TEAM CODE: TC-24R

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW INTRAMOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF VIJAYANAGARA

W.P. (PIL) NO. / 2023

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF VIJAYANAGARA

IN THE MATTER OF:

1) VETERANS FOR VIJAYANAGARA (PETITIONER)

V.

1)UNION OF VIJAYANAGARA (RESPONDENTS)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................. VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................ VIII

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................. IIX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................1-18

I. WHETHER PIL FILED BY VETERANS FOR VIJAYANAGRA IS

MAINTAINABLE? ..................................................................................................... 1

II. WHETHER THE VACCINE MANDATE IS UNREASONABLE AND

VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? ............................................................... 7

III. WHETHER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO TO ABIDE BY ALL

VACCINATION AND BOOSTER REQUIREMENTS IS
ILLEGAL……………………………………………………………………………11

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ XI

PAGE | I
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW INTRAMOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article
Hon’ble Honorable
SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal
HC High Court

& And
Ors Others

vs./v. Versus
§/Sec. Section

Ibid. Ibidem
Vol. Volume
u/s Under section

Anr. Another

Ltd. Limited
UOI Union of India

Pvt. Private
SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Assn. Association

Corp. Corporation

PIL Public Interest Litigation

9TH SMT. KASHIBAI NAVALE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 PAGE | II
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT CASES

I. S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

II. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
III. Janata Dal v H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892
IV. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 (3) SCC 488
V. Jacob Puliyel v. UOI 2022 OnLine SC 533
VI. K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC
VII. Fazaladdin Mandal v. Panchanan Das, 1955 SCC OnLine Cal 88
VIII. Lachoo Mal v. Rad- hey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 619: AIR 1971 SC 221
IX. Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101
X. Central Inland Water Trampart Corpn Led v. Brejo Nath Ganguly,(1986) 3 SCC 156
XI. Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67

XII. In Re: distribution of essential supplies and services during pandemic 1 (2021) 7
SCC 722

XIII. Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1963 SC 996

XIV. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
XV. Ramachand v. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44;
XVI. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665
XVII. Olga tellies & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180 =
(1985) 3 SCC 545

XVIII.

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 PAGE | III

 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

HIGH COURT CASES

I. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of WB, AIR 1987 SC 1109: (1987) 2 SCC 295
II. Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403
III. Kumar P.N v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1987) 4 SCC 609
IV. Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,AIR 2013 SC 2569

V. Yogendra kumar v. Indian Air Force, 2021 latest case law 18665 GUJ
VI. Registrar general v. State of Meghalya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130
VII. MX of bombay indian inhabitants v. ZY AIR 1997 Bom 406

OTHER CASES
I. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospitals (1914)
211 NY 125 = 105 NE 92; 1914 NY

STATUTES

• Constitution of India
• Indian Contract Act, 1872

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

• Volume 4,5,34 and 35 ,Halsbury’s Laws of India,(2014 edition)

• M. Krishnan Nair, The Law of Contracts, Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, (5th edn.
(1997)
• P M BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 263 (Lexis Nexis 2022)
• COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING
LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION. (Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent
modifications). https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/Guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf
• Dhriti Yadav and Shagun Mishra,The scope and the ingredients of Art. 21 and its
relevance in covid 19 Times, 1.4 JCLJ (2021)

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 PAGE | IV

 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN INVOKED

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIJAYANAGARA, WHICH
READS HEREIN UNDER AS:

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

1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.

3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and
(2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court
under clause (2).

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

PAGE | VII
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.The Republic of Vijayanagar is a country of 1.5 billion people with its laws being pari materia
with the laws of India. The Republic of Vijayanagar has vast population of youth who are in the
employable age but the low rate of employment and its low quality has been a hindrance to the
country’s development.

2.The country also witnessed the Covid 19 pandemic for which the Covid 19 was administered to
its people out of which 60 % of its population is vaccinated with the double dose of the vaccine.
Due to the pandemic, the government had to pause the recruitment drive into the armed forces. On
21st April 2023, the Defense Ministry notified the VijayVeer scheme that was introduced to
induce 40,000 soldiers into the force with the age limit being 18 - 23-year-old adults.

3.A one-time adjustment of the upper age being 25 years was made for the lost four years due to
the pandemic along with the induction number being raised to 75,000 soldiers. The scheme
considering the benefit of vaccination provided a condition of double vaccination for availing the
scheme along with 5 extra marks for the bonus vaccination which was beneficial for the citizens
from the Covid virus.

4.There is a lot of ambiguity in the policy with regard to the pay scale, recruitment, retirement
structure, etc along with the stipulation of the vaccination procedure. There was a shortage of
vaccines all throughout the country which made it a herculean task for all the applicants to
administer both the doses of the vaccine along with the booster dose in order to be recruited for the
job such issues caused multiplied the low employment rate caused violence in parts of the country.

5.There was a need for PIL to be filed before the Hon'ble Court in order to attain justice for the
aspirants for which Veterans for Vijayanagar came forward pointing out the unconstitutionality and
irrationality of the scheme.

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 PAGE | VIII

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

ISSUES RAISED

THE PETITIONER VERY RESPECTFULLY PUTS FORTH THE FOLLOWING

ISSUES BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:

I.
WHETHER PIL FILED BY VETERANS FOR VIJAYANAGARA IS MAINTAINABLE?

II.
WHETHER THE VACCINE MANDATE IS UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATIVE
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

III.
WHETHER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO TO ABIDE BY ALL VACCINATION AND
BOOSTER REQUIREMENTS IS ILLEGAL

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 PAGE | IX

 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER PIL FILED BY VETERANS OF VIJAYANAGARA IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted that the PIL is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioner has locus standi in the present petition because of its position as a public-
spirited body working for the general public interest. Any member of the public acting bona
fide and not out of any extraneous motivation may move the Court for judicial redress of the
legal injury or wrong and the judicial process may be set in motion by any public-spirited
citizen.

II. WHETHER THE VACCINE MANDATE IS UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

It is humbly submitted that the vaccine mandate under the VijayVeer recruitment scheme as a
requirement for the application to be accepted violated a myriad of fundamental rights including
the right to privacy, right to work, and right to livelihood

III. WHETHER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO TO ABIDE BY ALL VACCINATION AND BOOSTER
REQUIREMENTS IS ILLEGAL?

It is humbly submitted that the contract entered to abide by all vaccination and booster
requirements as the Central Government may direct is illegal as the object of the contract is
illegal[A] the nature of the contract that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of the
constitution and
[B] it is opposed to Public Policy. As it violates Section 23 of the Contract Act the contract
is void.

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, PAGE | X

2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER PIL FILED BY VETERANS OF VIJAYANAGARA IS

MAINTAINABLE?

1. It is humbly submitted that the present writ PIL under Article 32 of the Indica Constitution
is maintainable. As the ambit of Article 32 is wide, any member of the public having
Sufficient interest has locus standi to initiate a legal action in a court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the
community have a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected.1

(A) VETERANS OF VIJAYANAGARA HAS LOCUS STANDI

2. In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal.2 This Hon’ble Court set
certain guidelines for locus standi for PIL.
“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined
the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to
preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following
directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and
curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at the
redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there
is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest
litigation.”
3. The Hon’ble court in the case of Janata Dal v. Chowdhary3 defined the term ‘Public Interest
Litigation’ As per the court ,PIL means a legal action brought in the court of law on behalf of
those persons whose legal rights are violated and they can’t approach the court due to their
economic or socially disadvantageous position.

1
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

2
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402

3
AIR 1993 SC 892

PAGE | 1
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

4. In case of public interest litigation , the persons concerned who move such writ application
not for enforcing his personal right but filed by public spirited and individual espousing the
cause of large number of people who are suffering under some legal wrong or injury and
such person or class of persons is by reason of poverty .helplessness or disability or
socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief and
in such case any member of the public can maintain writ application.4
5. The Veterans Vijayanagara has approached the Hon’ble supreme court regarding the
vaccine stipulations and requirements being unconstitutional. As the deadline for
applications drew near and the government gave no indication that it would modify the
scheme or move the deadline, unrest broke out in several regions of the nation. The claimed
association approached the highest court after being hurt by these occurrences. The
petitioner came before this Hon’ble court with a genuine and justified interest in this case.
We are not contacting for ulterior motives like political agendas, personal benefit, or private
profit.
6. The abovementioned cases demonstrate that This Hon’ble Court, in order to protect and
preserve the fundamental and Human rights of citizens while relaxing the rule of locus
standi, passed a number of directions to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in light of the
above reasons, we have locus standi to file this present PIL.

(B) THERE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

7. This Hon’ble Court has set certain guidelines5 for entertaining PIL. Based on the full
court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modification. And point 8 of the said
guidelines says “petition pertaining...….to matters of public importance” shall be
considered by this Court in the form of PIL. Therefore, Issues of public importance,
and enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of public vis-à-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the State if raised, the court treats public interest
litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings.

4
P M BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 263 (Lexis Nexis 2022)

5
COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING
LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION. (Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications).
https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/Guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf
PAGE | 2
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
8. In the case of Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & ors. the Hon’ble court held that:
6

‘’11…….as the issues raised by the Petitioner have a bearing on public health and
pertain to the fundamental rights of the country’s populace, we are of the opinion that
they warrant due consideration by this Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to
entertain the challenge mounted by the Union of India to the maintainability of the
Writ Petition.’’Further, the Hon’ble Court iterated that issue being a public health
issue and pertaining to the fundamental rights of the country’s population needs due
consideration.
9. In the present case there are issues of great public importance regarding the vijayveer
scheme being unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights.

C. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

10. This Hon’ble Court in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of WB7, held that: -
“It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of Fundamental Rights by a
group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are
complaints of such acts as to shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially
the Supreme Court, should leave aside procedural shackle and hear such petitions and
extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardship and
miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. The court will be second to
none in extending help when such help is required.”
11. It is humbly submitted that the VijayVeer scheme that made it compulsory for
individuals to be vaccinated and provide the proof for the same for their application to
be accepted under the scheme is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates a myriad
of fundamental rights including the right to privacy, right to work and right to
livelihood and this court being the guarantor of fundamental rights has the obligation
and right to hear the present matter.

D. JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICABLE TO POLICY

DECISION

12. The court referred to a series of precedents wherein the judicial review is applicable to
executive policy decisions. In Re: distribution of essential supplies and services

6
Jacob Puliyel v. UOI 2022 OnLine SC 533

7
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of WB, AIR 1987 SC 1109: (1987) 2 SCC 295
PAGE | 3
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
during pandemic 8
the court held that ‘’policy making continues to be the sole domain
of the executive and the judiciary does not possess the authority or competence to
assume the role of executive. However it continues to exercise jurisdiction to
determine if the chosen policy measure conforms to the standards of reasonableness,
mitigates against manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all the
persons.’’

13. In jacob puliyel v. Union of India9 the Hon’ble court held that:
‘’There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one judgment that where the
decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily
interfere since decisions on policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the
persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of
a policy decision. However, this does not mean that courts have to abdicate their right
to scrutinize whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the
relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination
or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record.

It was further held therein that the policy decision is subject to judicial review on the
following grounds:

a) if it is unconstitutional;

b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations;

c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;

d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy’’

14. It is humbly submitted that the VijayVeer scheme though is a policy matter is still
subjected to the judicial review on the grounds that it is unconstitutional involving the
invasion of fundamental rights of the individuals, being arbitrary and unreasonable
and cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that it is to be dealt by the executive

8
(2021) 7 SCC 722

9
Jacob Puliyel v. UOI 2022 OnLine SC 533
PAGE | 4
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

E. ALTERNATE REMEDY NO BAR TO REJECT RELIEF UNDER PIL.

15. It is Humbly Submitted that this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
has original jurisdiction to hear matters relating to the infringement of fundamental
rights. The Right to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 is in itself a
Fundamental right which can’t be defeated on the ground that there is an alternative
approach. In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner10 this Hon’ble court held that
the right under Article 32 is an absolute right and can’t be infringed on any ground.

16. This Hon’ble Court has a constitutional obligation being the guarantor of fundamental
rights to look into matters where there is a gross violation of fundamental rights and
should not forgo the matter on the ground of alternate remedy
17. The existence of alternate relief is not a bar to the invocation of this Hon’ble Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. When relief is sought in a case is an
infringement of fundamental rights.11
18. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Kumar P.N v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi12 this Hon’ble Court held that it is not a bar that the applicant had approached
the Supreme Court in the first instance without approaching the High Court under
Article 226
19. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that an Alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to
granting a writ under Art. 32 but is just a Discretionary power of this Hon’ble Court.
Thereby, this PIL is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.

II. WHETHER THE VACCINE MANDATE IS UNREASONABLE AND

VIOLATIVE OF FUNDEMENTAL RIGHTS?

20. It is humbly submitted that the vaccine mandate under the vijayveer recruitment
scheme as a requirement for the application to be accepted violated a myriad of
fundamental rights including the right to privacy, right to work, and right to

10
Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1963 SC 996
11
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; Ramachand v. Union of India (1994) 1
SCC 44; Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403
12
Kumar P.N v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1987) 4 SCC 609

PAGE | 5
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
livelihood.

(A) RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD IS INFRINGED

21. There is nothing wrong on the Government’s part in encouraging people from getting
vaccinated, but denial thereof should not invite coercive action or lack of access to
essential services (to non-vaccinated people) which is plainly unconstitutional,
violative of bodily autonomy, and right to access to livelihood13 Writing for the bench,
Justice Rao said: “With respect to the infringement of bodily integrity and personal
autonomy of an individual considered in the light of vaccines and other public health
measures introduced to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, “we are of the opinion that
bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and no individual can
be forced to be vaccinated. Further, personal autonomy of an individual, which is a
recognised facet of the protections guaranteed under Article 21, encompasses the right
to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health”14
22. In Common Cause v. Union of India15 Personal autonomy has been recognized as a
critical facet of the right to life and right to self-determination on how individuals
should live their own life which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to
undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health.
23. . In the case of K.S.Puttaswamy v. UOI16, it was held that, for any kind of invasion of
privacy or personal liberty, the restriction or condition must pass three-fold test-

“(i) The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an
encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21. For, no person can
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.

(ii) Second, the requirement of a need, in terms of a legitimate state aim, ensures that
the nature and content of the law which imposes the restriction falls within the zone of
reasonableness mandated by Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary state

13
Jacob puliyel v. Union of India 2022 OnLine SC 533

14
Ibid.
15
(2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665

16
(2017) 10 SCC 1

PAGE | 6
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
action. The pursuit of a legitimate state aim ensures that the law does not suffer from
manifest arbitrariness. Legitimacy, as a postulate, involves a value judgment. Judicial
review does not re-appreciate or second guess the value judgment of the legislature
but is for deciding whether the aim which is sought to be pursued suffers from
palpable or manifest arbitrariness.

(iii) The third requirement ensures that the means which are adopted by the
legislature are proportional to the object and needs sought to be fulfilled by the law.
Proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against arbitrary state action
because it ensures that the nature and quality of the encroachment on the right is not
disproportionate to the purpose of the law.

Hence, the three-fold requirement for a valid law arises out of the mutual
interdependence between the fundamental guarantees against arbitrariness on one
hand and the protection of life and personal liberty, on the other. The right to privacy,
which is an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty, and the freedoms embodied in
Part III are subject to the same restraints which apply to those freedoms”.

24. It is humbly submitted that the vaccine requirement under the scheme does not fall
within the zone of reasonableness under article 14. Giving a booster injection a 5
mark bonus is arbitrary and unreasonable. Article 14 is violated when the state uses
power arbitrarily and classifies people based solely on booster shots. An important
consequence of the rights to equality is the element of reasonableness .Classification
which is unreasonable is open to challenge and to this extent the policy of legislation
is open to judicial review.
25. It is humbly submitted that the requirements under the scheme is not proportionate to
the object sought to be achieved.
26. Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors17, right to life includes
right to the means of livelihood
27. In MX of bombay indian inhabitants v. ZY18 ,it was stated that you cannot deny
employment to an individual on the basis of him/her being HIV positive because the
right to life has the right to livelihood within its broader concepts. If a person’s right

17
AIR 1986 SC 180 = (1985) 3 SCC 545
18
AIR 1997 Bom 406

PAGE | 7
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
to livelihood is taken away without following a legal process that is just and equitable
,he will appeal the deprivation as a violation of article 21.19
28. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India the Supreme Court
held that the Right to Health is a fundamental right and is an integral part of the Right
to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This essentially also means that the
right to health care (vaccination) is included under the Right to Health. However,
suppose such health care is provided through coercive means by making it mandatory
(compulsory vaccination). In that case, the very fundamental purpose of this health
care is defeated because it encroaches upon the Fundamental Right to Privacy.
29. It is humbly submitted that the programme further stipulated that, if selected, a
candidate must provide an assurance that they will comply with any vaccine or
booster requirements imposed by the Central Government. By requiring the candidate
to submit an affirmation that they would follow all vaccination and booster
requirements, the government is violating article 21 rights to life and personal liberty.
It is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty.20
30. It is humbly submitted that in a similar instance the Gujarat high court restrained the
Indian air force from taking any coercive action against a corporal-level officer who
declined to take the covid-19 vaccine.21

(B) RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE

31. It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble Court in Jacob Puliyel v. UOI22 held that
restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed by State Governments / Union
Territories cannot be said proportionate. Furthermore, it stated that till the infection
rate remains low and any new development or research finding emerges which
provides due justification to impose reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the
rights of unvaccinated individuals, all authorities in India, including private

19
Dhriti Yadav and Shagun Mishra,The scope and the ingredients of Art. 21 and its relevance in covid 19
Times, 1.4 JCLJ (2021)748

20
Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,AIR 2013 SC 2569

21
Yogendra kumar v. Indian Air Force, 2021 latest case law 18665 GUJ

22
Jacob puliyel v. Union of India 2022 OnLine SC 533

PAGE | 8
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
organizations and educational institutions, review the relevant orders and instructions
imposing restrictions on such persons in terms of public access, services and
resources, if not already recalled
32. The Supreme Court as well as different High Courts have entertained numerous
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding various socio-legal issues including the right
to health in the society. We know that the Constitution of India and the governance of
society is based on the concept of welfare state, where the primary duty of the
government should be to secure the welfare of the people and the State or the
government is under an obligation to maintain a healthy life of all the citizens by
providing them with sufficient medical facilities to all its people.23
33. Right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also includes the right to
healthy life as health is considered as the cardinal principle of human life. Therefore,
the government or the State is under a constitutional obligation or duty to provide all
kinds of medical facilities including lifesaving drugs or vaccines for the protection of
life of the people Non-performance in doing so shall result in violation of right to life
of the people as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.24
34. It is humbly submitted that in Vijayanagara for the past six months, infections have
decreased, but since April 2023, only mild instances have increased. Thus
considering the present situation it is disproportionate to make such vaccine
stipulations and requirements under the VijayVeer scheme . Moreover, even if the
aspirants were willing to get vaccinated there was a shortage of vaccine supply. Some
people hadn't even received the first dosage of the vaccine. To meet such requirements
in such a short period of time is unreasonable thus violating right to health under right
to life and right to livelihood of the Article 21.
35. It is humbly submitted that in Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of
Meghalaya25 the high court held the following:

(a)Article 21 encompasses within its fold, right to health, as a fundamental right. By

that same analogy, right to health care, which includes vaccination, is a fundamental
right. However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive
methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It
impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to

23
Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity and Others v State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2426
24
Vishal Anand, A Critical Analysis on the Right to Vaccination under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,[Vol. 4 Iss
4; 390]2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130
25
2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130

PAGE | 9
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live( page 2 para 1 of the
judgment )

(b)There is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any

occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or class of citizens who are
otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification/order ill conceived, arbitrary
and/or a colourable exercise of power. A notification/order of the State certainly
cannot put an embargo and/or fetter on the fundamental right to life of an individual
by stripping off his/her right to livelihood, except according to the procedure
established by law. Even that procedure is required to be reasonable, just and fair
(page 3 para 1)

(c)In this context, around one hundred and seven (107) years ago, in Schloendorff v
Society of New York Hospitals26 Justice Cardozo ruled that “every human being of
adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with their
body”(page 3 para 3).Thus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early
phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several
diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled
against by the Courts for over more than a century.

(d)’The welfare nature of the State isn‟t for coercive negative reinforcement by
seizing their right to livelihood, proscribing them to earn from their occupation and/or
profession without any justification in the garb of public interest, but lies in walking
together with concerted efforts attempting to effectuate a social order as mandated
under Article 38 by approaching the people directly by engaging them in one-to-one
dialogues and dwelling on the efficiency and the positive aspects of administering of
the vaccine without compromising its duty under Article 47 nor abrogating its duty to
secure adequate means of livelihood under Article 39(a). A harmonious and purposive
construction of the provisions of law and principles of equity, good conscience and
justice reveals that mandatory or forceful vaccination does not find any force in law
leading to such acts being liable to be declared ultra vires ab initio ‘’(page 5 para 1)

(e)In such situations, the approach towards effecting any kind of behavioral change
needs to be „adaptive’ in nature, meaning thereby that the people need to be mobilized
and convinced to see the impact of the new intervention for greater acceptance among
the communities…….that the orders in the districts have to be seen as a “persuasive

26
(1914) 211 NY 125 = 105 NE 92; 1914 NY
PAGE | 10
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
advisory” and not as a coercion with regards to the issue of vaccination.(page 5 para
2)

(C) DISPARITY IN ACCESS

35. Any requirement to give vaccines is predicated on the assumption that vaccine
availability is guaranteed on an equitable basis for all. The reality, on the other
hand, is rather different.. In most states, there are no slots available for those
between the ages of 18 and 45. Several state governments have offered free
immunization for all people aged 18 to 45, while others have yet to do so. Private
hospital prices are also very high. Access to healthcare will be more challenging
for marginalised and vulnerable communities.27
36. As a result, a mandatory vaccination programme will exacerbate societal
disparities and inequities, disproportionately affecting the poor and marginalised.
Many people may not get vaccinated through no fault of their own due to the
improbability of vaccine availability.

The burden lies on the State to disseminate and sensitize the citizens of the entire
exercise of vaccination with its pros and cons and facilitate informed decision making
particularly in a situation where the beneficiaries are skeptical, susceptible and
belonging to vulnerable/marginalized section of the society, some of whom are also
gullible members of the indigenous communities who are constantly being fed with
deliberate misinformation regarding the efficacy of vaccination by some
persons/organizations with oblique motives.28In the country of Vijayanagara the
vaccination rate has slowed down as a result of complacency, and it has also revealed
an urban-rural gap, with urban areas having higher vaccination coverage.

III.WHETHER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO TO ABIDE BY ALL VACCINATION

AND BOOSTER REQUIREMNTS IS ILLEGAL?

37. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the contract entered for the

27
Rishttps://www.legalservicesindia.comhu Chauhan,Mandatory Vaccination: Individual Freedom Of Choice v/s
Public Health And Order,
.
28
2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130
PAGE | 11
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
purpose of abiding by all vaccinations and booster requirements that the Central
Government may direct is illegal [A] the nature of the contract that, if permitted, it
would defeat the provisions of the constitution and [B] it is opposed to Public
Policy.
38. A contract becomes Illegal when any part or whole of the objective or consideration
of the contract is illegal/unlawful. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act states
under what circumstances under which consideration and object of the contract are
treated as unlawful/ illegal. The circumstances are forbidden by law; or is of such a
nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is
fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or
the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy
39. Section 23 of the Contract Act declares that every agreement of which the object or
consideration is unlawful is void. Section 24 of the Contract Act, declares an
agreement made which contains an unlawful object or consideration in part is void.
29

A. IS OF THE NATURE THAT , IF PERMITTED , IT WOULD DEFEAT THE PROVISIONS OF

CONSTITUTIONAL

40. It is humbly submitted that section 23 of the Contract Act should be interpreted in
light of the fundamental rights. Contractual clauses should be interpreted
considering Parts III and IV of the Constitution to ensure the effectiveness of
fundamental rights.30
41. Therefore, the words "if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law" in
Sec. 23 of the Contract Act refer to the performance of an agreement which
necessarily entails the transgression of the provisions of any law. What makes an
agreement, which is otherwise legal, void is that its performance is impossible
except by disobedience of the law. Clearly, no question of illegality can arise unless
the performance of the unlawful act was necessarily the effect of an agreement.31

29
Fazaladdin Mandal v. Panchanan Das, 1955 SCC OnLine Cal 88 6
30
C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose 1992 AIR 573, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 267 Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213: AIR 1991 SC 101.
31
Lachoo Mal v. Rad- hey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 619: AIR 1971 SC 2213: 1972 ALJ 376Central Inland Water
Trampart Corpn Led v. Brejo Nath Ganguly, [1986] 2 SCR 278, AIR 1986 SC 1571 at 1612, (1986) 3 SCC 156
PAGE | 12
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

42. It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction would release a weaker party from the unconscionable, oppressive,
unjust and unconstitutional contractual obligation.32 Here there is an
unconstitutional obligation placed on the human participants therefore the contract
should be treated as illegal and declared void.

B. OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY

43. Public Policy connotes a matter which concerns public good and public interest.33
The Indian Contract Act is an amending as well as consolidating Act. Thereby
common law principles are applicable, if they are inconsistent with the provisions of
the Indian Contract Act or the Constitution to that extent they stand excluded. Any
law, much less the provisions of the Contract Act, which are inconsistent with the
fundamental rights which guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, by operation of
Art. 13 of the Constitution, are void. Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act defines
"an agreement" including an agreement of service and becomes a contract only
when it is enforceable by law. This Hon’ble Court has held that Article 14 of the
Constitution sheds light on public policy to curb arbitrariness. Arbitrariness in State
action whether of the legislature or the executive or of authority under Articles 12,
violation of 14 and 21 of the Constitution results in striking down such
action.34Therefore, Agreements violating the constitution are considered opposed to
public policy and are not enforceable.
44. This Hon’ble Court has held that contracts which are tainted with illegality are
contracts which contain terms which are so unfair and unreasonable that they shock
the conscience of the court. In the vast majority of cases such contracts are entered
into by the weaker party under pressure of circumstances, generally economic,
which results in inequality of bargaining power. Such contracts will not fall within
the four corners of the definition of "undue influence" given in S. 16(1) of the
Contract Act, even though at times they are between parties one of whom holds a
real or apparent authority over the other. Contracts in prescribed or standard forms
or which embody a set of rules as part of the contract are entered into by the party
with superior bargaining power with a large number of persons who have far less

32
Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213: AIR 1991
SC 101.
33
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156: AIR 1986 SC 1571; Delhi
Transport Corp. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213: AIR 1991 SC 101.
34
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67: (1991) 1 GLH 547
PAGE | 13
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
 MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
bargaining power or no bargaining power at all. Such contracts which affect a large
number of persons or a group or groups of persons, if they are unconscionable, unfair
and unreasonable, are injurious to the public interest. Such a contract or its clause should
be adjudged void under S. 23 of the Contract Act on grounds of being opposed to public
policy.35A contract which tends to injure public interests or public welfare is one against
public policy.36
45. It is therefore humbly submitted that the contract on abiding to all vaccinations and
booster requirements is opposed to public policy and should therefore be declared
illegal and void by virtue of section 23 of the Contract Act.

35
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156: AIR 1986 SC 1571; Delhi
Transport Corp. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213: AIR 1991 SC 101.
36
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67: (1991) 1 GLH 547
PAGE | 14
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given, and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be
pleased to:
I. HOLD THAT THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT OF VIJAYANAGARA
II. HOLD THAT THE WHETHER THE VACCINE MANDATE IS
UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

III. HOLD THAT CONTRACT ENTERED INTO TO ABIDE BY VACCINATION

AND BOOSTER REQUIREMENTS IS ILLEGAL.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT
OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

(S/d)
COUNSELS FOR THE
PETITIONER

DATE: --/05/2023

PLACE: Supreme Court of Vijayanagara

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,2023 PAGE | XI