Multi Moot Memo - Team 10

A.
Gladius
131601056
MULTI MOOT
JUNE 2020
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MELUHA

WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2020
(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)
Agham NGO and ors PETITIONER

Vs.
State of Meluha RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS

(2) INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS III
(3) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES IV
(4) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VI
(5) STATEMENT OF FACTS VII
(6) QUESTIONS OF LAW VIII
(7) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS IX
(8) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
(9) PRAYER XV
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. § SECTION
2. ¶ PARAGRAPH
3. & AND
4. Ads. ADVERTISEMENT
5. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
6. Annex. ANNEXURE
7. Anr. ANOTHER
8. Art. ARTICLE
9. Consti. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
10. CGWB. CENTRAL GROUNDWATER BOARD
11. CGWA CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
12. Govt. GOVERNMENT
13. HC HIGH COURT
14. Hon’ble HONOURABLE
15. i.e. THAT IS
16. No. NUMBER
17. NDRF NATIONAL DISASTER RESPONSE FORCE
18. NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION
19. Ors. OTHERS
20. PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
21. Pvt, Ltd. PRIVATE LIMITED
22. r/w READ WITH
23. SC SUPREME COURT
24. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
25. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER
26. SDRF STATE DISASTER RESPONSE FORCE
27. Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY
28. @ ALIAS
29. U/S UNDER SECTION
30. UOI UNION OF INDIA
31. V./Vs. VERSUS
32. W.r.t WITH RESPECT TO
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others
2. Court On Its Own Motion vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 3 August, 2018
3. Pushpabhai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd.,
4. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal
5. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab
6. Shakuntala v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
7. State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati
8. Nilabati Behara vs State of Orissa
9. Godde Venkateshwara Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh
10. Leelabali V. State of M.8.A. 1952, M. B. 105
BOOKS
1. P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India. 14th edition, Universal Law Publication

2. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law of torts. Allahabad Law Agency
LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
LEXICONS
Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999
LEGISLATIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon‟ble High court of Meluha has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Hindia which reads as follows:
“226 –
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Hindia is a Union of States and Union territories having quasi-federal structure of governance
with a written constitution. Its boundaries consist of rich mineral resources, water bodies and
considered as the most populous country in the world. The Government is renowned for its
advanced technology and provides progressive living conditions to its people. Meluha, a State of
Hindia being an agrarian state, farmers depend mainly on groundwater for irrigation. With
scarcity of water and urbanisation, deeper borewells are drilled for groundwater abstraction. The
Government of Hindia provided subsidies for the erection of borewell to improve agricultural
productivity which tackled climate change and sustainable management of natural resources.
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) submitted a report stating that “Excessive drilling of
borewells had led to exploitation of groundwater at higher rates than the rate of water recharge
and caused depletion of the groundwater levels”. To monitor this alarming issue, the
Government of Hindia has taken several initiatives and enacted prominent legislative measures
to regulate and keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.The Ministry of Water Resources had
established the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) to regulate groundwater development
and management in the country. The Authority has been vested with wide powers relating to
groundwater management. In a rural village- Gotham, in the State of Meluha, the Panchayat
authorities started to construct a borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The
purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to
water deficit the drilling process was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site
uncovered. Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a
warning not to enter the borewell site. A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell
site and while playing, accidentally a five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered
defunct borewell which was drilled by the local panchayat. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of
26 feet, while several voluntary groups, fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic
rescue devices and prior rescue experience. However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the
borewell. During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply
of oxygen was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment.
Various Central and State agencies were called in to rescue him. Specialised teams of the
National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the
rescue operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process live and the
sensation paved a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the District Collector
not to telecast the incident live. Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition,
after hours of rescue operation it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He
was monitored through cameras, indicated the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with
mud covered over him. Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel
shaft to reach the boy stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky
terrain as geologists pointed out that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar.
Though Fire and Rescue service persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a
ladder and with all necessary supports. They faced complications in the rescue due to bad
weather/drizzling and maintaining the speed of the drilling since there were chances of the
abandoned borewell getting closed completely in case of vibrations. Despite of the various
attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be rescued. The Government was
criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the guidelines. “Agham” NGO filed
a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government seeking compensation for the
death of the boy. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue
suitable directions for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the
rescue process live from close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the
trapped boy. The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for
hearing. The laws of Hindia are in Pari materia to that of India
QUESTIONS OF LAW
1. Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?

2. Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?
3. Whether the State is liable to provide compensation?
4. Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is maintainable against the
State of Meluha, as there was a need for enforcement of rights enshrined under Article 21, 19(1)
(g) of the Indian Constitution. And the locus standing is in consonance with the public interest
vested with the fatal event.
2. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

LIABILITY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the deceased is
entrusted with a tortious remedy, as per the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur which played as a basis
for the negligent act of local panchayat authorities by allowing the access of unprotected
Borewells to a 5 year old child.
3. WHETHER THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the state is indeed liable
to provide compensation to the deceased family, as the Panchayat authorities falls under the
purview of the definition “state” under article 12 of the constitution, making the state vicariously
liable.
4. WHETHER THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

OPERATIONS LIVE IS PERMISSIBLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, condemning the
telecasting rights of the channels would amount to violation of their right to freedom of
expression enshrined under article 19 of the Indian Constitution, thus telecasting the rescue
operation is permissible.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is maintainable against the
State of Meluha, as there was a need for enforcement of rights enshrined under Article 21, 19(1)
(g) of the Indian Constitution. And the locus standing is in consonance with the public interest
vested with the fatal event.
Measuring the maintainability of the Public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of Indian
Constitution, it has to be noted that the desirable reasons are well established. A public interest
is; “Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow
as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national
Government.”The word ‘litigation’ means a legal action, including all legal proceedings initiated
in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. In People’s Union
for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others, the Hon’ble court defined Public
Interest Litigation and observed that “Public interest litigation is a cooperative or collaborative
effort by the petitioner, the State of public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of
constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon poor, downtrodden and
vulnerable sections of the society.” In the case of Godde Venkateshwara Rao vs State of Andhra
Pradesh, it allowed a petitioner to attack an administrative action where he was prejudicially
affected by the act or omission even
though he had no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof. Thus in
After dealing with such cases Justice V.S. Deshpande in his learned article "Standing and
Justiciability" observed :
Regarding the public actions, it may be stated that the courts have not accepted the position that
every member of the public is interested in the enforcement of every "jot and title" of the law. A
petitioner will have standing to sustain a public action only if he ful- fils one of the two
following qualifications : He must either convince the court that the dereliction of law has such a
real public significance that it involves a public right and an injury to the public interest or he
must establish that he has a sufficient interest of his own over and above the general interest of
the other members of the public in bringing the action. Therefore, whenever a petitioner does not
show a sufficient interest of his own, it would be necessary for the court to examine precisely the
nature of the alleged injury to the public interest and whether the injury is such as can or should
be remedied by the intervention of the court.
“Justice Krishna Iyer observed :
At issue is the coming of age of that branch of public law bearing on community actions and the
courts' power to force public bodies under public duties to implement specific plans in response
to public grievances...Social justice is due to the people and therefore, the people must be able to
trigger off the jurisdiction vested for their benefit in any public functionary.”
In this instance the writ was filed as a PIL to impose on the governmental body their duties
entrusted and to provide compensation for the dereliction of their duty.
Thus filing writ of mandamus to impose duty upon the public body for the interest of greater
public is always maintainable in the court of law even though the petitioner is not the sole
aggrieved party
2. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the deceased is
entrusted with a tortious remedy, as per the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur which played as a basis
for the negligent act of local panchayat authorities by allowing the access of unprotected
Borewells to a 5 year old child.
Negligent Act by the authority of State

Black's Law Dictionary defines 'negligence' as follows :
The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have
exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to
protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally,
wantonly, or wilfully disregardful to others' right. The term denotes culpable carelessness."
In India, public authorities play a pivotal role in the spheres of social, economic and political
development. In the modern age, such authorities have manifold activities, which touch several
aspects of a citizen's life. The inevitable question then arises, how do we ensure that a public
authority will act responsibly? It is argued that since most public authorities would normally fall
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, their actions can be scrutinized under public law.
However, public law remedies can prove quite inadequate as a writ of mandamus can at the
most, require future considerations of the exercise of power.
The law relating to negligence by a public authority General reliance also imposes a "duty of
care" Sometimes, general reliance on public powers may also give rise to a duty of care. Such a
view has been adopted in Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman by the High Court of Australia.
The High Court expressed the view that the plaintiff's reasonable reliance will arise out of a
general dependence on an authority's performance of its functions with due care, without the
need for contributing conduct on the part of the defendant or action to his (own) detriment on the
part of the plaintiff. The term "reliance or dependence" in this sense is general, the product of the
growth and exercise of the powers designed to prevent or minimise the risk of personal injury or
disability, which is recognised by the legislature to be of such magnitude or complexity that
individuals cannot, or may not, take adequate steps for their own protection. Such situations will
generate on one side (the individual) a general expectation that the power will be exercised and
on the other side (the public authority) a realisation that there is a general reliance on its exercise
of the power.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
The Supreme Court in Pushpabhai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd.,
(1977) 2 SCC 745 has explained the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in the following words:
"The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases
considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to
him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the
accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.
This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general
purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story.
There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to
prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the
accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence.
In this instant case, the mere fact that the entry was allowed was sheer negligence on the part of
the respondents. As aforesaid, the respondents owed a duty of care to the said children by not
permitting their entry into the compound as the same was a prohibited area. The said area posed
a high risk to any stranger - much more to small children, who may go into areas where
poisonous gases were being produced and present.,
Thus the panchayat authority can be held liable for the death of the 5 year old child under
negligence.
3. THE STATE ID LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION
Panchayat body as State under Article 12 for attracting vicarious liability

Article 12 defines the term ‘State’ as used in different Articles of Part III of the Constitution. It
says that unless the context otherwise requires the term ‘State’ includes the following ;-
1. The Government and Parliament of India, i.e., Executive and Legislature of the Union.
2. The Government and Legislature of each State, i.e., Executive and Legislature of State..
3. All local and other authorities within the territory of India.
4. All local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India.
The term ‘State’ thus includes executives as well as the legislative organs of the Union and
States. It is, therefore, the actions of these bodies that can be challenged before the courts as
violating fundamental rights.
a) Authorities – According to Webster’s Dictionary; “Authority” means a person or body
exercising power to command. In the context of Article 12, the word “authority” means the
power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc. which have the force of law
and power to enforce those laws.
b) Local Authorities - ‘Local authorities’ as defined in Section 3 (31) of the General Clause Act
refers to authorities like Municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, Improvement Trust and
Mining Settlement Boards.
In, State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati, it was held that State should be as much liable for tort in
respect of tortuous acts committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and
functioning as such, as any other employer., thus with regard to this case
1. panchayat falls under purview of “state”
2. the panchayat authorities are servants of state, Thus vicarious liability can be established.
Right to compensation as Public duty

In the case of Shakuntala v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 162 (2009) DLT 264, the court
directed the MCD to pay compensation of Rs 10,00,000/- to the petitioner for the death of her
husband due to being entangled between fighting bulls. Fastening liability for negligence and
dereliction of public duty on their part of the MCD. It was observed thus :
The relief of compensation under public law, for injuries caused on account of negligent action,
or inaction or indifference of public functionaries or for the violation of fundamental rights is a
part of the evolving public law jurisprudence in India. The concept of compensation under public
law must be understood as being different from the concept of damages under private law.
Compensation under public law must not be merely seen as the monetary equivalent for
compensating towards the injury caused, but also understood in the context of the failure of the
State or state agency, to protect the valuable rights of the citizens, particularly of the
marginalised and the disempowered.
Obligation of High court

Obligation of the High Court to award compensation for infringement of a Fundamental Right in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was well established. The
Supreme Court has recognized its own powers as well as the powers of the High Courts under
Articles 32 and 226 respectively for grant of compensation for violation of fundamental rights in
the judgment reported at AIR 1993 SC 1960, Nilabati Behara v. State of Orissa. In the judgment
authored by J.S. Verma, J it was held as follows: the liability of the State in the present case to
pay the compensation cannot be doubted and was rightly not disputed by the learned Additional
Solicitor General. It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which
the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction
between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on
tort. It may be mentioned straightaway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article
32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available
in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the
principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in
private law in an action based on tort.
Tortious Liability
It is submitted that the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur is clearly attracted in the present case and the
incident in question itself establishes the negligence on the part of the respondents. The
petitioners are, therefore, entitled to grant of compensation in these proceedings for breach of the
most basic fundamental right of sanjay under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
Thus it is submitted that the State has been reasonably established with the tortious and the
negligence act and can be held liable for the same , therefore State is deemed to be imposed with
compensation to the deceased party.
4. THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATIONS LIVE

IS PERMISSIBLE
telecasting rights of the channels would amount to violation of their right to freedom of
expression enshrined under article 19 of the Indian Constitution, thus telecasting the rescue
operation is permissible.
Freedom of speech and expression

The right to freedom of speech though belongs to every individual, institution and
organisation it becomes imperatively necessary in the media world. Media world serves as
the best communicator of information and the best instrument of expression. Exercise of
right of freedom of expression is the professional duty and character work of media,
whether it is print or electronic media. The media gets as a mass communicator freedom
extends to the discussion and publication of views relating to all issues about which
information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of
the period and is not necessarily confined to political or public affairs. If the right to
freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information to a wide
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.
Media and broadcasting rights
Media is the most effective and important source of knowledge to the people, we call it as a
fourth pillar of the democratic nation. Most instant and effective way of publication and
distribution of news are TV channels, which nowadays are overcome by a competitive market in
the field of media broadcasting. With the development of communication technology and public
interest in large various TV channels emerged as the competitive business in Indian Broadcasting
media. The broadcasting develops as one of the Fundamental Rights provided in Part III vide
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It provides the right to speech and expression which
directly reflect the right to publication and circulation of one's own views in the public with
certain restrictions which are provided in the Article 19(2). Freedom of Speech and Expression
broadly means opinions and owns feeling expressed by words, mouth, writings, printings,
pictures or any other mode of communication. It includes the expression of one’s ideas through
any communicable media or visible representation, which is also called broadcasting. The
freedom of propagation of idea is secured by freedom of circulation. It means every citizen has
the right to broadcast his article, book, painting and own views through various broadcasting
media like T.V. channels, FM radio, news papers, magazine, mobile networks etc. Broadcasting
is part of the right to freedom of speech and expression provided by Article 19(1) of the Indian
Constitution and various Supreme Court decisions like Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court
provided that the Air space is not the monopoly of the Government; it is used for public interest.
Likewise many decisions of the Supreme Court provide that the broadcasting media is right for
public interest.
PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issues framed, arguments advanced and authorities cited, State of
Meluha , the Petitioner herein, most humbly prays before this Hon’ble High Court of Meluha , to
be graciously pleased to declare:
1. That the petition filed as a public interest litigation is held maintainable.

2. That the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability.
3. That the State is liable to pay compensation.
4. That the act of the media in telecasting the live rescue operation is permissible.
AND/OR
Pass any other order as the Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of equity, Justice, fair play and
good conscience. For this act of kindness, the Petitioner counsel shall duty bound forever pray.
All of which is humbly submitted,

S/d........................ (Counsels for Petitioner)
A.Gladius
A.Gladius
131601056
MULTI MOOT
JUNE 2020

WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2020
(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)
Agham NGO and ors PETITIONER

Vs.
State of Meluha RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. QUESTIONS OF LAW
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9. PRAYER
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
33.§ SECTION
34. ¶ PARAGRAPH
35. & AND
36. Ads. ADVERTISEMENT
37. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
38. Annex. ANNEXURE
39. Anr. ANOTHER
40. Art. ARTICLE
41. Consti. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
42. CGWB. CENTRAL GROUNDWATER BOARD
43. CGWA CENTRAL GROUNDWATER AUTHORITY
44. Govt. GOVERNMENT
45. HC HIGH COURT
46. Hon’ble HONOURABLE
47. i.e. THAT IS
48. No. NUMBER
49. NDRF NATIONAL DISASTER RESPONSE FORCE
50. NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION
51. Ors. OTHERS
52. PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
53. Pvt, Ltd. PRIVATE LIMITED
54. r/w READ WITH
55. SC SUPREME COURT
56. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
57. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER
58. SDRF STATE DISASTER RESPONSE FORCE
59. Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY
60. @ ALIAS
61. U/S UNDER SECTION
62. UOI UNION OF INDIA
63. V./Vs. VERSUS
64. W.r.t WITH RESPECT TO
CASES
1. Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi

2. Butterfield vs Forrestor
3. Binny Limited V. Sadasivan, Donoghue vs Stevenson
4. Dhakshanamoorthy vs the Commissioner
5. Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others
6. Romesh Thapper vs The State of Madras
7. United India insurance vs K. V. Perma
8. Sanjay kumar vs State of Bihar
9. State Bank of Travencore vs Mathew. K. C
10. S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda
BOOKS
3. P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India. 14th edition, Universal Law Publication

4. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law of torts. Allahabad Law Agency
LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
LEXICONS
Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999
LEGISLATIONS
2. The Constitution of India, 1950

The Hon‟ble High court of Meluha has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Hindia which reads as follows:
“226 –
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Hindia is a Union of States and Union territories having quasi-federal structure of governance
with a written constitution. Its boundaries consist of rich mineral resources, water bodies and
considered as the most populous country in the world. The Government is renowned for its
advanced technology and provides progressive living conditions to its people. Meluha, a State of
Hindia being an agrarian state, farmers depend mainly on groundwater for irrigation. With
scarcity of water and urbanisation, deeper borewells are drilled for groundwater abstraction. The
Government of Hindia provided subsidies for the erection of borewell to improve agricultural
productivity which tackled climate change and sustainable management of natural resources.
to regulate and keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.The Ministry of Water Resources had
established the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) to regulate groundwater development
and management in the country. The Authority has been vested with wide powers relating to
groundwater management. In a rural village- Gotham, in the State of Meluha, the Panchayat
authorities started to construct a borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The
purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to
water deficit the drilling process was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site
uncovered. Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a
warning not to enter the borewell site. A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell
site and while playing, accidentally a five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered
defunct borewell which was drilled by the local panchayat. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of
26 feet, while several voluntary groups, fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic
rescue devices and prior rescue experience. However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the
borewell. During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply
of oxygen was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment.
National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the
rescue operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process live and the
sensation paved a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the District Collector
not to telecast the incident live. Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition,
after hours of rescue operation it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He
was monitored through cameras, indicated the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with
mud covered over him. Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel
shaft to reach the boy stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky
terrain as geologists pointed out that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar.
Though Fire and Rescue service persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a
ladder and with all necessary supports. They faced complications in the rescue due to bad
weather/drizzling and maintaining the speed of the drilling since there were chances of the
abandoned borewell getting closed completely in case of vibrations. Despite of the various
attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be rescued. The Government was
criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the guidelines. “Agham” NGO filed
a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government seeking compensation for the
death of the boy. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue
suitable directions for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the
rescue process live from close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the
trapped boy. The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for
hearing. The laws of Hindia are in Pari materia to that of India
QUESTIONS OF LAW

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is not maintainable against the
State of Meluha, as there was no clear view of locus standing held by the petitioner in this act of
fatal incident.
2. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

LIABILITY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the deceased is not
entrusted with a tortious remedy, as per the context of contributory or comparative negligence on
the part of the deceased family members.
3. WHETHER THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the state is not liable to
provide compensation as the writ itself does not hold a locus standi to question the authority, nor
the tortious liability was established .
4. WHETHER THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

OPERATIONS LIVE IS PERMISSIBLE?
telecasting rights of the channels under the notion of public interest is permissible with respect to
the reasonable restrictions under article 19(4) of the Indian Constitution, thus telecasting the
rescue operation is not permissible.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is not maintainable against the
State of Meluha, as there was no clear view of locus standing held by the petitioner in this act of
fatal incident.
Nature of PIL
Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a
class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected’.” In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three judge Bench of this Court held a PIL is not
maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the
backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court
held "if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained the
very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated".
In this instance case, the PIL was filed for procuring compensation for one particular person
and does not hold any kind of interest of community rather a personal legal right of a person.
Writ of Mandamus
In a case Binny Limited V. Sadasivan, 2005 AIR (SC) 3202, it was said “A writ of mandamus or
remedy is pre -eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available against private
wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel the public
statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within the bounds. It may be used to do
justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties.”, with regard to
the instant case, the public duty was well established according to the guidelines and
governmental regulations for the formation of Borewells, like
1. Fencing of Borewells
2. Affixing notice
The above precautions where made by the local authority as established by the fact, thus the PIL
filed will not stand maintainable under the ground of writ of Mandamus.
2. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED DOES NOT ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

LIABILITY
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the deceased is not
entrusted with a tortious remedy, as per the context of contributory or comparative negligence on
the part of the deceased family members and the defendants liability cannot be established as
there was no breach or dereliction of duty was witnessed.
Negligence on part of the respondents not established

The duty of care was strongly taken by the respondents by way of following all the
precautionary measures imposed by the regulations. In the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson,
question put forth was, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. In this particular case the
facts clearly mentioned that, the Panchayat authorities who started to construct a borewell out of
the funds received from the Government for the purpose of the common borewell was to supply
water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water deficit the drilling process was abruptly
stopped and the Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a
warning not to enter the borewell site.
Thus it establishes a fact that reasonable case to avoid acts or omissions with foreseenability
was taken, which directly does not impose any breach of duty by the Local panchayat
authorities for imposing tortious liability upon them.
Contributory negligence of the parents of the child

Contributory negligence basically means ignorance from both the parties involved. If a person is
driving a car without any breaks met with an accident with another person who was driving on
the wrong side of the road. This results in contributory negligence. It’s a defence available to the
defendant in case of contributory negligence which prevents the plaintiff to get compensation.
Contributory negligence is the ignorance of due care on the part of the plaintiff to avoid the
consequences of the defendant’s negligence. This concept is loosely based on the maxim-
“Volenti non fit injuria” (injury sustained voluntarily). It means If a person is not taking due
diligence in order to avoid consequences resulting out from the negligence of the defendant the
liability of negligence will be on both of them. In this case, the child been minor and below the
age of 5 years is a sole responsibility of the parents or the guardian, the due care was not taken
by them which resulted in this fatal accident
Thus it is submitted that tortious liability cannot be imposed upon the respondents.
3. THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the state is not liable to
provide compensation as the writ itself does not hold a locus standi to question the authority, nor
the tortious liability was established .
Maintainability of the petition

With regard to the instant case, the public duty was well established according to the guidelines
and governmental regulations for the formation of Borewells, like
1. Fencing of Borewells
2. Affixing notice
The above precautions were made by the local authority as established by the fact, thus the PIL
filed will not stand maintainable under the ground of writ of Mandamus.
Alternative remedy
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. Vs.
Mathew K.C.", whereby, the Appellant / Bank assailed an interim order dated 24.04.2015 passed in a writ
petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred as the 'SARFAESI Act'), held that the Hon'ble high Court ought not to entertain a
writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person.
No tortious liability established

It was in Nilabati’s case that the Supreme Court felt the need for clearly spelling out the true basis and
nature of State‟s responsibility to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights of the citizen by
their officers. The Supreme Court said:
“It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State
arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between the liability and the liability
in law for payment of compensation in an action on tort”. The need for providing independent
jurisprudential basis to liability of the State for payment of compensation for violation of fundamental
rights became imperative due to the fact that in Radul Sah’s case there was an observation to the effect
that “the petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to
compensation was factually controversial”
Vicarious liability not established

The State shall be vicariously held liable only when there is any sought of wrongful act done on the part
of the government authorities or by NDRF or SDRF but there are not such wrongful acts done by them.
They have acted absolutely under good faith towards the rescue operation of the kid and moreover the
authorities have fully fenced the bore well site and also made a caution for not entering into the bore well.
Hence there is not commitment of wrongful act on the part of the authorities therefore the state shall also
be not liable to pay the compensation. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an
injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person
who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to
imputed negligence include the relationship between parent and child, Husband and Wife, owner of a
vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. Ordinarily the independent negligence of one person is
not imputable to another person. The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the
failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, employer
and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person
would use under similar circumstances.
Thus, PIL not been maintainable, tortious liability on the local body not be well established, vicarious
liability over state was not established, it is therefore submitted that the state is not liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner.
3. THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATIONS LIVE

IS NOT PERMISSIBLE
telecasting rights of the channels under the notion of public interest is permissible with respect to
the reasonable restrictions under article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, thus telecasting the
rescue operation is not permissible.
Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression
In the case of Dwaraka Prasad Lakshmi Narain. S State of Uttar Pradesh, it was a well
established principle that reasonable restrictions are social controls and limitations upon
freedom. It is the twofold duty of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, to impose restrictions
and limitations and to make Article 19(1)(a) a non-absolute fundamental right.
Under Article 19(2) the state may make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
to freedom of speech and expression. The expression used in Art. 19(2) “in the interest of” gives a wide
amplitude to the permissible law which can be enacted to impose reasonable restrictions on the right
guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a).[1] The reason behind this is that while it is necessary to maintain and
preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, it is also necessary to place some curbs on
this freedom for the maintenance of social order
REASONABLE RESTRICTION:
Limitations imposed by Art. 19(2) serve a twofold purpose, viz., on the one hand, they specify that these
freedoms are not absolute; on the other hand, they put a limitation on the power of the legislature to
restrict these freedoms. Three significant characteristics of clause 19(2) are:
1. The restrictions under this clause can be imposed only by or under the authority of law; no
restriction can be imposed by executive action alone without there being a law to back it up.
2. Each restriction must be reasonable.
3. A restriction must be related to the purposes mentioned in Sec. 19(2).
TEST FOR REASONABLENESS:

It is difficult to give an exact definition to the word reasonable. There is no definite test to adjudge
reasonableness of a restriction. However, the Courts have laid down a few broad propositions in this
respect. The Court shall first ask what is the sweep of the fundamental right guaranteed, then the next
question to be asked would be, whether the impugned law imposes a reasonable restriction falling within
the scope of clause (2). However, if the right sought to be canvassed does not fall within the sweep of the
fundamental rights but is mere concomitant or adjunct of that right, then the test which it would be
required to satisfy for its constitutional validity is one of reasonableness
Cable Television (Regulation) Act, 1995
Broadcasting media must be under control of public. In land mark judgment delivered in the year
1995 it was held that, the primary purpose of all broadcasting media is only for the public
interest. Airways frequencies are the public property. Their use must be controlled and regulated
by public authority in public interest to prevent the invasion of this right. This media provided
the circulation and distribution of news and views directly into the public at large, it is vary
dangerous to safety and security of nation as well as public morality any obscene and scandalous
statement will affect the peace and security of the state or society, so that it must be regulated
and controlled over broadcasting media. The Rules were enacted under the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Ordinance, 1994. The Programme Code of the Cable Television Network
Rules lays down restrictions on the content of both programmes and advertisements that can be
shown on cable TV. The clause under the restrictions laid down in Section 6 of the Rules states
that, if any coverage or telecast containing anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and
suggestive innuendos and half truths are prohibited and the permissibility of telecast can be
curtailed by the statutory authority.
Thus in this present case the telecast of rescue operation would amount to discourse of public
order and inconvenience to the authorities involved in the rescue operation and also the telecast
if, been tampered and only half-truths are broadcasted, it would amount to discourse among the
public, thus the telecast of rescue operation should not be permitted.
PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issues framed, arguments advanced and authorities cited, State of
Meluha , the Respondent herein, most humbly prays before this Hon’ble High Court of Meluha ,
to be graciously pleased to declare:
5. That the petition filed as a public interest litigation is held non maintainable.
6. That the act of the deceased does not attract tortious liability.
7. That the State is not liable to pay compensation.
8. That the act of the media in telecasting the live rescue operation is not permissible.
AND/OR
Pass any other order as the Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of equity, Justice, fair play and
good conscience. For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
All of which is humbly submitted,

S/d........................ (Counsel for Respondent)
A.Gladius
IN THE MATTER OF
AGHAM & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
V.
THE STATE MELUHA ...RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTICES
OF
THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF MELUHA
COUNSELS
D.VANITHA
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
(i) THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
● STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
● DICTIONARIES
● WEBSITES
● BOOKS
(ii) TABLE OF CASES
(iii) THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
(iv) THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
(v) THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES
(vi) THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
(vii) THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(vii) THE PRAYER
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1) INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
2) THE TAMIL NADU GROUNDWATER (DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT)
ACT, 2003.
DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2001)
2. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, (2nd ed. 2009)
3. WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1926)
WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
3. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
4. www.scconline.com
5. www.indiankanoon.com
TABLE OF CASES:
2. Chob Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 192 (2012) DLT 100
3. Pushpa Bai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC
745
4. Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd AIR 1997 Del 201
5. Sattar Sheikh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2014 ACJ 489
6. Shakuntala v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 162 (2009) DLT 264
7. State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors (2000)5SCC712
8. Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667
9. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012
SC 100
10. Chiranji Lal v. DDA, W.P.(C) 12087/2015 decided on 13th July, 2017
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Grey perk has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under
Article 226 of the Hindia constitution.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
1. In a rural village- Gotham, in the State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to
construct a borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The purpose of the
common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water
shortage the drilling process was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site
uncovered. Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with
a warning not to enter the borewell site.
2. A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing,
accidentally a five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered defunct borewell
which was drilled by the local panchayat.
3. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet, while several voluntary groups, fire/rescue
officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices and prior rescue experience.
However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell.
4. During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of
oxygen was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment.
National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF)
joined the rescue operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process
live and the sensation paved a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the
District Collector not to telecast the incident live.
5. Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue
operation it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was
monitored through cameras, indicating the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with
mud covered over him.
6. Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the
boy stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as
geologists pointed out that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar.
Through Fire and Rescue service persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft,
using a ladder and with all necessary supports. They faced complications in the rescue
due to bad weather/drizzling and maintaining the speed of the drilling since there were
chances of the abandoned borewell getting closed completely in case of vibrations.
7. Despite the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be
rescued. The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out
in the guidelines. “AghamNGO filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the
Government seeking compensation for the death of the boy.
8. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue suitable
directions for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the rescue
process live from close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the
trapped boy.
9. The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.
ISSUES:
Summary of arguments:
ISSUE 1: Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the present PIL is maintainable against the
government of Meluha since it is a state u/a 12 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that
since there has been gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the PIL is maintainable,
and on account of the same relief is sought.
ISSUE 2 : Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?

No, the act of deceased doesn’t attract tortious liability. The deceased was a five year old boy
and has no knowledge about the borewell and consequences of borewell, therefore it is the duty
of the municipal corporation to close the bore well once the work is done. The conditions of
tortious liability is (1) a wrongful act committed by a person; (2) the wrongful act must result in
legal damage or actual damage; and (3) the wrongful act must be of such a nature as may give
rise to legal remedy in the form of an action for damages. Sanjay is a child who isn't aware of the
consequences of the open bore well. Tortious liability attracts municipal corporations for their
negligent work.
ISSUE 3: Whether the State is liable to provide compensation?

Yes, the state is liable to provide compensation. In the recent death of child Sujith due to the
same incident the TNCC provided 10 lakhs compensation for the deceased family. The state is
wholly responsible for this incident.
ISSUE 4: Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible?
No, due telecasting to telecasting or rescue operations it may affect the people psychologically
and make them feel depressed. Also the parents and relatives were watching those pictures and
videos of Sanjay who was struggling in a deep bore well, this may affect them mentally. Also,
there is an incident that due to people watching these kinds of live telecast they are forgetting to
take care of their own children and due to this many deaths can happen. In an incident, when the
parents of a girl child were watching a live telecast of a rescue operation, when she attempted to
enter a water container in the bathroom, she slipped into the container and was found dead.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?
The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed with the apprehension of
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The procedural
flaws which depict the improper implementation of the policy decision of the Government by
panchayat authorities which falls under the ambit of other authorities under Art. 12 of the
Constitution. Thus, the petition is maintainable.
The present petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution , since it falls within
the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined under Art.12 of the Constitution. There will be
violationof Fundamental Rights for not closing the bore wells.
Public Function is one which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section
of the public”. Any institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the
functions performed, can be termed as government agencies. Further under the well-established
doctrine of Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the
rights and the privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations.
The petition has been filed in public interest and therefore maintainable as Public Interest
Litigation:
To invoke the writ jurisdiction of the HC is not necessary that the fundamental right must have
been actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient. Applying the doctrine of
‘reasonable apprehension’, this Hon’ble Court may interfere directly in the said case. The most
fundamental right of an individual is his right to life; if an administrative decision may put his
life at risk, the basis for the decision surely calls for the most anxious scrutiny according to the
principle of ‘anxious scrutiny’ . Thus the petition filed before this apex court is maintainable.
The fundamental right to life of the Indigenous people have been as guaranteed under u/a 21 of
the Constitution been violated on account of the arbitrary action of the state.
Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable against the government of
Meluha.
The sole objective of Art. 226 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked in any case of
violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as has been
observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1 amongst the many others.
The constitution makers conferred on the High Court the power to issue writs for the speedy
enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right to approach the High Court for such
enforcement itself a fundamental right.
The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any
executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes upon the
Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void.
1AIR 1951 SC 41
In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India 2 , articulated the concept of PIL
as follows, “any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order
or writ in the High Court under Article 226.
It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary 3 that only a person ‘acting bona fide ’and
‘having sufficient public interest’4 in the proceeding of public interest litigation will have alone
the locus standi5 but not a person for personal gain or political motive or any oblique
consideration.
The petitioner AghamNGO and social activist who actively works in the field of public interest
and welfare particularly to those belonging to lower strata therefore capable of being acting
bonafide.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental rights, the
Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India bought as a Public Interest Litigation.
2AIR 1982 SC 149

3AIR 1993 SC 892
4 In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
Public Interest- Something in which community at large has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the
particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs
of local, state or national government. See also Vineet Narain v Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
5 In Blacks’s Law dictionary (6th Edition)
Locus standi- the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.
ISSUE 2: Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?
No, the act of deceased doesn’t attract tortious liability. The deceased was a five year old boy
and has no knowledge about the borewell and consequences of borewell, therefore it is the duty
of the municipal corporation to close the bore well once the work is done. The conditions of
tortious liability is (1) a wrongful act committed by a person; (2) the wrongful act must result in
legal damage or actual damage; and (3) the wrongful act must be of such a nature as may give
rise to legal remedy in the form of an action for damages. Sanjay is a child who isn't aware of the
consequences of the open bore well. Tortious liability attracts municipal corporations for their
negligent work.
In Walmsley v. Humenick6 the plaintiff aged 5l years, was struck in the eye by the defendant of
the same age, in the course of play. The court held that the defendant was not liable since he "had
not reached that stage of mental development where it could be said that he should be found
legally responsible for his negligent acts".
Gordy v. Codd7, a boy of 16 years old, was held liable for negligence, when he accidently shot
the plaintiff with an air-rifle in the course of larking about. However, the child involved in this
case is 5 years old and not having any malicious thoughts to enter into the warning and fenced
area. It is the duty of the government to close the borewell completely by keeping mind of future
danger.
6 (1954) 2 D.L.R. 232.

7 (1967) 1 W.L.R.
In Lynch v. Nurdin, the defendant left his house and cart unattended in a busy street. The
plaintiff. a boy under 7 years of age, climbed on the cart, and another boy led the horse on. The
plaintiff fell and broke his leg. In a suit for damages, the defendant contended that the plaintiff
was guilty of contributory negligence. Lord Denman dismissed this argument on the grounds that
the degree of care, which might be expected of a young child of the plaintiff's age, would be very
small.
M. and S.M. Railway Co. Ltd. v, Jayammalk 8 In this case, a girl of 7 years was knocked down
by an engine, while she was crossing the railway line after passing through a wicket gate. It was
held that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the girl in not looking out for
a passing engine, and a girl of her age ought to have been capable of appreciating the danger.
Here, the boy is 5 years old who has no knowledge about the danger and while he was playing he
did not even notice the bore well which is very small to look into. Therefore, the panchayat
authorities are responsible for the demise of the child.
ISSUE 3: Whether the state is liable to provide compensation ?
The state is liable to provide compensation to the family members of Sanjay.

Almost 10 years ago, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of a spate of incidents,
reported from across the country, of children falling into abandoned borewells and issued a series
of guidelines to prevent such incidents from recurring. But the guidelines have largely remained
on paper.
“The boy had died due to the negligence of the government. There are a lot of failures due to the
inexperienced approach of the government. The rescue operation was done on a trial and error
method. If the government had approached the issue only with experts then the boy would have
been saved.
8 (1924) 48 Mad. 417.

In the case of, G.Sivagami vs The Chief Secretary, A four year child fell into the abandoned
bore well and died. The land owner himself opened the borewell to identify the water source and
did not close it, with the result that the accident occurred. A criminal case has been registered
and the land owner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In this public interest
litigation the government was given certain guidelines and landowner was held liable to pay
compensation.
In Court On Its Own Motion vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors 9, Suo motu cognizance was
taken by this court on the basis of a news report in the Hindustan Times dated 22nd December,
2015 regarding the death of an 11 year old boy, who had gone on a school picnic, after falling
into an uncovered rain water harvesting pit at the Millennium Park in Southeast Delhi.
The pit, reportedly maintained by the Public Works Department, had a damaged lid and when the
boy stepped on it, the lid crumbled and the boy fell inside it.
In Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd10,

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of negligence
where
(1) it is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or omission which set
in train the events leading to the accident, and
(2) on the evidence as it stands at the relevant time it is more likely than not that the effective
cause of the accident was some act or omission of the defendant or of someone for whom the
defendant is responsible, which act or omission constitutes a failure to take proper care for the
plaintiff's safety.
Alderson B., Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., Duty to the public in respect of
premises. An occupier of premises adjoining a highway or other public place is under an
obligation to take reasonable care not to injure members of the public, and is liable if, in
consequence of failing to exercise such a case, a person is injured.
Whereby taking into precedents it is the liability of the state to provide compensation to the
injured people. The relief of compensation under public law, for injuries caused on account of
9 W.P.(C) 12326/2015
10 AIR 1997 Del 201
negligent action, or inaction or indifference of public functionaries or for the violation of
fundamental rights is a part of the evolving public law jurisprudence.
The above enunciation of the applicable principles clearly declares that duty of maintenance of
the manholes rests squarely and solely on the public authorities who built and control it. So
therefore the state is liable to pay compensation.
ISSUE 4: Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible?
The freedom of press comes within the ambit of freedom of speech & expression. In a
democracy, freedom of press is highly essential as it (the press) acts as a watchdog on the three
organs of a democracy viz. the legislature, the executive & the judiciary. But, the freedom of
press is not absolute in nature. It is subject to certain restrictions which are mentioned in Article
19(2) of the Constitution. The following are the grounds of restrictions laid down in Article
19(2):-
1) Sovereignty & Integrity of India
2) Security of the State
3) Friendly relations with Foreign States
4) Public Order
5) Decency or Morality
6) Contempt of Court
In Devi Saran v/s State11, the Court has held that Section 124A imposes reasonable restriction
on the interest of public order & therefore it is protected under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. 12 In this case SC 7 Judge Bench said
‘personal liberty’ in article 21 covers a variety of rights & some have status of fundamental
rights and are given additional protection u/a 19. Triple Test for any law interfering with
personal liberty: (1) It must prescribe a procedure; (2) the procedure must withstand the test of
one or more of the fundamental rights conferred u/a 19 which may be applicable in a given
11 AIR 1954 Pat 254
12 (1978)
situation and (3) It must withstand test of Article 14. The law and procedure authorising
interference with personal liberty and right of privacy must also be right, just and fair and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
In Romesh Thapar v/s State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri,CJ, observed that “Freedom of speech
& of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political
discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular
government, is possible.” In this case,5 entry and circulation of the English journal “Cross
Road”, printed and published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The same
was held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as “without liberty of
circulation, publication would be of little value”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Union of India v/s Association for Democratic
Reforms, “One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non information, all
equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and
expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold
opinions”. In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India,7 it has been held that the press
plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the
freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:
1. freedom of access to all sources of information,
2. Freedom of publication, and
3. Freedom of circulation.
There are many instances when the freedom of press has been suppressed by the legislature. In
Sakal Papers v/s Union of India, the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which
fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price was held to be
violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2). Similarly,
in Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India,10 the validity of the Newsprint Control Order,
which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck down by the Court holding it to be
violative of provision of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
The Court also rejected the plea of the Government that it would help small newspapers to grow.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The petition is maintainable.

2. To declare that the act of deceased does not amounts to tortious liability
3. To provide compensation for the deceased by the government
4. To declare that the actor media in telecasting the rescue operation is permissible
And/or pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience, for which the Respondent, shall in duty bound, forever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

IN THE MATTER OF
—————————————————————————————————
AGHAM & OTHERS ...PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF MELUHA ...RESPONDENTS
———————————————————————————————————-
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
OF
D.VANITHA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
● DICTIONARIES
● WEBSITES
● BOOKS
3. TABLE OF CASES
4. THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES
7. THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
8. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9. THE PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full Form

AGR All Grey perk’s Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Cri. LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
G.L.R. Grey’s Law Reporter
GPC Grey perk Penal Code
Mad. Madras
Ors. Others
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
1. Hindian penal code, 1860
2. Hindian constitution, 1950
DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2001)
2. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, (2nd ed. 2009)
3. WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1926)
WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
BOOKS
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
i. JAIN M.P, HINDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2010).
ii. BASU D.D, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA (8 th ed.
2009).
iii. PANDEY J.N, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF HINDIA (49thed. 2012).
iv. BAKSHI P.M, THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA (11thed. 2011).
v. SHUKLA V.N, CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA (11thed. 2012).
TABLE OF CASES
2. Chob Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 192 (2012) DLT 100
3. Pushpa Bai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 745
4. Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd AIR 1997 Del 201
5. Sattar Sheikh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2014 ACJ 489
6. Shakuntala v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 162 (2009) DLT 264
7. State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors (2000)5SCC712
8. Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667
9. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012
SC100
10. Chiranji Lal v. DDA, W.P.(C) 12087/2015 decided on 13th July, 2017
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Grey perk has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under
Article 226 of the Hindia constitution.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
The respondent submits for the same.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. In a rural village- Gotham, in the State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to
construct a borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The purpose of the common
borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water shortage the drilling
process was abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was
completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell
site.
2. A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a
five years old boy namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered defunct borewell which was drilled by
the local panchayat.
3. Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet, while several voluntary groups, fire/rescue
officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices and prior rescue experience. However,
the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell.
4. During the rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of
oxygen was given to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment. Various
Central and State agencies were called in to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National
Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue
operations. Meanwhile the local channels telecast the rescue process live and the sensation paved
a way for the worldwide broadcast despite the orders of the District Collector not to telecast the
incident live.
5. Authorities said they were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue
operation it was reported that Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was monitored
through cameras, indicating the boy is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with mud covered over
him.
6. Heavy German-made drilling machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy
stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as geologists
pointed out that soil in the area comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. Through Fire and
Rescue service persons were lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with all
necessary supports. They faced complications in the rescue due to bad weather/drizzling and
maintaining the speed of the drilling since there were chances of the abandoned borewell getting
closed completely in case of vibrations.
7. Despite the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be rescued.
The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the
guidelines. “AghamNGO filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government
seeking compensation for the death of the boy.
8. Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue suitable
directions for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the rescue
process live from close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the trapped
boy.
9. The High Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the petitions are maintainable before the court ?

2. Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability ?
3. Whether the state is liable to provide compensation ?
4. Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible ?
ISSUE 1: Whether the petitions are maintainable before the court ?

The petition is not maintainable because there is no negligent act or wrong on the part of the
government and the fundamental rights of Sujith has not been violated. The death of the Sujith is
mere accident and the contractors or the concerned people who have not fenced the bore well
properly should be punished by filing a case. The writ petition is not maintainable in this case.
ISSUE 2: Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability ?

The act of the deceased attracts the tortious liability. By the facts of the case, a group of boys
were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a five years old boy
namely Sanjay fell into the uncovered defunct borewell inspire of notice children played cricket
there and it amounts to tortious act.
ISSUE 3: Whether the state is liable to provide compensation ?

No the state is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no wrong on the part of the
government. The borewells are being implemented by the government only for the agriculture
field. Also during the rescue operation the government tried its best to reduce the child and the
boy was continuously supplied oxygen and then monitored by the government.
ISSUE 4: Whether act of media in telecasting the rescue operations is permissible ?

The act of media in telecasting the rescue operations is permissible. As the media transfers the
information to the people in a very quicker and cheap manner. Media plays its role efficiently in
spreading information, as a public watchdog, safeguarding democracy, entertainment, education,
economic growth, environment, health and politics. So it can telecast the rescue operations.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether the petition is maintainable before the court? The petition is not
maintainable
No, they are maintainable before the court.
As mentioned In the facts it is clarified that the Panchayat authorities started to construct a
borewell out of the funds received from the Government. The purpose of the common borewell
was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields. Due to water deficit the drilling process was
abruptly stopped and authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was completely
fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell site.
So The government's duty is not to tap each person's door and tell the issues which has happened
it’s the public duty to know about this bore issues.
There is a big issue inside of the petition by not knowing the bore issue this blame doesn’t fall on
the government by giving an answer that they are not aware of it.
The petition filed by the petitioner ers for the issue is not maintainable before the honourable
court. In the recent Madras High Court decision third party PIL was stated as not maintainable ,
in the instance also the PIL is filled by the third party who does not take into account the states
work to protect the child and also not in broadcasting the issue.
But in these instances, it is very evident that there is no such breach of duty on the part of the
authorities. The facts of the case have clearly stated that the authorities who are in charge of the
borewell construction have fully fenced it and also a notice was affixed in the fence that not to
enter into the borewell site. From the fact it is very clear that there is no breach of duty on the
part of the government authorities.
The contention that their is violation of the fundamental right of life under article 21 of the
Indian constitution as to the authorities has not taken proper precautionary measures to save the
boy and that the rescue operations were not in a proper way which intended to save the boy was
not acceptable.
In the current case, the public interest litigation is instituted as a writ petition (writ of
mandamus). Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any
government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which
that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain
cases one of a statutory duty. Moreover Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative
action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. From the
explanation of the writ of mandamus it is very clear that it tends to question the authorities for
the breach of their duty.
As the warning note in the fully fenced borewell sight is the very first and foremost
precautionary step taken by the government and the authorities on their side and the authorities
have acted in absolute good faith towards saving the life of the boy which turned out to be
impossible because of some natural disturbances. As all the authorities have acted bound to their
duties the institution of the writ of mandamus is not justified. The work of the very clear that
NDRF and SDRF tried its best to rescue the children from the borewell in many instances. But in
the current case inspite of several actions their operations ended in vein but shall not be
contented to be a breach of their duty hence the institution of writ of mandamus is not
maintainable.
ISSUE 2: Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?

No, this is the demonstration of tortious obligation .
Mohmed Murad v. U.P. Government, certain Jewellery, belonging to a minor was entrusted
with a Nazir for the safe custody of an order of the District Judge. Due to negligence on the part
ofNazir in the performance of his duty imposed by a statute, the Jewellery was stolen. The Court
held that as both, the District Judge and Nazir were functioning under certain provisions of law,
the State of Uttar Pradesh was not vicariously liable for damages caused by their negligent act.
Insignificant fencing of borewell and attaching notice over the premises of borewell isn't the
wellbeing estimates taken by government, rather according to Supreme court rules the topping of
the wells with fasteners and nuts, the topping off of mud pits and channels on fulfillment of the
work and the reclamation of the ground to its unique condition were different necessities .This is
an away from of tortious obligation performant by Government.
There are certain conditions which must be satisfied in order to constitute a tort or civil injury.
These are:-
(1) a wrongful act committed by a person;
(2) the wrongful act must result in legal damage or actual damage; and
(3) the wrongful act must be of such a nature as may give rise to legal remedy in the
form of an action for damages.From the above mentioned definition of tortious liability and the
conditions to be attracted for tortious liability it is very evident that the deceased in this case
clearly is not attracted towards tortious liability. On the basis of the very first condition of a
wrongful act that has to be committed by a person, in this current case, the respondents
authorities of the government have taken all possible measures to rescue the five years old boy
and also it has taken proper precautionary measure by fully fencing the borewell site and affixed
a notice of the borewell site and hence there is no commitment of wrongful act done by the
authorities. The second condition that the wrongful act must result in legal damage or actual
damage; in that instance, the very first condition has itself made it clear that there is no
commitment of wrongful act by the government and its authorities and so though there is an
actual damage of the death of a five years old boy does not attract under the liability of the
authorities as the fact itself made it very clear that the authorities has properly fenced the
borewell and took the necessary precautionary measures and hence the second condition . Hence
the deceased shall not attract the tortious liability.
ISSUE 3: whether the State is liable to provide compensation?

The state is not liable to pay compensation:
Since The purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the nearby agricultural fields.
This was mainly for the people’s welfare done by the government.
As soon as the news reached the government while several voluntary groups, fire/rescue
officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices and prior rescue experience. During the
rescue operation, the boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of oxygen was given
to the boy to help his survival in the deep underground environment. Various Central and State
agencies were called in to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National Disaster Response Force
(NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue operations.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not
cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently.
It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed
negligence include the relationship between parent and child, Husband and Wife, owner of a
vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. Ordinarily the independent negligence of one
person is not imputable to another person.
The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with
whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, employer and employee,
or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use
under similar circumstances.
The employer is charged with legal responsibility for the negligence of the employee because the
employee is held to be an agent of the employer. If a negligent act is committed by an employee
acting within the general scope of her or his employment, the employer will be held liable for
damages. From the above definition of vicarious liability it is clear that the
master will be held liable to pay compensation for the damage or wrongful act done by his
serving. But in the current case , there is no fault or commitment of wrongful act done on the part
of the respondent. Hence the State is not liable to pay compensation as the author have not
committed any wrongful act on their part as they acted with all necessary precautionary measure.
In the chandrima das case, the employees of the railway committed rape on a foreigner. PIL was
instituted to claim compensation for the victim. The court held that the State has obliged to pay
compensation based on vicarious liability as the employees of the railways have committed a
wrongful act which is mandated for the State to compensate.From the above case it is evident
that the State shall be made liable to pay compensation only on the commitment of wrongful act
by its authorities and hence it has to be proved. But in the current case, there is no proof to
accuse the authorities as the facts itself clearly indicated the precautionary measures taken by the
government. Hence in this case, the State is not liable to pay compensation.
ISSUE 4: The act of media in telecasting the live rescue operations is permissible:
Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution states that Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall
affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement.
In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, it has been held that the press plays a very
significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of
press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Freedom of
press has three essential elements. They are:
● Freedom of access to all sources of information,
● Freedom of publication, and
● Freedom of circulation.
In Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India, the validity of the Newsprint Control Order,
None of the criteria specified under article 19(2) of the Indian constitution has been violated by
the media while telecasting the rescue operation. The media intended to telecast only the efforts
taken by the government in rescuing the five years old boy. As of art.19(2) there is no
information published that disturbed the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. Hence the act of media telecasting the live rescue measures is permissible.
The court held that Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to acquire and disseminate information.
Similarly in this case, the media has acted in a rightful manner of disseminating the information
about the rescue operation to the public which shall not be contented to be violated. The court
held that 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 rights. Under the Freedom of Speech and Expression, there
is no separate guarantee of freedom of the press and the same is included in the freedom of
expression, which is conferred on all citizens. It has also been by this judgment that freedom of
the press under the Indian Constitution is not higher than the freedom of an ordinary citizen.
From the above cases it is very clear that the press shall have certain right to publish and
establish the works of the government actions. Similarly in the current instances of the case, the
media intended to bring out the actions of the government which shall not be considered as non
permissible.
The essence of free speech is the ability to think and speak freely and to obtain information from
others through publications and public discourse without fear of retribution, restriction, or
repression by the government. It is through free speech, people could come together to achieve
political influence, to strengthen their morality, and to help others to become moral and
enlightened citizens. The freedom of speech is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It
occupies a preferred and important position in the hierarchy of liberty, it is truly said about the
freedom of speech that it is the mother of all other liberties.
PRAYER:
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon‟ble
Court be pleased to:
1.The PIL is not maintainable before the court Under article 226 of the Constitution.
2.The act of the deceased attract tortious liability.
3.The state is not liable to provide compensation to the deceased.
4.The act of media in telecasting the rescue operation live is permissible.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.And
for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

IN THE MATTER OF
AGHAM & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
V.
THE STATE MELUHA ...RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
OF
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
Counsel
M.RAJAVELPRAVEEN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
● WEBSITES
● BOOKS
(ii) TABLE OF CASES
4. Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is
permissible?
(vii) THE PRAYER
Index of Abbreviation
S SECTION
SS SECTIONS
Hon’ble Honorable
FIR First Information Report
A.C Appellate case
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
PB & HR Punjab & haryana

Crl.l.j. Criminal Law Journal
pp Public Prosecutor
n Note
Ors Others
Cr.P.C Criminal procedure code
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court cases
sd\ Signed
Supp Supplementary
V Versus
HC High Court
MWN Madras Weekly Notes
INDEX OF AUTHORITY
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS:
1. Indian penal code, 1860
2. Tamil Nadu panchayat act 1994
3. Tamil Nadu Groundwater Development and Management Act,2003
4. The Water (Prevention and Control) Cess act, 1977
5. The Constitution of India, 1950.
6. Chennai metropolitan area groundwater regulation amendment act 2014
WEBSITES
1.www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
Case laws:
1. G.sivagami vs the chief secretary on 18 June,2015
2. Walmsley vs Humonick, 1954
3. M. And S.M. Railway co. Ltd vs jayammal
4. State of Rajasthan Vs Vidyawati
5. N. Nagendra Rao vs state of A.p
6. Pando steam navigation vs Secretary of State
7. LIC of India vs Manubhai D. Shah.
The Petitoner humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Meluha, the memorandum filed
by petitioner under Art.226 of the constitution of Meluha,1950. The present memorandum sets
forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
FACTS:
to regulate and keep tabs on groundwater utilisation.
The Ministry of Water Resources had established the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)
to regulate groundwater development and management in the country. The Authority has been
vested with wide powers relating to groundwater management.In a rural village- Gotham, in the
State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to construct a borewell out of the funds
received from the Government. The purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the
nearby agricultural fields. Due to water shortage the drilling process was abruptly stopped and
authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice
was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell site.
A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a
the local panchayat.Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet, while several voluntary groups,
fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices and prior rescue experience.
However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell. During the rescue operation, the
boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of oxygen was given to the boy to help his
survival in the deep underground environment. Various Central and State agencies were called in
to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State
Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue operations. Meanwhile the local channels
telecast the rescue process live and the sensation paved a way for the worldwide broadcast
despite the orders of the District Collector not to telecast the incident live.Authorities said they
were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue operation it was reported that
Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was monitored through cameras, indicated the boy
is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with mud covered over him.Heavy German-made drilling
machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but
rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as geologists pointed out that soil in the area
comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. Through Fire and Rescue service persons were
lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with all necessary supports. They faced
complications in the rescue due to bad weather/drizzling and maintaining the speed of the
drilling since there were chances of the abandoned borewell getting closed completely in case of
vibrations. Despite the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be
rescued. The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the
guidelines. “Agham filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government
Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue suitable directions
for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the rescue process live from
close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the trapped boy.The High
Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.
ISSUED RAISED:
permissible?
Summary of arguments :
1.Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?
Yes the public interest litigation is maintainable before the court for the purpose of PIL is to seek
compensation for the death because the government has duty to make precautionary measures to
the opened borewell and give instruction to the landowners to close the borewells which are all
not used .
2.Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?

No, the act of the deceased not attracts tortious liability because the borewell is uncovered and
the children’s are not sued under torts because the degree of mind is not like a adult they are not
well capacity minded to determine the wrong
3.Whether the State is liable to provide compensation?
Yes, state is liable to provide the compensation to the deceased and vicarious liability is arisen of
state because the servant of state is does a wrong so state is liable for the act done by the servant
of the state and liable for damages
4.Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible?
No.The act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is not pernissible The emotional
content of films and television programs can affect psychological health. Media by telecasting
this rescue operation can directly affect the mind of the people , and mood can then affect many
aspects of the people thinking and behaviour and it comes under reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution -Public morality.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS :
Yes, public interest litigation is maintainable before the court . For filing a public interest
litigation there is no need of locus standi and there is no need of violation of fundamental right of
petitioner who filing the case it is only for public interest and public welfare.Here in this case, it
termed out that it is not only the family of the sanjay cried, its the cry of the society to save the
life of the children and the petition is maintable before the court.
Locus standi is nothing but the right or capacity to file a suit in a court. Normally a person whose
rights have been affected only can file a case on the court. In the case of PIL a person not
directly affected by the issue can also file a suit in the interest of the public at Large.
Incidents relating to this case:
Sujith borewell case public interest litigation was filed before supreme court on October 25, a
two-year-old village boy, Sujith Wilson, fell into an abandoned borewell at Nadukattupatti near
Manapparai in Tamil Nadu. His body was later retrieved in the wee hours after over 80 hours of
rescue efforts.
Another Incident of two-year-old boy who died after being stuck for 110 hours in a borewell in
Punjab's Sangrur in June. He said that these deplorable incidents have brought home the dangers
of uncovered borewells and tubewells following such deaths of several children.In 2010, issued
various guidelines to prevent deaths of children by falling into open borewells and tubewells.
G.sivagami vs the chief secretary on 18 June 2015

The four year old girl fell into a deep abandoned borewell.While in the rescue process she died
the act was by the negligence of the land owner the child is the son of the sister of the land
owner. The land owner himself opened the borewell to identify the water source and did not
close it, with the result that the accident occurred. A criminal case has been registered and the
land owner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody
The petitioner was seeking to direct the respondents to frame Rules for Tamil Nadu Panchayats
Act, 1994, and the Chennai Municipal Laws and the Chennai Metropolitan Area Ground Water
(Regulation) Amendment Act, 2014, for regulating and management of Erection of Bore wells
and management of Abandoned Bore Wells and Tube Wells.
If the state had followed the preventive measures and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in
2010,There would be no child borewell incidents or death. By refering the above cases cited, the
petition filed by the NGO is for a public interest and the petition is maintainable before court of
law
2.Whether the act of the deceased attracts tortious liability?

The act of the deceased not attracts tortious liability because the borewell is uncovered and the
children’s are not sued under torts because the degree of mind is not like a adult they are not well
capacity minded to determine the wrong.
The act of deceased not attracts the tortious liability because the authorities was not follow the
guideline imposed in 2010 by Supreme Court and the borewell was uncovered
Guidelines:
● Erection of signboard at the time of construction which includes the complete address of
the owner and the drilling agency.
● Barbed-wire fencing or any suitable barrier around the well during the construction
period.
● Covering the well by welding a steel plate or providing a strong cap fixed with casing
pipe with bolts and nuts.
The authorities are failed to covering the borewell with string cap fixed with casing pipe with
bolts and nuts
There is no minimum age for the existence of tortious liability . A minor, can be very well sued
like an adult, if the action committed by him is in contrast with the reasonable action expected
from the child of that age in a particular situation.
Walmsley v. Humonick (1954 2 D.L.R. 232)

Two little boys were playing cowboy related games. One boy hit the arrow and it hit another boy
in his eye. The court gives the judgement in defendant’s favour as a five-year child doesn’t even
think about it. Hence the defendant is not liable.
M. and S.M. Railway Co. Ltd. v, Jayammalk

In this case, a girl of 7 years was knocked down by an engine, while she was crossing the
railway line after passing through a wicket gate. It was held that the proximate cause of the
accident was the negligence of the girl in not looking out for a passing engine, and a girl of her
age ought to have been capable of appreciating the danger.
So by the references of these cases the child is not tortious liability even the there is no minimum
age for tortious liability the children doesn’t have to think above it and the children mind
capacity did not have been capable of appreciating the danger so the boy not attracts the tortious
liability

Yes, the state is liable to provide compensation for the acts committed by its servant and
vicarious liability is arisen of state because the servant of state is does a wrong and state is liable
Article 294(b) of the Indian constitution provides that the liability of union government or state
government may arise out of any contract or otherwise . The word otherwise would include
various liabilities including liability also ,it should be the task of the municipal and public health
authorities to eliminate the lurking danger.Now the life of the children been lost to neglect, it is
the duty of the State governments took safety seriously,the onus should rest with the local body,
and not the owner of the borewell who is often a farmer of poor means.So the government is
liable to pay compensation.
As of now there is no scientific or reliable method is available, only manual
rescue method is used to save the child fell into the bore well, where a big hole
is dug beside the bore well to the depth of the child stuck.The process of rescue method takes a
long time and rescuing a child alive was a difficult task. the simplest solution should be to seal
all the holes the moment they are not used. Sadly, this negligence and ineptitude devours a child.
In the incident prince borewell accident when he was five, Prince Kumar of Haldaheri village
tumbled into a 60-feet-deep borewell and he was rescued. His family received Rs 3 lakh as
assistance, for the damages occurred to victim by the negligence of state authority
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati

The respondents filed a suit for the damages made by an employee of a State and the case
questioned whether the State was liable for the tortious act of its servant. It was held in this case
that the State should be as much liable for tort in respect of tortious acts committed by its servant
within the scope of his employment and functioning as such, like any other employer.
N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that when due to the negligent act of the officers of the state
a citizen suffers any damage the state will be liable to pay compensation and the principle of
sovereign immunity of state will not absolve him from this liability.
G.sivagami vs the chief secretary on 18 June 2015
The four year old girl fell into a deep abandoned borewell.While in the rescue process she died
the petitioner seeking the government to compensate the family for the damages occurred by
their e landowner negligence. Whatever it is landowner negligence the government has duty to
supervise the borewell which are all not used and make instruction to close the borewell.So by
the references of these cases the state is liable for the damages occurred to victim for the act
which is done by the authority of state so the com pension must provide to victim
4.Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is permissible?
No.The act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is not pernissible The emotional
content of films and television programs can affect psychological health. Media by telecasting
this rescue operation can directly affect the mind of the people , and mood can then affect many
aspects of the people thinking and behaviour and it comes under reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution -Public morality.
Media should not be allowed to telecast rescue operations 24x7. It could hamper the rescue
agencies' efforts.It’s important not to focus all of our energy on one story, because breaking news
should not overshadow other important events.
For a long time, the emotional content of films and television programs can affect psychological
health. Media by telecasting this rescue operation can directly affect the mind of the people , and
mood can then affect many aspects of the people's thinking and behaviour.
The Indian constitution gives full immunity to media under article 19(1) right to freedom of
speech and expression of media but make some reasonable restriction under article 19(2) of
Indian constitution
● the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, public morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence
So if the government allows the media in this situation to telecast the rescue process in live
session it affect the public order and public morality and it will the people mentally and make
some violation against the administration process of government
LIC of India v. Manubhai D. Shah .

In this case it was held that the LIC magazine is regulated by public funds and therefore its
refusal to publish the respondent’s rejoinder was unfair and unreasonable and arbitrary and was
violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
PRAYER:
1.The PIL is maintainable before the court Under article 226 of the Constitution.
2.The act of the deceased does not attract tortious liability.
3.The state is liable to provide compensation to the deceased.
4.The act of media in telecasting the rescue operation live is not permissible.
AND/OR
for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

IN THE MATTER OF
—————————————————————————————————
AGHAM & OTHERS ...PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF MELUHA ...RESPONDENTS
———————————————————————————————————-
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
OF
M.Rajavelpraveen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
● WEBSITES
● BOOKS
(ii) TABLE OF CASES
permissible?
(vii) THE PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S SECTION
SS SECTIONS
Hon’ble Honorable
FIR First Information Report

A.C Appellate case
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
PB & HR Punjab & haryana
Crl.l.j. Criminal Law Journal
pp Public Prosecutor
n Note
Ors Others
Cr.P.C Criminal procedure code
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court cases
sd\ Signed
Supp Supplementary
V Versus
HC High Court
MWN Madras Weekly Notes
1. Indian penal code, 1860
2. Tamil Nadu Groundwater Development and Management Act,2003
3.The Water (Prevention and Control) Cess act, 1977
4. The Constitution of India, 1950.
WEBSITES
1.www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
CASE LAWS
1.Pushkar Singh vs State of Uttarkhabd, 2020
2.Burma Construction co vs State of Orissa, 1962
3.Mohmed Murad vs U.P.Government
4.State vs Devilal Shivalal
5.Jiwan Mai kpchar vs Union of India
6.Rudal Shah vs State of Bihar
7.Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras
8.Indian Express Newspapers vs Union Of India
9.Bennett Coleman and Co vs Union Of India
10.Sakal Papers vs Union Of India.
The respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Meluha, the memorandum for
the respondent filed by petitioner under Art.226 of the constitution of Meluha,1950. However,
the Respondent seeks permission of this Hon’ble Court to contend the maintainability of this
public Interest Litigation.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
FACTS:
to regulate and keeping tabs on groundwater utilisation.
The Ministry of Water Resources had established the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)
to regulate groundwater development and management in the country. The Authority has been
vested with wide powers relating to groundwater management.In a rural village- Gotham, in the
State of Meluha, the Panchayat authorities started to construct a borewell out of the funds
received from the Government. The purpose of the common borewell was to supply water to the
nearby agricultural fields. Due to water deficit the drilling process was abruptly stopped and
authorities left the borewell site uncovered. Borewell site was completely fenced and a notice
was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell site.
A group of boys were playing cricket near the borewell site and while playing, accidentally a
the local panchayat.Initially, he was trapped at a depth of 26 feet, while several voluntary groups,
fire/rescue officials, worked relentlessly with robotic rescue devices and prior rescue experience.
However, the boy slipped and drifted deeper into the borewell. During the rescue operation, the
boy was continuously monitored and constant supply of oxygen was given to the boy to help his
survival in the deep underground environment. Various Central and State agencies were called in
to rescue him. Specialised teams of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State
Disaster Response Force (SDRF) joined the rescue operations. Meanwhile the local channels
telecast the rescue process live and the sensation paved a way for the worldwide broadcast
despite the orders of the District Collector not to telecast the incident live.Authorities said they
were not able to assess the boy’s condition, after hours of rescue operation it was reported that
Sanjay had fainted but was still breathing. He was monitored through cameras, indicated the boy
is trapped at a depth of about 97 feet with mud covered over him.Heavy German-made drilling
machine was deployed to dig a parallel shaft to reach the boy stuck at a depth of 97 feet, but
rescue efforts were hampered by rocky terrain as geologists pointed out that soil in the area
comprised hard rock of quartz and feldspar. Though Fire and Rescue service persons were
lowered into the freshly drilled shaft, using a ladder and with all necessary supports. They faced
complications in the rescue due to bad weather/drizzling and maintaining the speed of the
drilling since there were chances of the abandoned borewell getting closed completely in case of
vibrations. Despite of the various attempts taken by the Government; the boy was not able to be
rescued. The Government was criticised for not taking precautionary measures as set out in the
guidelines. “Agham” NGO filed a PIL before the High Court of Meluha against the Government
Meanwhile a social activist filed another PIL seeking the Government to issue suitable directions
for telecasting the sensational news around the clock, which covered the rescue process live from
close quarters and several channels telecasted disturbing images of the trapped boy.The High
Court of Meluha clubbed both the petitions and posted the matter for hearing.
ISSUED RAISED:
permissible?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:
No. The petition is not maintainable before the court. The respondents contend that there has
been no violation of fundamental right by the government in the present case. Moreover, the
petition has been filed prematurely. A petition can be filed under Art.226 of the constitution only
when the fundamental right is violated directly by the state authorities or government officials.
Also, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Thus, the PIL is not maintainable.

Yes. Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law,Certain
restrictions been imposed with a warning not to enter the borwell site. The government has made
every necessary remedies to avoid consequences by fencing the are completely and a notice of
restriction.

No. The state government is not liable to pay compensation because Borewell site was
completely fenced and a notice was affixed therewith, with a warning not to enter the borewell
site.The state has took necessary action in order to protect the people and initiatives to safeguard
the children.Its the duty of the parents of the children to protect them from restricted zones.
4.Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is

permissible?
Yes. The freedom of the press, while not recognized as a separate freedom under Fundamental
Rights, is folded into the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
constitution of India. Media is the essential part of human life and plays a vital role in
transparency of the government activities. Media acted as an intermediate between the
government and people and the media was telecasting news using live telecasts which also
helped civil people to know and act quickly.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
The petition is not maintainable before the court. The respondents contend that there has been
no violation of fundamental right by the government in the present case.It is humbly submitted
before the honourable court that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article-226
of the Constitution of Hindia.
In this present case the petitioner would have contended that the public interest is said to be
affected as the incident would have happened due to action taken by the Government but even
though the borewell was drugged by the government, they had taken precautions to avoid these
kind of incidents by fencing it all over and also a notice would have been affixed therewith, with
a warning not to enter the bore well site. So it has been defended that this is the negligence of the
parents and the government would not be held liable.So, it is humbly submitted to this
honourable court to dismiss the petition as this court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Incident related to rescue of children:

In 2005, when he was five, Prince Kumar of Haldaheri village tumbled into a 60-feet-deep
borewell in Haryana's Kurukshetra district.Prince had gone to a shop in the neighbourhood and
seen a mouse scurry into a sack. Thereafter, he jumped on it twice and fell into a borewell.
A massive operation was launched to rescue him and after 48 very intense hours, and people
across the country rooting for his safety, he was rescued. His family received Rs 3 lakh as
assistance, which they used to construct a house.
Roshan, a four-year-old, spent 35 hours stick in a borewell in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh in March
2018.He had stumbled into an uncovered 150-feet-deep borewell while playing an a field in the
village.He was provided fluids through a pipe and oxygen was pumped into the borewell, a
senior police officer said, reported PTI.Racing against time, the Army rescue team lowered a
rope with a noose into the borewell, which Roshan strung around his arm. Thereafter, he was
successfully pulled out.
[Pushkar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 74, decided on 17-02-2020]-
The Court while dismissing the petition explained that it cannot undertake the task of
determining whether and where a road should be laid, for these were all matters in the executive
realm though the villagers facing difficulty has merit and these claims could only be addressed
by the state government and they do not fall under the judicial review proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, directed the respondents to examine the
matter and take a considered decision regarding the laying of the road.
Burma Construction Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1962 SC 1320- The High Court normally
doesn’t entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a civil liability arising
out of a breach of contract or tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimant and leaves it to
the aggrieved party to agitate the question in a civil suit filed for that purpose. But an order for
payment of money may sometimes be made in a petition under Article 226 against the state or
against an officer of the State to enforce a statutory obligation.
No, it does not comes under the tortious liability because if it is strict liability it cannot announce
no one not entered the place without permission of authority,so it comes under the absolute
liability (it means a act of god)promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen
circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise
amount to a breach. At common law, an overwhelming event caused exclusively by natural
forces whose effects could not possibly be prevented (e.g., flood, earthquake, tornado). In
modern jurisdictions, "act of God" is often broadened by statute to include all natural(1) is not of
common usage, and (2) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even
when reasonable care is exercised by all actors.
In India the distinction was laid down stating if government is performing sovereign functions, it
cannot be held liable for any Tortious act. And in the absence of sovereign functions the
government will be liable for such acts.
Mohmed Murad v. U.P. Government, certain Jewellery, belonging to a minor was entrusted
with a Nazir for the safe custody of an order of the District Judge. Due to negligence on the part
ofNazir in the performance of his duty imposed by a statute, the Jewellery was stolen. The Court
held that as both, the District Judge and Nazir were functioning under certain provisions of law,
the State of Uttar Pradesh was not vicariously liable for damages caused by their negligent act.
In this case, the same instances are implying where the panchayat was acting on the certain
provisions of law and not on the command or order of the state. Where the servant acts in
performance of the duties imposed upon him by law, the master has no right to control him nor
to give him any instructions. He is obeying the law and not the master and naturally the master
should not be held liable for anything which the servant does while carrying out the aforesaid
duties.
State v. Devilal Shivlal, Shivdayal, J. observed “where a tortious Act is committed by a public
servant in discharge of his statutory functions, which were referable to and ultimately based on
the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State of such public servant, an action for damages
for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie. Hence, the state of Meluha is not tortiously liable
for the individual act of its servants.
In this case there is no negligent act act of the state as even though the well was not
properly clothed precautionary actions were taken by the government such that the whole had
been fully fenced and also the notice where been stuck it clearly shows that there is no fault on
the government and they are not liable to pay the compensation whereas it is the negligent act of
the parents.Three conditions must be satisfied to attract applicability of res ipsa loquitur :
(i) the accident must be of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's
negligence;
(ii) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant;
(iii) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
plaintiff."In these case The incident had been occurred in the state of Hinda (Meluha).So in the
rural village Gautam in the state of Meluha the authorities started to construct a bore well Out of
the funds received from the government. Due to water deficit the drilling process was stopped
and authorities left the borewell site and uncovered.But they taken the appropriate measure was
notices affixed.The government They performed their duties completely.It means The bore well
was completely fenced and notice has been posted warning to the people the borewell,was
uncovered .
But due to negligence of the parent ,the child was fall down in the borewell. Finally ,the
honourable court of hindia has no jurisdiction out of this matter and State is not liable to provide
compensation.
In Jiwan Mai Kochar v. India, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s claim for
compensation under Article 32 against the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and
other officials involved in the loss, humiliation and indignity suffered by him, as they were
responsible for certain remarks passed by the Court in his absence. The Court merely contended
itself by passing the order that those remarks “shall not be taken into consideration in any
proceeding” against the petitioner. Thus, the Court merely followed the traditional approach in
denying the relief of compensation by saying that the relief prayed for cannot be granted in the
proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution.
In Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar- in the Supreme Court asserted .that it has power to award
compensation in Writ proceedings. The Court ordered compensation of rupees 35,000/- for the
injustice and injury done to Rudal Shah and his family
4.Whether the act of media in telecasting the rescue operations live is

permissible?
The media doesn't have a separate provision to express their views; it was guaranteed under
article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
FREEDOM OF PRESS
Freedom of press includes the right of printing and publishing. It means that an individual
expresses his views in the form of printing. Hence freedom of press includes freedom of speech
which is expressed in the form of printing and publishing. The essence of freedom of press lies in
the wide circulation and its access to mass media. In the cases of newspapers, or journals,
television or radio networks, the managers or the proprietors have the last word in broadcasting
or publishing the contents.
Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication & expression through vehicles including
various electronic media & published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence
of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional
or other protection.
Romesh Thapar v/s State of Madras,Patanjali Shastri,CJ, observed that “Freedom of speech &
of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political
discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular
government, is possible.”
In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, it has been held that the press plays a very
significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of
press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Freedom of
press has three essential elements. They are:
● Freedom of access to all sources of information,
● Freedom of publication, and
● Freedom of circulation.
In Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India, the validity of the Newsprint Control Order,
In Sakal Papers v/s Union of India, the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which
fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price was held to be
violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2).
RIGHT TO BROADCAST
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, in

that case the Supreme Court held that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression includes
the right to telecast and broadcast the matches and this right belongs to the organization, which
cannot be interfered by any one. The organization is free to choose any agencies or broadcasting
media which it thinks appropriate to telecast the matches.
IMPORTANCE OF BROADCASTING
The press has been given the responsibility of checking and balancing the administration and the
government. Whenever there is a social evil lurking or corruption and oppression happens, the
press is the first one to raise a voice. Moreover, we trust the press to collect, verify and
disseminate the facts and figures which influence people’s decisions. If the press won’t have the
liberty to do all this, the people will be in the dark.
In the light of aforementioned contentions it is firmly established that the act the media in
telecasting the rescue live is permissible because the media has the right to broadcast and
freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India.
PRAYER:
1.The PIL is not maintainable.

2.The act of the deceased attracts tortious liability.
3.The state is not liable to provide compensation to the deceased.
4.The act of media in telecasting the rescue operation live is permissible.
AND/OR
for this, the respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

Multi Moot Memo - Team 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi Moot Memo - Team 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Multi Moot Memo - Team 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MELUHA

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)

Agham NGO and ors PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India. 14th edition, Universal Law Publication

Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

1. Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

3. WHETHER THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

4. WHETHER THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS MAINTAINABLE

2. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS LIABILITY?

Negligent Act by the authority of State

3. THE STATE ID LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION

Panchayat body as State under Article 12 for attracting vicarious liability

Right to compensation as Public duty

Obligation of High court

4. THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATIONS LIVE

Freedom of speech and expression

Media and broadcasting rights

1. That the petition filed as a public interest litigation is held maintainable.

All of which is humbly submitted,

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MELUHA

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA)

Agham NGO and ors PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi

3. P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India. 14th edition, Universal Law Publication

Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

2. The Constitution of India, 1950

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

1. Whether the petitions are maintainable before the Court?

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE DECEASED ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

3. WHETHER THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

4. WHETHER THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

2. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED DOES NOT ATTRACTS TORTIOUS

Negligence on part of the respondents not established

Contributory negligence of the parents of the child

3. THE STATE IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION?

Maintainability of the petition

No tortious liability established

Vicarious liability not established

3. THE ACT OF MEDIA IN TELECASTING THE RESCUE OPERATIONS LIVE

Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression

TEST FOR REASONABLENESS:

Cable Television (Regulation) Act, 1995

All of which is humbly submitted,

AGHAM & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

THE STATE MELUHA ...RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER