You are on page 1of 28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______OF 2016

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

FRON

(PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF INDIA

(RESPONDENTS)

WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF


INDIA FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING IMMEDIATE AND NECESSARY RELIEF.

TO,

THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI
Group Members :

Devansh Bhargava

Devdatt Sukhadev

Harsh Sharma

Kartikey Sharma

From the side of appelant


TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENTS

INDEX OF

AUTHORITIES..3

STATEMENTS OF

JURISDICTION. 4

STATEMENT OF

FACTS... 5-6

ISSUES

RAISED.

SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENTS 8-9
ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED..... 10-13
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

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

Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity and others vs. State of West Bangal reported
1996(4) SCC 37.

Chameli Singh vs. State of UP reported in 1996(2)SCC State 549.

Farcis Coralie Mullin versus Union of territory of Delhi reported in 1981(1) SCC,608.

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. West Law
4. Hein Online
5. Lexis Nexis Database

BOOKS

1. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition Reprint 2005


2. D.D Basu , Constitution of India ,14th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Butterworths

Wadhwa Publication Nagpur


3. V.N Shukla , Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company

LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950


2. The Disaster Management Act, 2005
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed


2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including

writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and

certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights

conferred by this Part


3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and (

2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local

limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court

under clause ( 2 )
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise

provided for by this Constitution


STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Honble Court the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:

1. The state of Nidhistan, a state in the Indian Union, is one of the

backward states of the country. Most of the people in the country are

below poverty line. The state is economically backward as its economy

is based on agriculture.
2. 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.
3. It is alleged by the Government of state of Nidhistan that it has

received a step-motherly treatment at the hands of the Central

Government which has affected all its development efforts. This has

resulted in the all-round under development of the state, putting its

people to great hardship in matter of the basic needs such as food,

shelter, clothing, pure drinking water and health facilities etc.


4. As misfortune would have it, the state had to face three successive

drought years which have virtually pushed the people of the state into

the jaws of starvation and death.


5. Ranjnivas, a tribal belt in the state is one of the worst affected areas

where several deaths have occurred due to starvation.


6. It is alleged by State Government that all the efforts to get the

adequate help from the Central Government to tide over the scarcity
conditions in the state and to meet the basic need of its people have

met with little success.


7. The Fron an NGO, seeks to filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of

India against the Union of India with regard to intervention of this

Honble Court for providing necessary relief and compensation to

citizens suffering from the harsh effects of third consecutive drought

year, which is snowballing and resulting in severe livelihood crisis,

severe malnutrition, starvation deaths etc.

1.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY The FRON an NGO ARE MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT?

ISSUE II:

IS THERE ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT


TOWARDS THE

STATE OF NIDHISTAN?

ISSUE III:

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF


NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE


RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY The FRON an NGO ARE


MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that present PIL is


maintainable against Union of India since the Respondents have been highly
negligent in performing their obligations and are causing enormous damage
to the lives of the people due to their inaction, which is in contravention of
the rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 14 of Constitution of India.

ISSUE II

WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL


GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the facts of the case the
state government is receiving step-motherly behavior at the hand of state
government clearly mentions since the state ruling party and central ruling party
have political differences due to which sufficient funds has not been provided by the
central government at the time of need.

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF


STATE OF NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS
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 clear violation of article 14 as the central government has not
provided fund to the state government so the central government is not treating the
state government equally.
ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF


THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

In a welfare state the primary duty of the state government is to secure the welfare
of the people. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the state to safeguard the right to
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 constraint because the Respondent has failed in discharging their
responsibility by not utilizing the resource available for the purpose of drought
relief, prevention of starvation and alleviation of misery.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY The FRON an NGO ARE


MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of
fundamental rights can be questioned only on the ground of laches, where disputed
questions of facts are involved or enforcement of private or contractual rights is
sought to be enforced. None of the exceptions mentioned above exists in the
present case. The petition has been filed in time, questions of facts are not involved
and fundamental rights are sought to be enforced. Writ petition filed by the FRON on
behalf of State of Nidhistan is therefore reasonable and maintainable since the
central government hasnt been able to perform one of the important duty which is
safeguarding the rights and interest of the state and the citizens. Right to equality
and Right to life and Personal Liberty has been infringed since the central govt. has
failed to play its part.

Art.32 itself is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court, as guardian of the
fundamental rights, has the powers for enforcement of those rights through issue of
writs. Art.129 has established the Supreme Court as a court of record with inherent
powers to punish for contempt. Besides, this Honble Court has inherent powers.
Issue orders to do complete justice under Art. 142. This constitutional provision
empowers the court to frame remedies for ensuring justice in particular cases and
ordinary law does not and cannot place constraints on its constitutional powers. The
Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional powers can overcome inadequacies
and weakness of law and procedure, coin new remedies and add parties to case
where need be.

In State of Punjab v. Shamla Murai the Court approved in no unmistakable terms the
approach of moderating into wholesome directions what is regarded as mandatory
on the principle that: Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an
obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not
the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.

In cases like C.A. Gopalan v. Inspector General of Police, State of Bihar v. Ranchi Zila
Samiti Party, the Supreme Court had exercised its power under Art. 32,129 and 142,
overriding the ordinary law, to order C.B.I. probe without the consent of the
concerned state got, despite the fact that investigation fell within the purview of the
state police.

It is submitted that the basic issues raised and reliefs claimed relate to right of an
accused to have a fair trial and not to be prejudiced by opinions and emotions
generated by the press, a prayer for cancellation of license of a newspaper and TV
channel persistently violating above rights &working to the prejudice of a fair
administration of justice as laws & machinery on the subject are inadequate and
ineffective, prayer for guidelines on an issue having a direct bearing on fair and
impartial administration of justice and right of privacy. All these rights are granted
by constitutional provisions of Art.14, 21, 22 and 32; they would also determine the
scope of Art. 19(1) (a) and of Art. 19(2), inherent powers of the Supreme Court
under Art.129, 142 and 144. The petitioner is seeking enforcement of fundamental
rights, imposition of restrictions and laying down guidelines on fundamental rights
and invokes jurisdiction of the Supreme Court vested in it under Art. 32 and other
provisions of the constitution. The Writs are thus maintainable.

WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF


CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THESTATE OF NIDHISTAN?
Facts of the case clearly states that there has been 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 sufficient 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.

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE


RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS
IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN VIOLATED
Because the Respondents have been highly negligent in performing their obligations
and are causing enormous damage to the lives of the people due to their inaction,
which is in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

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.

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:-

(i) reasonable and intelligible differentia and


(ii) Such differentia must be on a rational basis
(iii) 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.

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 already 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 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; 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 Paschim
Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity and others vs. State of West Bengal 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 organized 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 of territory 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.
PRAYERS

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honble Court may be pleased to:

a) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondent to declare a drought in their

respective states and provide immediate essential relief and compensation to their

people to tackle the present natural calamity.

b) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondents to provide adequate and

timely compensation for crop loss and input subsidy for the next crop to the farmers

affected by drought.

c) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondents to immediately make

available food-grains as specified under National Food Security Act, 2013 to all the

rural people in drought affected areas of state of Nidhistan.

d) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondents to immediately make

available milk or egg to all the children covered by Mid-Day Meal Scheme or

Integrated Child Development Scheme to rural people in drought affected areas.

e) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondents to provide subsidized cattle

fodder for animals in the drought affected areas.

f) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondent, to formulate Integrated

Water Policy in the state of Nidhistan so as to prepare for any future drought.

g) Pass any such order or writ as this Honble Court may deem fit or proper in the

present circumstances.
FROM THE RESPONDENTS SIDE

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 ALLEGING FALSELY

THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF CITIZENS OF THE

STATE OF NIDHISTAN AND OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT


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.

ISSUE V

THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ALLEGING


FALSELY THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF
CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN AND OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT

The NGO FRON has defamed the central government by filing said suit under
section 499 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of false allegations made by the
State Government for reasons which are more political in nature.

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.
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
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 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.

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.
THERE IS NO 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. But it is not the truth as
the state government has never asked for the help in this issue and then also the
Central Government has provided funds for the betterment of citizen of state of
nidhistan like all other draught prone states and hence there has not been a
presence of discrimination.

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.

Hence according to the above definition there is no any element of discrimination.

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 political agenda to it.

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 had 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.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE


RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED

The facts of the case state that 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; the allegation in itself is based on reasons which are political in nature to
tarnish the reputation of the Central Government.

The incompetency of the State Government to react appropriately during the first
drought year had a major role to play in the all-round under development of the
state, thus putting its people through great hardship in matter of basic needs such
as food, shelter, pure drinking water and health facilities etc.

The appellant has said, based on allegations of the State Government, without any
supporting evidence has alleged that the central government has failed to
implement National Food Security, 2013. National Food Security Act, maintains that
food grain be made available to every household in the country, irrespective of
drought.

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).
National Food Security Act also states that The National Food Security Act, 2013
provides facilities that every State Government will notify the State Food
Commission for the purpose of observing and review of the execution of the Act. It
has been decided that in case a State government decides to organize State Food
Commission on the exclusive basis, then Central Government will provide one-time
financial support for non-building assets for State Food Commission.

According to the component, Assistance to States/UTs for non-building assets for


State Food Commissions has been included on the 12th Umbrella Scheme on
Strengthening of PDS & Capacity Building, Quality Control, and Consultancies &
Research of the Government department. Under this scheme, the collaboration is
available for non-building belongings such as office equipment, furniture,
computers, air-conditioners, photocopy Machine, Fax machines, telephones, tables,
EPABX system, chairs, storage units etc. Under the programme, assistance is not
provided for any development activity or any persist expenses, thus making the
State Government liable for not informing the State Food Commission and also for
not observing and reviewing the execution of the Act, and thereby relieving the
Central Government of all allegations made by the State Government of Nidhistan

Because the appellant has failed to understand the implementation of the Act whilst
upholding the State Governments allegation which was aimed at defaming the
Central Government of heinous crimes such as forcing starvation on the people of
the state of Nidhistan and also shrugging off their responsibility and liability 3 on the
Central Government instead of accepting its failure in managing the states welfare
and responsibilities for reasons which are political in nature.

THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ALLEGING


FALSELY THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF
CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN AND OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT

The NGO FRON has defamed the Central Government by making false allegations
that the central govt. was responsible for the miserable condition of citizens of the
state of Nidhistan and of Ranjnivas tribal belt according to the allegations made by
the State Government for reasons which are more political in nature. In doing so,
not only have they blemished and tarnished the Central Government in the opinion

3 Liability: n. one of the most significant words in the field of law, liability means
legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions. Failure of a person or entity to meet
that responsibility leaves him/her/it open to a lawsuit for any resulting damages or a
court order to perform (as in a breach of contract or violation of statute). In order to
win a lawsuit the suing party (plaintiff) must prove the legal liability of the
defendant if the plaintiff's allegations are shown to be true. This requires evidence
of the duty to act, the failure to fulfill that duty and the connection (proximate
cause) of that failure to some injury or harm to the plaintiff.
of the citizens of the country as well as those of the state of Nidhistan but also in
the eyes of the court.

The PIL filed by FRON, when published in newspapers will result in damages
caused to the Central Government in terms of confidence and in the citizens who
brought them to power. The political nature of these allegations makes the action of
both FRON and the State Government an attempt to defame the Central
Government even though they have implemented the National Food Security Act,
2013 as well as followed protocol by providing funds to the state government which
claims that the funds provided were not adequate. The State Government has not
followed up on State Food Commission thus creating a domino effect from the
beginning of the first drought to the third consecutive drought faced by the state of
Nidhistan.

The State Government could have easily averted this dreadful crisis if they had
admitted their adequacy to perform and rise to the occasion to help the starving
people of the state of Nidhistan instead of blaming the Central Government. A
candid admission does not imply a loss of face or invite imputations of ineffective
governance it is an acknowledgement of reality. 4

Definition of Defamation

Defamation is defined under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code as, Whoever, by
words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person.

The exceptions to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code are inapplicable for the
respondent as they do not meet the criteria required as mentioned in Section 499.

4 Madan B. Lokur, J. In judgment of the case, Swaraj Abhiyan V. Union of India &
Ors.
PRAYERS

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honble Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the writ petition.


2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:
a. That the Respondents have not violated the Right to Equality of the

citizens of State of Nidhistan and of tribal belt Ranjnivas.


b. That the Respondents have not violated the Right to Life and Personal

Liberty of the citizens of State of Nidhistan and of tribal belt Ranjnivas.

Or

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.