You are on page 1of 9

1.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I:
THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY FRON, AN NGO ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE.
ISSUE II:
THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE
STATE OF NIDHISTAN.
ISSUE III:
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF
NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT BEEN
VIOLATED.
ISSUE IV
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS
OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.
ISSUE V
THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY FILING SAID
SUIT UNDER SECTION 499 OF THE INDIAN PENIAL CODE.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

THE

WRIT

PETITIONS

FILED

BY

The

FRON

an

NGO

ARE

NOT

MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that present PIL is not
maintainable against Union of India since the Appellant is misguided as
the State Government has only alleged that the Central Government has
been negligent towards performing their obligations and this neglect is
causing enormous damage to the lives of the people due to their inaction
whereas help was provided by the central government has rendered its
support which was inadequate according to the state.

ISSUE II
THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS
THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the facts of the case merely
state that It is alleged by the Government of State of Nidhistan that for reasons
which are more political in nature it has received a step-motherly behavior at the
hand of state government.
There has been no discrimination on account of the Central Government and it is
only alleged that central government has inflicted a step-motherly behavior
towards the state government for reasons which are more political in nature.

ISSUE III

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE


OF NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT
BEEN VIOLATED.

According to article 14 of Indian Constitution the state shall not deny to any
person equality before law and equal protection of law within the territory of
India Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth.
There has been a no violation of article 14 as the central government has
provided help, though allegedly1 not adequate, according to the state
government as clearly mentioned in the facts it is alleged that the States
efforts to get adequate help from the Central Government to tide over the
scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have
met with little success.

ISSUE IV

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE


RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

Again, it is only alleged by the state government that the central government
has not utilized the resources available for the purpose of drought relief,
prevention of starvation and alleviation of misery. The appellant has been misled
by allegations.

ISSUE V
The NGO FRON has allegedly defamed the central government by filing said suit
under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY AN NGO FRON ARE NOT


MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of


fundamental rights can be questioned on the ground of laches, where disputed
questions of facts are involved or enforcement of private or contractual rights is
1 Alleged- an allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a
pleading, charge, or defense. Until they can be proved, allegations remain
merely assertions.

sought to be enforced but the facts involved are disputed and allegations, until
proven, are merely assertions .
Writ petition filed by the FRON on behalf of State of Nidhistan are therefore
unreasonable and henceforth not maintainable since the central government
performed their duties, though not adequate in the eyes of the state
government. Right to equality, Right to life and Personal Liberty has therefore not
been infringed since the central govt. has done its part and the state
government has made wild assertions based on no factual evidences.
Facts of the case clearly state that there has been alleged discriminatory
attitude from the central government towards state government and has not
been proven that any violation related to the fundamental right to equality
guaranteed to the residents of state of Nidhistan has occurred.
As stated above it is alleged that the States efforts to get adequate help from
the Central Government to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to
meet the basic needs of its people have met with little success, clearly
mentions since the state ruling party and central ruling party have political
differences due to which sufficient funds have not been provided by the central
government at the time of need.
As already stated in the facts it is alleged by the state government that for
reasons which are more political in nature it has received a step-motherly
treatment at the hands of the Central Government which has affected all its
developmental efforts and that this has directly or indirectly resulted in the allround under development of the state, putting its people to the great hardship in
matter of the basic needs such as food, shelter, pure drinking water and health
facilities etc.
These allegations by the state government are mostly politically in nature, in
order to tarnish the reputation of the central government.
It is also alleged that the states efforts to seek adequate help from the Central
Government to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the
basic needs of its people have meet with little success.
As the appellant claims that the central government has abdicated its legal
obligations to secure the rights of its citizen has no supporting evidence and is
based completely on the allegations made by the state government, Hence this
suit should not be maintainable.

WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF


CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN?

Facts of the case states that there has been alleged discriminatory attitude from
the central government towards state government violate of fundamental right
to equality guaranteed to the residents of state of Nidhistan. As stated above

the state government is receiving step-motherly behavior at the hand of state


government which has affected all its developmental efforts. clearly mentions
since the state ruling party and central ruling party have political differences due
to which funds has not been provided by the central government at the time of
need.
Definition of Discrimination:Unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal
and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to
promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed,
color, age, sex or sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or enforce one's rights to
equal treatment are provided in various federal and state laws, which allow for private lawsuits with
the right to damages. There are also federal and state commissions to investigate and enforce equal
rights.

In the case

Namit Sharma vs. Union of India SCI Sept. 12 2012


It was stated the fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of
law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines in itself the persons
right to be adjudged by a forum which exercises judicial power in an impartial
and independent manner consistent with the recognized principles of
adjudication.
Hence, here the respondent is being partial because of the political difference.
Civil rights are being violated; perhaps discrimination is evident in the facts
above mentioned.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF


STATE

OF

NIDHISTAN

IN

GENERAL

AND

OF

RANJNIVAS

IN

PARTICULAR HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.


The state government has baselessly alleged that the central government has
been highly negligent in performing their obligations which has caused enormous
damage to the lives of the people, though it is not the case.
The situation has been showcased as such for an agenda which is more political
in nature as clearly stated in the facts, It is alleged by the Government of State
of Nidhistan that for reasons which are more political in nature it has received a
step-motherly behavior at the hand of state government.
The state government has misrepresented the situation on the ground without
appropriate research or being backed by any factual data or evidence to suggest
otherwise. This only goes to show that the PIL filed by the appellant is baseless
and has a bigger political aspect and than that of human welfare.
Not to mention the condition of economic backwardness of the state which
existed even before the consecutive drought for the third year, which reflects on

the state governments inadequacy to better improve the states economy when
there was a chance to make an impact as stated in the facts, Although the state
is economically backward as its economy is based on agriculture, its people have
earned the dubious distinction of constituently electing to power in the state a
particular political party which has always been the main opposition party at the
Centre.
As stated in the facts the state has to face three consecutive drought years
which have virtually pushed the people of the state into the jaws of starvation
and death. It is alleged that the states efforts to tide over the scarcity conditions
in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have meet with little
success.

The state government has shown a lack of interest in raising awareness to


further prepare the people for a drought even after the first year of the three
consecutive droughts. Many agriculture dependent states 2 have prospered in
India, by adopting scientific and reliable approaches to agriculture.
The state government has neither implemented better approaches nor pushed to
advance in the field of agriculture whilst knowing that the state is highly
dependent on agriculture and is facing the consequences at the time being. In
order to avoid the burden of their failure they have accused the central
government of ignorance.
It is also stated Ranjnivas a tribal belt in the state is one of the worst affected
areas where several starvation deaths have occurred.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth.
Namit Sharma vs. Union of India SCI Sept. 12 2012 states that
Article 14 does not forbid:2States such as Haryana and Punjab which are mostly dependent on agriculture
have shown a positive approach and managed to reap the benefits of modern
day advancements in the field of agriculture. With growing emphasis on
agricultural education and the need to understand a better approach towards
irrigation and modern techniques these states have managed to overcome and
prosper, whilst contributing massively to the countrys GDP. The highest
contribution to the GDP from the agriculture sector (5217.45 crores) is in par with
the manufacturing sector (5407.38 crores).

(i)
(ii)
(iii)

reasonable and intelligible differentia and


Such differentia must be on a rational basis.
It must have nexus to the object of the Act

Neither of the conditions have been fulfilled by the respondent and there act is
not all reasonable. They are being partial and biased. They are violating
fundamental right of equality for the citizens of the Nidhistan in general and of
ranjnivas in particular.

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL


LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN
VIOLATED.

As already stated in the facts it is alleged by the state government that for the
reason which is more political in nature it has received a step-motherly treatment
at the hands of the Central Government which has affected all its developmental
efforts. This has resulted in the all-round under development of the state, putting
its people to the great hardship in matter of the basic needs such as food,
shelter, pure drinking water and health facilities etc. It is also alleged that the
states efforts to get the adequate help from the Central Government to tide over
the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people
have meet with little success.
The Respondents have abdicated their constitutional obligation under Article 21
of the Constitution of India which makes it mandatory for the Respondents to
ensure the right to life of the citizens which includes the right to live includes
basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, pure drinking water and health
facilities and putting developmental efforts for the sake of the citizens.
The Respondents have failed to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013
whose very purpose is to provide food security means and make available
sufficient food-grains to meet the domestic need at affordable prices especially
in drought affected areas.
Because the Respondents have failed in discharging their responsibilities by not
utilizing the resources available for the purposes of drought relief, prevention of
starvation and alleviation of misery;
Because in a welfare State primary duty of the government is to secure the
welfare of the people. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard
the right of life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount
importance. The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation in that regard on
account of financial constraints.
Because the abdication of duties by the Respondents is in total violation and
abject disregard of the principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of
PaschimBangalKhetMazdoorSamity and others vs. State of West Bangal reported
1996(4) SCC 37.

Because the Respondents have ignored the principles let down by this Honble
Court in Chameli Singh vs. State of UP reported in 1996(2)SCC State 549 wherein
it was held that .... In any organised society, right to live as a human being is
not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when a
man is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions
which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object.
Right to life guaranteed of any civilized society implies the right to food, water,
shelter, education, medical care and a decent environment. These are basic
human rights known to any civilized society. The civil, political, social, and
cultural rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and
convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these
basic human rights....
Because the Respondents have ignored the fact that the right to life includes the
right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare
necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head
and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely
moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings as held by
the this honorable Court in FarcisCoralie Mullin versus Union ofterritory of Delhi
reported in 1981(1) SCC,608.
Because the respondents have adopted an un-scientific method of tackling the
predicted situation of drought and not taking appropriate steps to fight the
human suffering, which amounts to abdication of their constitutional duty and
therefore, this Honble Court may compel them to take suitable measures on a
war-footing.