TEAM CODE: G

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSLE - 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED BHARAT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 (PIL) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950

Mr. Vishwam Nath …Petitioner

Vs.
The Government of United Bharat …Respondent

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF UNITED BHARAT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Link]. PARTICULARS Pg. No.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7

4. Facts 8

5. Issues Raised 9

6. Summary of Arguments 10

7. Arguments Advanced:

(i). The present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest

Litigation (PIL). 12

(ii). The dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to

14
compensation.

(iii). The migrant workers are not liable for “trespassing” by

choosing railway tracks for their travel to their hometown? 17

(iv). The right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under

Article 21 of the constitution, was violated during Pandemic
20
Covid-19.

8. Prayer 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 3)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[Link]. SHORT FORM FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Report

2. Anr. Another

3. CEC Central Empowered Committee

4. COVID Coronavirus

5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

6. Govt. Government

7. HC High Court

8. Hon’ble Honorable

9. NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

10. No. Number

11. Ors. Others

12. PIL Public Interest Litigation

13. para Paragraph

14. r/w. Read with

15. SC Supreme Court

16. SCC Supreme Court Cases

17. ST Scheduled Tribe

18. Supp. Supplementary

19. U.O.I Union of India

20. vs. Versus

21. W.P. Writ Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 4)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Indian Constitution, 1950.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
3. Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 (Act 30 of 1979).
4. The Railways Act, 1989 (Act 24 of 1989).
5. The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act
33 of 1989).
6. Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
7. The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions
of Service) Act, 1996 (Act No. 27 of 1996).
8. The National Disaster Management Act, 2005. (Act 53 of 2005)
9. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families, New York, 18 December 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. M. P. Jain, The Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexisNexis.
2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, Volume - 1,
LexisNexis.
3. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, Volume - 2,
LexisNexis.
4. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency.
5. Chris Turner, Unlocking Torts, 4th Edition, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London
& New York.
6. Prof. S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code with Criminal law (Amendment) Act, 2018, 21st
Edition, Central Law Publications.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 5)

ONLINE CITATION

1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
6. [Link]
7. [Link]

CASES CITED
Indian Cases
1. Janata Dal vs. Chowdhury, H.S., [(1992) 4 SCC 305: AIR 1993 SC 892].
2. Sarbananda Sonowal vs. U.O.I, [(2005) 5 SCC 665, 724-25: AIR 2005 SC 2920].
3. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India, [AIR 1989 SC 549: 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 251].
4. Rajalakshmi & Ors. vs The Union Of India Owning Southern Railways, [[Link]. 4371
of 2019].
5. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen, [AIR 1961 SC 647].
6. Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority, [AIR 1984 SC 1842].
7. Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., [AIR 1981 SC 852].
8. S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager, [(2003) 4 SCC 27].
9. Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, [1981
AIR 422, 1981 SCR (1) 789].
10. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar R Nandkarni, [AIR 1983 SC 109:
(1983) 1 SCC].
11. Oliga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [AIR 1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545].
12. DK Yadhav vs. JMA Industries, [(1993) 3 SCC 259].
13. Dr. Haniraj L Chulani vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, [(1996) 3 SCC 345: AIR
1996 SC 1708]
14. Suo Motu WP [(Civil) No.6 of 2020] along with Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India
& Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No.916 of 2020]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 6)

Foreign Cases
1. Jones vs. Boyce, [(1816) 1 Stark, 493], (England & Wales HC).
2. Rigby vs. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, {[1985] 2 All ER 985}, (United
Kingdom).
3. Buckoke v Greater London Council, {[1971] EWCA Civ J0215-1}, England & Wales,
Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 7)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1950: 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 clause ( 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

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
for the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the said Constitution, 1950,
for a public or social welfare.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 8)

SUMMARY OF FACTS

United Bharat with 28 states and 9 Union Territories has the lengthiest constitution and has
most of the salient features that are unique in content and spirit.
On 30th January - Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, a pandemic disease
was reported in United Bharat, leading to a large disruption in economic activities and loss of
human life as well. To which, Section 144 CrPC curfew was declared and enforcement agencies
arrested and detained the violators, leading to lockdown in United Bharat.
Where one of the migrant worker named Mr. Ashish Baiga, who is a family man (poor ST
family) from State of Bangala working in State of Rashtra as construction building worker,
whereby losing his job due to lockdown, decided to travel with other 5 of his co-workers to Bangala
through train tracks assuming that there would be safer to evade police and a shorter route than
roadways. After two days of travel, the laborers faced fatigue and lethargy because of
sleeplessness, lack of rest and less food and water intake. In spite of all these hurdles, the poor
migrant workers moved forward with strong determination.
On 5th March 2020 at 7pm, a goods train ran over migrant workers, causing the death of 3
(including Ashish Baiga) and other 3 injured. This caught the attention of social media & raised
national concern for the plight for migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic. Assessment
report from NCRB regarding the accidents from January to December 2020, accounting to a
majority in migrant workers death.
Where the Indian Railways declared that it was “not railway accidents” or “untoward
incidents” and it was purely “trespassing”. Moreover they claimed that this to be a civic issue and
they took utmost efforts in sensitizing trespassers to avoid walking on tracks, hence they are not
negligent. The State Government provided meager compensation, but the Central Government
refused to pay compensation to those families during this disruptive economic issue during
Pandemic.
Mr. Vishwam Nath, a social activist took up initiative to file a suit as PIL before Hon’ble
SC of United Bharat under Article 32 of the Constitution of United Bharat to bring in to attention
the plight of migrant workers during COVID-19 and to direct Central Government to pay
reasonable compensation to the family of migrant workers who met with railway accidents. Now
the case is pending before the Hon’ble SC of United Bharat.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 9)

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

2. Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation?
3. Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks for
their travel to home town?
4. Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of constitution is
violated during Pandemic Covid19?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 10)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

The counsel on behalf of Mr. Vishwam Nath (i.e., hereinafter the Petitioner), humbly
submits that the present petition is maintainable. As it’s clearly given in Compilation of
Guidelines to be followed for entertaining Letters/ Petitions received in this Court
(Supreme Court) as Public Interest Litigation, based on full court decision dated 1st
December 1988 and subsequent modifications. Where the Petitioner filed the same only
based on “public importance”, throwing light on the plight of migrant workers during
COVID-19 Pandemic and directing the Central Government for reasonable compensation
to be paid to the family of migrant workers who met with a railway accident.

2. Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation?

The counsel on behalf of Mr. Vishwam Nath (i.e., hereinafter the Petitioner), humbly
submits that the dependents of the deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation
as per Section 109 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989. Moreover as per the Railway Accidents
and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, recent amendments of 2017, the
Rule 3 - Part I & II staging clearly about the compensation amounts are to be entitled for
the dependents of the deceased migrant workers by the Central Government.

3. Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks
for their travel to hometown?
The counsel on behalf of Mr. Vishwam Nath (i.e., hereinafter the Petitioner), humbly
submits that the migrant workers are not liable for trespassing by choosing railway tracks
for their travel to their hometown. This is elaborated on the aspect of “Necessity” from
torts point of view. Where it’s clearly given that, the railway routes are safer and shorter
way of transportation to their hometown, during this emergency lockdown of COVID-19
pandemic.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 11)

4. Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of

constitution is violated during Pandemic Covid-19?
The counsel on behalf of Mr. Vishwam Nath (i.e., hereinafter the Petitioner), humbly
submits that the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, 1950 has been
violated during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Where Article 19, Article 16 r/w. Article 21
constitutes the “Right to Livelihood” under the Constitution being infringed by curtailing
the freedom of movement, freedom to equal opportunity of employment and freedom to
live a decent life.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 12)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

1.1. Petitioner has Locus Standi to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
1.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner (i.e., Mr. Visham Nath) is having locus standi to
file the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The locus standi of the Petitioner for filing PIL is
based on the following:
1) The bona fide aspect;
2) Real and genuine public interest;
3) Sufficient interest in the proceedings;
4) Violation of fundamental right of Public at large;
5) Not having any personal gain, political motive or oblique consideration.
1.1.2. Where the Petitioner is a social activist who is bonafide (can be obtained from CEC) and
having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to
put the Judicial machinery in motion in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which relied on the
case Janata Dal vs. Chowdhury, H.S.1, and also Sarbananda Sonowal vs. U.O.I2. Where
the judicial redress is towards the plight of migrant workers during the COVID-19
pandemic and towards the reasonable compensation to the family of migrant workers who
met with a railway accident, which results in fundamental rights violation of the Central
Governments towards the livelihood of the migrant workers under Article 21 of the
Constitution of United Bharat, which is clearly stated in the 4th issue.

1.2. This Petition is Maintainable:

1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable by
representing the Compilation of Guidelines to be followed for entertaining Letters/
Petitions received in this Court (Supreme Court) as Public Interest Litigation, based on full

1
Janata Dal vs. Chowdhury, H.S., [(1992) 4 SCC 305: AIR 1993 SC 892].
2
Sarbananda Sonowal vs. U.O.I, [(2005) 5 SCC 665, 724-25: AIR 2005 SC 2920], para 82.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 13)

court decision dated 1st December 1988 and subsequent modifications. That is, a letter or
petition falling under the category of 1 to 10 list will apply for filing the PIL. Where the
Petition was filed by the Petitioner with respect to the fundamental right violated and is
towards the judicial redress sought from the violation of the same.
1.2.2. It is further submitted that the ultimate test of maintainability of PIL is based on the
concerns of the Petitioner’s interest. Where the PIL is meant for the benefit of the lost and
lonely and is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no
access to court. Moreover by relying on the case Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of
India3 that the Supreme Court should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such
petitions (that have gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or class action or when
basic human rights are invaded) for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the
underdog and neglected.

3
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India, [AIR 1989 SC 549: 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 251].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 14)

ISSUE 2: Whether the dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to

compensation?

2.1. Compensation entitled under Railway Act, 1989:

2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the dependents of the deceased migrant workers are entitled to
compensation. As stated in Section 109 of the Railway Act, 1989, that is, “Railway
administration against which an application for compensation for personal injury is to be
filed.”
2.1.2. It is submitted in the fact sheet that “On an assessment of the number of railway accidents
by NCRB, it was found that 805 people suffered injuries and 8,733 people died on railway
track between January 2020 and December 2020. Majority of the dead were migrant
workers. However, Indian railways declared that these are “not railway accidents”
because they come under the category of “untoward incidents” or “trespassing” and
refused to pay compensation to these migrant workers”. The same is highly contentious.
2.1.3. Under Section 129 of the said Act, the Central Government can regulate rules for the
compensation of death to migrant workers during COVID-19 Pandemic, and one of the
examples can be obtained from the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990, where the compensation in Part-II clearly stating for death
and discharge of any body parts amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs. Moreover, relying on the case
Rajalakshmi & Ors. vs The Union Of India Owing Southern Railways 4, stated that,
“Compensation being a welfare measure and to save the family on account of the sudden
death of a breadwinner of the family or injuries, the benefit cannot be denied in a routine
manner by interpreting the welfare legislation negatively. Positive and pragmatic
approach is certainly required as such award of compensation is an integral part of the
concept of social justice enunciated under the preamble of the Constitution of India”.

4
Rajalakshmi & Ors. vs The Union Of India Owning Southern Railways, [[Link]. 4371 of 2019]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 15)

2.2. Torts:
2.2.1. Where it is to be noted that, the railways were in “Contributory Negligence” with respect
to the migrant workers. The same is stated with the Doctrine of Alternative Danger where
the migrant workers were pushed into a livelihood crisis by the Central Government by
posing Section 144 CrPC curfew/ lockdown, and they moving to their hometown by
choosing the Railway tracks as that lockdown and no movement of any transportations,
and thus making them not to be liable as a Negligence on their part alone. The same can be
relied on the case Jones vs. Boyce5, where to safeguard from the danger, the defendant
might cause, and the danger adopted by the plaintiff is justifiable.

2.3. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families, New York, 18 December 1990:
2.3.1. It is further humbly submitted that, through this convention in Article 13 with respect to
migrant worker’s right to be provided by law if necessary in case of protection of the
national security of the States concerned or of public order (ordre public) or of public health
or morals; and in Article 16 with respect to Migrant workers and members of their families
shall have the right to liberty and security of person; and in Article 17 with respect to
Whenever a migrant worker is deprived of his or her liberty, the competent authorities of
the State concerned shall pay attention to the problems that may be posed for members of
his or her family, in particular for spouses and minor children. Whereby through these
Articles of this convention, it is clear about the rights of the migrant workers and their
families. Thus, Union Bharat can adopt few measures from the conventions even though
they haven’t ratified the convention as Union Bharat had already adopted and enacted laws
referring to Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2005, without ratifying the Convention on
Consent to Marriage, Minimum age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages, 1962.

2.4. Regulation of Policies by the order of Supreme Court

2.4.1. It is humbly submitted that the compensation entitlement to dependents of the deceased of
the migrant workers can be sought by the order passed by SC under Article 32 r/w. 142 of
United Bharat Constitution to regulate policies or rules as per the following provisions:

5
Jones vs. Boyce, [(1816) 1 Stark, 493], (England & Wales HC).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 16)

a) The Section 129 of Railway Act 1989;

b) The Article 13, 16, and 17 of International Convention on the Protection of
the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, New York, 18
December 1990;
c) The Section 21 of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and
d) The Article 339 r/w. 275(1) of the Constitution of United Bharat
2.4.2. For the death of migrant workers, were few of them were ST as in case of Mr. Ashish
Baiga, and such migrants died or injured to be compensated by the Central Government
through the formulation of funds as per Status Report by vikasapedia on Special component
plan for Scheduled Castes & Tribal Sub-plan for Scheduled Tribes, where the need of
effective implementation is required, that too with emphasize on the COVID-19 pandemic
situation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 17)

ISSUE 3: Whether the migrant workers are liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway
tracks for their travel to home town?

3.1. Torts: Necessity

3.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the migrant workers are not liable for “trespassing” by choosing
railway tracks for their travel to home. Where a trespass to the land may be excused if it
occurs as a result of necessity. “Necessity” is a defense if action is taken in an emergency
to deal with a genuinely perceived danger. The fact that with hindsight the danger did not
in fact materialize is irrelevant. The danger may be to property as well as people. Where
this defense is not applicable in case of criminal charges. But in the present case, the
migrant workers haven’t committed any trespass with criminal intent, it was based on the
COVID-19 emergency paradox that is fear of loss of livelihood and life and to meet their
family in their hometown.
3.1.2. Where by referring to the case Rigby vs. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire6 that it
clearly provides the defense of necessity is applicable in case of trespass committed in an
emergency situation and also provided that any negligence on the said part has been
implied by the respondent’s side, then the alternative remedy is approved by the torts point
of view.
3.1.3. Moreover relying on the case Buckoke v Greater London Council7, where Lord Denning
appreciated the driver of an emergency vehicle passing over the red light, as its not a
prosecuting crime, rather a congratulating act. Through this, in our present case, the
migrant workers took a defense of necessity towards the health and fear of this COVID-19
Pandemic and the Government authorities’ measures taken with respect to the lockdown/
curfew under Section 144 CrPC.

6
Rigby vs. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, {[1985] 2 All ER 985}, (United Kingdom).
7
Buckoke v Greater London Council, {[1971] EWCA Civ J0215-1}, England & Wales, Court of Appeal (Civil
Division).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 18)

3.2. The Railways Act, 1989:

3.2.1. It is humbly submitted that this act of migrants does not account to trespass, as it’s a
Necessity stated in supra points. Therefore, this accounts for railway accidents as per
untoward incidents as per Section 124A of the said Act. Where relying on the Rajalakshmi
Case8 (Supra), it’s observed that “Thus, unintentional trespass through Railway track by
mistake committed by a passenger, would not fall under the exclusion clause as
contemplated under proviso to Section 124A and in such cases, compensation is to be
awarded. In the present case, even the trespass has not been proved beyond any doubt,
despite the fact that the respondent / Railways claims that it is a case of trespass.
Presuming that it is a case of trespass, then also, the Railways is bound to establish that
the trespass has been committed with an intention and falling under the Criminal Act as
contemplated under the Proviso clause to Section 124A of the Act”, and further observed
that “In such circumstances, Courts are bound to adopt the Doctrine of Liberal
Interpretation, so as to ensure that the concept of social justice prevail and the livelihood
of the dependents, who lost their near and dear and the breadwinner are saved.
Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2019 passed in [Link].33 of 2019 is set aside and the
civil miscellaneous appeal in [Link].4371 of 2019 stands allowed”.
3.2.2. It is humbly submitted that, through this case, it’s clearly evident that, any old aged or
illiterate like the migrant workers are bound by the untoward incidents and hence, that does
not account to trespass.

3.3. Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979:

3.3.1. It is humbly submitted that Section 15 of the said Act must have been provided by the
contractor before laid-off, then the situation of trespass wouldn’t have occurred and the
migrant workers might not have suffered in search of the another job for their livelihood.
3.3.2. It is further submitted that contractors have to maintain registers for all migrant workers
and provide them with a passbook containing details of their employment. The
establishments have to provide a displacement allowance of 50% of the wages and fares in
addition to wages during any disruption period. They are also required to provide
accommodation and health facilities. The law prohibits the employment of migrant workers

8
Rajalakshmi & Ors. vs The Union Of India Owning Southern Railways, [[Link]. 4371 of 2019]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 19)

without registration and state governments are required to appoint inspectors to ensure its
implementation. Migrant workers are entitled to various allowances under the law such as
displacement allowance, journey allowance, and payment of wages during the period of
the journey. They are also entitled to the timely payment of wages, non-discrimination, and
provision of suitable accommodation, free healthcare facilities, and sanitation facilities.
3.3.3. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two
constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the
benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words,
beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation
vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen9, Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate
Authority10, Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd.11, S. M.
Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager12, etc.
3.3.4. It is further relied on the case Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum- Labour Court13, where the Supreme Court held that:
"Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare
statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to
give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making
etymological excursions."
3.3.5. Thus humbly submitting that, the migrant workers choosing the railway route for reaching
their hometown doesn’t account to trespass, but a necessity and negligence of the
contractor.

9
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen, [AIR 1961 SC 647], para 7.
10
Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority, [AIR 1984 SC 1842], para 11.
11
Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., [AIR 1981 SC 852], para 13.
12
S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager, [(2003) 4 SCC 27], para 12.
13
Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, [1981 AIR 422, 1981 SCR (1)
789]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 20)

ISSUE 4: Whether right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of
constitution is violated during Pandemic Covid19?

4.1. Essence of Right to livelihood violated

4.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the Right to Livelihood expression falls within the ambit of
Article 21 with the essence factors of Article 19 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The
same is relied on in the case Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar R
Nandkarni14, where the word ‘life’ in Article 21 in a broad and comprehensive manner,
the Court came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes “Right to
Life”15. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right
to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of
his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation as stated in the case of DK Yadhav vs.
JMA Industries16.
4.1.2. It is emphasized upon the close relationship between ‘life’ & ‘livelihood’, in the case Oliga
Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation17, Court stated: “That which alone makes it
possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral
component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall
deprived him of his life”. This can be further referred to through Directive Principles of
State Policy under Articles 39(a), 37 and 41 of the Constitution, where the obligation of
the State is to secure the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work. It
is thus evident that from the traditional concept of right to life, the court has developed a
very significant economic right for the people.
4.1.3. Therefore, deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective content
and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.

14
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar R Nandkarni, [AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC].
15
Oliga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [AIR 1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545].
16
DK Yadhav vs. JMA Industries, [(1993) 3 SCC 259].
17
Supra, fn.10, [AIR 1986 SC at 194].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 21)

4.2. Improper regulations towards the Curfew

4.2.1. It is humbly submitted that the improper regulations by the Govt. of United Bharat has led
to the violation of basic human rights that is the right to livelihood. Where in the present
case the Migrant workers had a part of Scheduled Tribes also. Where the Scheduled Tribes
also need special provisions for safeguarding their interests. The main problem concerning
these people are their socio-economic conditions to be improved at such a pase and in such
a way not to disturb their social organization and way of living. The need is to evolve ways
and means to gradually adjust the tribal population to changed conditions, and integrate
them slowly in the general life of the country without undue and hasty disruption of their
way of living. Therefore in the present case the way of their livelihood was disrupted by
the declaration of curfew, without any proper regularization of frameworks with respect to
the livelihood of the minorities.
4.2.2. It is further humbly submitted that the plight of the migrant workers during COVID-19
Pandemic is elaborated in the Suo Motu WP case along with Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs.
Union of India & Ors.18, In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers to which
directions were passed by the Hon’ble SC to the Central Govt. & necessary State Govt.,
towards the necessities and amenities to be provided along with the transportation to their
hometown by the Government transportations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the
relief with regard to the employment is also in consideration accordingly.
4.2.3. Likewise, the same relief is humbly submitted to be sought before the Hon’ble SC for the
plight of the migrant workers and the compensation entitled towards the dependents of the
deceased migrant workers.

18
Suo Motu WP [(Civil) No.6 of 2020] along with Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition
(C) No.916 of 2020].

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 (Pg. No. 22)

PRAYER

Whereas from the facts stated, arguments advanced with the provisions and cases cited, the counsel
on behalf of the Petitioner, humbly submits before the Hon’ble Bench to adjudicate and declare
that,
1. The present petition is maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL);

2. The dependents of deceased migrant workers are entitled to compensation;

3. The migrant workers are not liable for “trespassing” by choosing railway tracks for their
travel to their hometown;

4. The right to livelihood, a basic human right falling under Article 21 of the constitution,
was violated during Pandemic Covid-19;

And to pass any other relief, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Bharat may deemed fit and
proper in the interest of JUSTICE, EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE and for this act of
kindness, the Petitioner and the counsel on behalf of Petitioner shall duly bound to pray forever.

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER