court violates the ruling of the constitution of Westros.
6. Whether granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or

organisation leads to violation of Article 21 of constitution of the public at large?
Granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation will not lead
to violation of Article 21. Every fundamental right under the constitution is to
betterment the human life with dignity. Every individual from every section should be
granted all the fundamental rights under the constitution, it may be a community,
organisation or an individual. If the government works as a provider as well as a
protector there will be no conflicts in the state. It was the mistake of the state, and no
state can deprive the fundamental right of a citizen.

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE
1.Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present circumstance
The Respondent humbly submits that the PIL filed by the Arya Lannister, is not maintainable
in the present circumstances in the light of the following arguments:
THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINATINABLE
Unless there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right, No PIL can be maintained. In the

present case there was no violation or infringement of a Fundamental rights.
The social media platform played a key role in the protest; various Facebook groups and
pages were created to make this protest more successful. Many college students, Graduates
and IT professionals were actively managing the protest and providing information using
social media.
Therefore, the public showed their own interest to take part in the bandh without any force or
order by the stark community. Which clearly proves that there is no infringement of
fundamental rights done by the Stark community to the people because large number of
people voluntarily took part in the bandh by knowing the importance of Charter of demand.
There is no such action which infringes or poses a threat to Fundamental Right of the
citizens. Mere apprehension that the petitioner would be deprived of his Fundamental Right is
not enough to file a PIL, against the respondent.
Hence, the Public Interest Litigation filled by the petitioner Arya Lannister is not
maintainable.
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
The power under Art. 136 is an extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and exceptional
circumstances2. The respondents most humbly submit that in this particular case no such
special circumstances have occurred that would make this Hon’ble Court exercise its
extraordinary power.
2
Jamshed Hormusj Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Part of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214
Respondent has placed its reliance on the case of Baldota Brothers v. Libra Mining Works3,
wherein this Court has held that- “There is no distinction in the scope of the exercise of
power under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India at the stage of application for special leave
and the stage where the appeal is finally disposed off and it is open to the Court to question
the proprietary of the leave granted by it even at the time of hearing of the appeal”.
Hence, it is submitted before the Supreme Court that a Special Leave once granted can be
subsequently revoked4. Therefore, it is open to the Court to question the propriety of the
leave granted and to dismiss the appeal without going into the merits if it finds that there was
no proper case for granting special leave5.
The Hon’ble Court held in the case of Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 that
“SLP is allowed when a question of law is involved or a pure point of law is involved”.
Further in Asst. Collector v. N.T. Co. of India7 and B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration8 it
was held that “SLP must involve a pure point of law.” In the present case, such a substantial
question of law or pure point of law is not raised for consideration.
In the cases of Mohd. Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan9, State of Haryana v. Prem110&
Sambhu Das v. State of Assam11 it was held “The power under Art.136 should be exercised
sparingly to interfere in cases where grave injustice has resulted.
According in the given instant case, the purpose for Protest happened for charter of demand
which was essential for many people good thus, this protest was started for the justice of
people, the main motive of the protest is to gain good initiatives from the government for the
workers therefore, doing injustice or resulting injustice for the people was not the aim of the
protest.
3
AIR 1961 SC 100
4
Tungabhadra Industries V. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372
5
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Works Limited V. Employees, AIR 1959 SC 633
6
AIR 1965 SC 1951
7
AIR 1972 SC 2563
8
AIR 1973 SC 1457
9
(2013) 2 SCC 541
10
AIR 1990 SC 538
11
IR 2010 SC 3300
Hence, The Respondent, in the light of the aforementioned arguments, humbly submits that
the PIL by Petitioner, and the SLP by the Petitioner under Art.136 are not maintainable in this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westros.
2. Whether parties, associations and persons, who are calling for the bandh need to be
made vicariously liable for the damage/destruction caused during the bandh?
No, Parties, associations and persons, are not vicariously liable for the damage/destruction
caused during the bandh. Moreover, in the starting millions of people came together to protest
from all parts of King’s Landing, But no harm was done to the public and private property.
The stark revolutionary march broke record of human crowed in silent protest and continued
to break record. In fact the stark community did not call any persons for protest, each an
every individual took self -interest and self- responsibility to take part in the protest.
DAMAGES/DESTRUCTION CAUSED DURING THE BANDH DUE TO THE

LISTLESSNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT
According to the given facts the stark community announced complete Bandh/shutdown of
king’s landing on 20th August 2018 for the Government to consider their demands. The stark
community followed the rules by announcing about the bandh to the government but the
government did not take proper responsibilities to protect the public and private properties. In
this particular protest people from different sector took part and the population of the
protestors cannot be controlled by the leader of stark community because millions of people
gathered together. The government turned deaf to ear the demands of the people who
protested with no harm. Hence, this made the protestors to push into a situation to take
forceful measures to seek attention from the government.
The deadpan reaction of the government shows the listlessness on demand kept by the
people, this is unfair on the part of the protestors. Therefore this listlessness actions by the
government made the protestors to proceed with the complete bandh/shutdown of kings
landing.
On 1st September 2018, the stark community issued a notice for the citizens, that they would
again be calling bandh from 4th September, 2018 to 5th September 2018 in the state of king’s
landing for the state government to consider their demands.

When the Government of king’s landing issued a circular on 3rd September 2018 and directed
that no bandh/strike/hartal /Agiation in any form by any political party, community or
organisation will be henceforth observed in the state. This decision of the government shows
the listlessness on demand kept by the people, this is unfair on the part of the protestors.
Therefore these listlessness actions by the government made the protestors to proceed with
the complete bandh/shutdown of kings landing.
IT WAS AN INEVITABLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE PROTESTORS DUE TO THE

NEGLIGENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.
The Parties, associations and persons, cannot be liable for the inevitable accident. The
government should have taken precautions due to the million number of people joined
together for the protest from their own self-interest. It is the government responsibility to give
security to the protestors as well as the common people in general.
1. In this instant case the state did not take any precautions and security to the common
people as well as the protestors.
2. The state did not give any response to the protestors.
3. The state did not bother about the importance of charter of demand and the affected
sections suffered. Which violates article 21, Right to Life means the right to lead
meaningful, complete and dignified life
4. The state did not respect the silent protest done by the millions of people together, and
this irrespective actions of the state which leaded to a forceful measures taken by the
protestors.
Considering all of these things into the light of the argument it clearly shows that parties,
associations and persons are not liable for the damage/destruction caused during the bandh,
initially the state is responsible for all the causes.

3. In the present case whether the organisers of the Stark Community are bound to pay
compensation for the losses incurred due to Bandh to the industrial and Agricultural
Associations of Kings Landing? If yes to what extent?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the parties, association and persons
are not vicariously liable for the damages/destruction caused during the bandh, because
the bandh was announced by the stark community earlier itself but the government
doesn’t make any precautions and safety measures in such cases how the Stark
community is held liable for the loss occurred.
THERE IS WAS NO ADEQUATE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT
Whenever a bandh or a general strike's called, the Government should take adequate
measures to see that normal life of the citizens is not paralysed. That is to be done not by
declaring holidays or postponing examinations, but, by giving effective protection to those
who are not participating in such hartals or strikes. Government should be able to deal with
the situation with strong hands. if the Government is feeling that they are unable to give
adequate protection. It should request the Centre for deputing Army or para-military forces.
1. Adequate police protection should be given to all Government Offices and

establishments by posting police personnel. Nobody would be allowed to gather
around such office premises with a view to prevent employee coming to office.
Special attention in his regard would be paid to Central Government
Establishments.
2. The entire effective police force would be mobilised for the purpose of
deployment.
3. All likely trouble spots would be identified and police pickets posted at such
places with a view to avert untoward incidents, Special police pickets would also
be posted at sensitive locations where the supporters of the hartal may report to
road blocks, forcible closure of shops and blocking of traffic. Intensive mobile
patrols would be organised.

4. Important housing colonies where Government employees reside would be

covered by police pickets to ensure that the residents of such colonies are not put
to difficulties by the supporters of protest and are able to go to the offices, if they
so desire.
5. Fire Force 23 personnel would be mobilised and put on the alert. Workers of the
Municipalities and other local bodies would also be kept in readiness to come to
the aid of police as and when required. The Electricity Board workers also would
be requisitioned to be on the alert to attend to calls of emergencies.
6. Supdts. of Police/Commissioners of Police would give a press release reassuring

the public of the elaborate police arrangements made in connection with the
proposed protest. They would indicate the telephone numbers of Circle
Headquarters at which the public should contact the police in case of emergencies.
7. Adequate protection should be given to all Judicial Officers to attend courts.
8. District Collectors and Commissioners of Police/Supdts. of Police will be

responsible for ensuring that normal life is not disrupted and no untoward
incidents take place during the protest".
THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR THE COMPENSATION AND DISTRUCTION

CAUSED DURING THE BANDH.
With regard to the injuries and damages caused to the private persons and their properties.
Government should adequately compensate them immediately as Government has failed to
fulfil its constitutional obligation to protect lives and properties of the citizens.
The District Administration should be given sufficient direction to avail para-military force as
provided under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain public services if
law and order problem arises during the bandh or general strike.
It is the duty of the Government to control such disturbance12. The state is responsible to pay
damages to the citizens as damages to the citizens are caused due to the failure of the
government to give adequate protection. The state functionaries responsible for culpable
default of negligence ought to be made personally liable by invoking the principle of strict
12
James Marlin v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 513 SC)

liability combined with the fact that the defence of sovereign immunity no longer available to
the state officials13. The concept of compensation by the state by invoking the principles of
strict liability was first evolved by the Supreme Court in Rudul Sah V. State Of Bihar,
[(1983) 4 SCC 141 : A.I.R 1983 S.C 1086]14, and later developed in the case of Sebastian M.
Hongray; V. Union Of India, [(1984) 3 SCC 82 : A.I.R 1984 S.C 1026]15, followed by a
string of authorities including Nilabati Behere V. State Of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746]16
4. Whether the circular issued on 3rd September 2018 by the State of King’s Landing
prohibiting any political party, community or organisation from declaring
Bandh/Strike/Hartal/ Agitation in any form is unconstitutional?
A bandh could be peaceful or violent and even if the court were to act, it could act only to
curtail violent bandhs and not peaceful bandhs. It is contended that the court cannot presume
or generalize that the calling of a bandh always entails actual violence or the threat of
violence in not participating in or acquiescing in the bandh17. The circular issued on 3rd
September 2018 by the State of King’s Landing prohibits the stark community from declaring
bandh is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of
the constitution.
PROHIBITING ANY POLITICAL PARTY, COMMUNITY, OR ORGANISATION FROM

DECLARING BANDH/STRIKE/HARTAL/AGITATION BY THE STATE IS VOILATIVE
OF ARTICLE 21 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In the given instant case, Stark community protested with millions of citizens own
willingness to take part in the protest hence it is the personal liberty of million citizens, By
declaring the circular to not protest by the state is violating the personal liberty of the citizens
at large who took part in the protest. Personal liberty, as a right of an individual to be free
from restrictions or encroachment on his person whether these are directly imposed or
13
Bharath Kumar K. Palicha And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. (AIR 1997 Ker 291)
14
Rudul Sah V. State Of Bihar, [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : A.I.R 1983 S.C 1086]
15
Sebastian M. Hongray; V. Union Of India, [(1984) 3 SCC 82 : A.I.R 1984 S.C 1026]
16
Nilabati Behere V. State Of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746]
17
Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166

indirectly brought about by calculated measure. The court held that `personal liberty'
in article 21 includes all varieties of freedoms18.
The object of article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any

manner. Article 21 is repository of all human rights essentially for a person or a citizen. A
fruitful and meaningful life presupposes full of dignity, honour, health and welfare19. The
state firstly did not respect their silent protest and was least bothered about the demands kept
before the honourable state, if dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life"? This is the
significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the
Constitution?20The expression `personal liberty' has wider as well narrow meaning. In the
wider sense it includes not only immunity from arrest and detention but also freedom of
speech, association etc. In the narrow sense, it means immunity from arrest and detention.
The juristic conception of `personal liberty', when used the latter sense, is that it consists
freedom of movement and locomotion21. Accordingly in the given case the State of Kings
Landing violates article 21 by restricting the freedom of movements by saying bandh is
unconstitutional.
Right to life is one of the basic human right and not even the State has the authority to violate
that right22. It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human
dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21
derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e)
and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include
protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of
children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner
and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions
of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order
to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government
nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the
enjoyment of these basic essentials23. In the lights of the above stated case, the purpose of the
18
Kharak Singh v. sate of U.P and others. AIR 1963 SC 1295
19
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
20
Khedat Mazdoor of M.P. and others. (1994) 6 SCC 260
21
A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
22
State of A.P.v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712
23
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
protest by the Stark Community was to fulfil the charter of demand for the affected people by
the government and this is a basic essential purpose to lead a good living wherein the state
did not take any actions regarding the demand and the state directly issued a circular by
declaring that no Bandh/Strike/Hartel Agitation in any form by any political party,
community or organisation will be henceforth observed in the state here the state declared the
circular without considering the demands by the protestors.
Under article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the
strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen.
The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen
that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their
rights24.
RIGHT TO CRICTICISE, BANDH/STRIKE/HARTAL / AGITATION IS ESSENTIAL

FOR DEMOCRACY.
A bandh could be peaceful or violent and even if the court were to act, it could act only to
curtail violent bandhs and not peaceful bandhs. It is contended that the state cannot presume
or generalize that the calling of a bandh/strike/hartal agitation is always entails actual
violence or the threat of violence therefore how can the Government of King’s Landing issue
a circular saying that bandh/strike/hartal agitation are henceforth prohibited. Prohibiting it as
a whole is unconstitutional, hence bandh/strike/hartal agitation are the only modes where the
citizens show their expression against government and their need, wants are been expressed
through theses modes. Freedom of speech and expression and the problems posed by the
element of public property in, and the alleged scarcity of, the frequencies as well as by the
wider reach of the media. If the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right
to disseminate information to as wide a section of the population as is possible, the access
which enables the right to be so exercised is also an integral part of the said right. The wider
range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the content of the right
nor can it justify its denial25. Bandh/strike/hartal agitation must be allowed so that ultimately
the people can express themselves.
24
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors 1993 AIR 1960, 1993 SCR (2) 581
25
Star India P. Ltd. V. The Telecom Regulatory Authority 146 (2008) DLT 455

In a democratic country
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;
Thereby, bandh/strike/hartal agitation should not be prohibited as a whole, instead that certain
restriction can be implied by the state.
After a brief perusal of the facts as well as the law involved, it can be easily inferred that the
acts carried out by the state is unconstitutional in nature.
5. When ‘Right to bandh’ has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of
Westros, Can Stark Community declare bandhs in violation of its ruling?
The declaration of bandh by the stark community is not violation of its ruling, because the
Constitution of Westros has bestowed upon its citizens certain inalienable fundamental rights,
wherein they have right to oppose the decision of the state and place their demands before the
Government authorities.
THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTROS, HAS GIVEN CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
The citizens of Westros have right to oppose the decision of the state and place their demands
before the Government authorities. Law made by the parliament shall not be such that
infringes and takes away the fundamental rights of the citizens which are provided by the
constitution26, Under the lights of the rights given by the constitution of Wetros the stark
community kept their demands before the government wherein the government is so careless
about the demands kept by the people this activity of the government made the stark
community people go violent from being peaceful protest.
26
Golaknath. V. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)

Bandh is barbaric when it goes violent but well, when we cannot achieve anything through
proper means, Bandh has to be called so the government will consider the views and demands
of the affected people. In the instant case the government did not take any efforts to hear the
demands through originally organized silent rallies by the stark community and the state
remains deaf ear to the demands of the protestors and this made the protestors to take forceful
measures in the intention to seek the attention of the government on the demands kept.
Bandh have been declared by the stark community, in the state of King’s Landing in Westros
before its government for consideration of their charter of demands. The basic rights of the
common people and inalienable rights of the people under the charter of rights includes
freedom of speech and expression, and peaceful assembly, Therefore the Supreme court
cannot declare bandh is unconstitutional as a whole.
THE SUPREME COURT JUDEGMENT IS VOILATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The constitution of Westros itself provides the right to strike and bandh is a new mode of
strike used in Westros in recent times because the famous personality anna hazare is very
much famous for his bandhs and when ever he performed the strike or bandh the actions were
strictly taken. Like the hunger strike performed by anna hazare on april 5 , 2011 & it was to
exert pressure on the Indian government to enact a stringent anti-corruption law, The Lokpal
Bill ,2011 as envisaged in the Jan Lokpal bill , for the institution of an ombudsman with the
power to deal with corruption in public places. The fast led to nation-wide protests in support.
The fast ended on 9 April 2011, a day after the government accepted Hazare's demands. This
clearly shows the effects of doing bandh and making the government to accept their demands.
Every individual or group or section of the society has all the rights to voice out their
grievances so that they are heard by the government, No fundamental rights should be
waived27. In the instant case the stark Revolutionary March broke record of human crowed in
silent protest and continued to break records. The social media platforms played a key role in
the protest and; various facebook groups and pages were created to make this protest
successful. Many college students, graduates and IT professionals were actively managing
27
Olga Tellis and ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors. (1985 SCC (3) 545

the protest, this clearly shows the willingness of the public and raised their voice along with
the stark community against the government. Public Interest has to be safeguard28.
It is unfair to declare bandh as unconstitutional, because to preserve the democratic way of

life it is essential that people should have the freedom of express their feelings and to make
their views known to the people at large. Freedom of speech and expression included
propagation of ideas, and that freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation29. Freedom
of speech and expression which includes freedom to hold opinions30.
If the Supreme Court judgment on declaring bandh as unconstitutional is being constitutional

then it is unconstitutional on the behalf of the majority of people as a whole because this
judgment will not enable the public to raise their views and demands as a group of people.
Bandh is a mode of protest where large number of people join together for protest with the
same want from the government and not different wants. Every individual seeks for the same
want & need from the government therefore by doing bandh at large will create an impact on
the sate which will make the government to take sufficient reasonable actions on the demands
kept by the people. Therefore the judgement by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional it
violates the human rights.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the judgment given by the Supreme
Court of Westros is unconstitutional and the declaration of bandh by the stark community is
not violating the Constitution because
 It helps an individual to attain self- fulfilment;
 It assists in the discovery of truth;
 It strengthens the capacity of an individual to participate in the decision making

process;
 It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable

balance between stability and social change.
28
Briji Bhushan v. State of Delhi 1950 SuppSCR 245
29
Ramesh Thaper v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124)
30
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms.

6. Whether granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation

leads to violation of Article 21 of constitution of the public at large?
Granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation will not lead to
violation of Article 21 of Constitution of the public at large, if the state works as a provider as
well as a protector to the public. In a modern democratic state, individuals are granted the
right to equality therefore granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or
organisation is a human right and hence everyone is given equal opportunity to develop.
GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO COMMUNITY OR

ORGANISATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT
Article 19 is the most important and key article which embodies the “basic freedoms”. Article
19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right
 to freedom of speech and expression
 to assemble peaceably and without arms
 to form associations or unions
Fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed to everybody irrespective of sex ,
race, colour of skin, language, faith, religion, political or other conviction, ethic or social
origin, membership in a national or ethnic minority, property, birth, or other status.
All the Fundamental Rights can be abridged, though the essence or core of Fundamental
Rights cannot be abrogated or taken away as it relates to the basic structure of the
Constitution. This must necessarily follow as the essence of the freedoms of speech and
expression (including the freedom of the Press) and assembly and association and of
movement 31. Fundamental Rights are protected and Guaranteed by the Constitution and they
cannot be taken away by an ordinary law enacted by the legislature.
Granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation will not lead to
violation of Article 21 because with the help of article 19 one can have the right to freedom
of speech and expression to say their views and express their demand according to their
wants especially people at large seeking for the same mode of demand from the government
31
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225)

can join together and demand the government by forming an community or with the help of
an association.
In the practical modern life one by one individually cannot be raising their reasonable
demand to the government instead people who seek for the same motive can join together
with the help of an association or a community and ask for their wants to the government.
19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to assemble peacefully. Democracy is
based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only corrective of
government action in a democratic set up.
If democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen
must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to
intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice, free & general discussion of public
matters is absolutely essential32.
Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all
citizens in addition to protecting the rights of the citizens to know the right to receive
information regarding matters of public concern33. Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to
acquire and disseminate information34, Every individual should know what is going around
the state and what does the state do in return for the affected section of people who kept the
demand and seeks for the solution from the government.
In modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about
the affairs of the government which, having been elected by them, seek to formulate sound
policies of governance aimed at their welfare35. For expressing belief and political attitudes –
freedom of speech provides opportunity to express one’s belief and show political attitudes. It
ultimately results in the welfare of the society and state. Thus, freedom of speech provides a
mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability
and social change. Therefore, upholding the right to freedom of speech and expression is
indeed36.
32
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
33
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333)
34
Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bangal 1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161
35
Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors AIR (1997) 4 Supreme Court.
36
Khushboo V. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600

GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO COMMUNITY OR

ORGANIZATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE
All fundamental rights are granted to all people in every civilized society. Fortunately,
fundamental rights are very flexible therefore under article 19 the state can impose reasonable
restriction.
In the instant case the stark community in a community with millions of individual taking
part for the protest, The community is not maintained by the state or any state authorities. In
this case how can article 19 of constitution can violate article 21 of constitution of people at
large? Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal
liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is
not within the preview of Article 21.
If the damages caused during a protest by a community or an organization to the public and
private properties, and if some set of people who are apart from the protests are affected by
not enjoying their liberty therefore the state is responsible for not protecting the fundamental
right under article 21 of the constitution. And for protecting article 21 of constitution for the
people apart from the community or organizations individuals a state cannot say article 19 of
the constitution as a whole violates article 21 of the constitution. The state can impose certain
restrictions under article 19, so both the fundamental rights under article 19 & 21 of the
constitution will be utilized by every group of the people in a democratic country.
No State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any
action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials37.”
37
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In the lights of facts stated, arguments advance and authorities cited, the petitioner humbly
prays before the Hon’ble court, to be graciously pleased to declare that:
1. The present Public Interest Litigation is not Maintainable in this court.
2. The government is liable to pay compensation to the damages caused during the
bandh
3. Prohibiting the Stark community from doing bandh is unconstitutional
4. Article 19 is a basic fundamental right hence should be guaranteed to associations &

communities.
AND/OR
Pass any other orders that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to deem fit in the interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity, Consciences.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUMBITTED
-Counsel for Respondent

Finals RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finals RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finals RESPONDENT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE, AURANGABAD

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

SPL NO. ____1110/2018

The State of Kings Landing…………………………….Respondent 1

Starks Revolutionary Community through its Head Organiser

The State of Kings Landing

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART.136 OF

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE

1.1 THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINATINABLE……….13

1.2 THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT

2. WHETHER PARTIES, ASSOCIATIONS AND PERSONS, WHO ARE CALLING FOR

3. IN THE PRESENT CASE WHETHER THE ORGANISERS OF THE STARK

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 1 OF 29

3.1 THERE IS WAS NO ADEQUATE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE

4 WHETHER THE CIRCULAR ISSUED ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2018 BY THE STATE

5 WHEN “RIGHT TO BANDH” HAS BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY

6 WHETHER GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

6.1 GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 2 OF 29

6.2 GRANTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 TO

PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………………..28

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 3 OF 29

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

Ibid In the Same Source

AIR All India Reporter

A.P Andhra Pradesh

M.P Member of Parliament

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

U.P Uttar Pradesh

UOI Union of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 4 OF 29

LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 5 OF 29

11. Sambhu Das v. State of Assam IR 2010 SC 3300

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 6 OF 29

I. SPL NO. ___1110/2018

II. SPL NO.____1111/2018

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 7 OF 29

1. Westros is the biggest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Westros is

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 8 OF 29

Cause of Action for filing Writ Petition No. 1001/2018

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 9 OF 29

I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present circumstances?

VI. Whether granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or organisation

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 10 OF 29

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 11 OF 29

6. Whether granting fundamental right under Article 19 to community or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 12 OF 29

1.Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the present circumstance

THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINATINABLE

Unless there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right, No PIL can be maintained. In the

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

DAMAGES/DESTRUCTION CAUSED DURING THE BANDH DUE TO THE