1|Page
TEAM CODE: 12
XTH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT, 2015
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASEA
WRIT LITIGATION No. _____ /2015
BETWEEN NGO SHAKTI.………PETITIONER Vs. GOVT. OF ALASEA………RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &
:
And
2. AIR
:
All India Reports
3. Anr
:
Another
4. Art
:
Article
5. Etc.
:
Etcetera
6. Hon’ble
:
Honourable
7. ILR
:
Indian Law Reports
8. Ins.
:
Inserted
9. J
:
Justice
10. Ker
:
Kerala
11. Ltd.
:
limited
12. Ors.
:
Others
13. P.
:
Page
14. Para
:
paragraph
15. S.
:
section
16. SC
:
Supreme Court
17. SCC
:
Supreme Court Cases
18. UoI
:
Union of India
19. V.
:
Versus
20. W.e.f
:
with effect from
3|Page
INDEX
•
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES -
-
-
-
-
-
-4
•
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -
-
-
-
-
-7
•
STATEMENT OF FACTS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-8
•
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
-
-
-
-
-
-11
•
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
-
-
-
-
-
-13
•
PRAYER
-
-
-
-
-
- 21
-
-
-
4|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Vol-I , (Lexis Nexis), 14th ed, 2013 2. T. K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India, (Eastern Book Company), 3 rd ed, 2010 3. Dr. Subhash. C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India, Vol-I , (Universal Law Publishing Co.), 2008 4. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, (Lexis Nexis), 24th ed, 2011 5. V. S. Ramadevi & S. K. Mendiratta, How India Votes: Election Laws, Practice & Procedure, (Lexis Nexis), 2 nd ed, 2006 6. Upendra Baxi, The Legislature & The Judiciar y , ( Orient Black Swan), 2011 7. H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India: An Analytical Approach, (Eastern Law House), 2nd ed, 1997 8. V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (Eastern Book Company), 12th ed , 2013 9. Dr. J. N. Pandey , The Constitutional Law of India, (Central Law Agency), 51 st ed, 2014
Online sources •
http://www.importantindia.com
•
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
•
http://lawlex.org
•
http://www.unfpa.org
•
http://www.amnestyusa.org
•
http://reproductiverights.org/
5|Page
•
http://www.hrln.org
•
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com
https://www.academia.edu
http://indiankanoon.org
Cases Referred 1. BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 2. Bodhisattwa v. SubbraChakroborty, AIR 1996 SC 722 3. Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988 4. People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 5. LaxmiMandal v NCT Delhi & Ors W.P. (c) 8853/2008 6. SandeshBansal v. Union of India (PIL) W.P. 9061/2008 7.DevikaBiswas vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P. (C) 81 of 2012) 8. Suchita Srivastava and Anr.Vs.Chandigarh AdministrationAIR2010 SC 235 9. X vs. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors. 2013(2) JCC 1068 10. B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1999 (5) ALT 715 11. Jaitun v Maternity Home, MCD, Jangpura& Ors. W.P. No. 10700/2009 12. Parmanand Katra vs. Union of IndiaAIR 1989 SC 2039 13. Paschim Banga Khet mazdoor Samiti & ors.vs. State of West Bengal & ors. (1996) 4 SCC 37 14. Commissioner of Police v. Achar ya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC 2984 15 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 16 Javed v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057 17.Gulam Abbas v. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 2198
6|Page
18. Govindlalji Maharaj, Tilkayat Shri v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638(1660) 19. State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 AIR 226 20. S P Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 21. Commissioner of Police v. Achar ya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC 2984 22.State Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, 691-92 23. V R V Rama Rao v. TDP, AIR 1983 AP 6 24.T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355
7|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has the honour to submit this memorandum before the Honourable Supreme Court of Alasea under Article 32 of the Constitution of Alasea.
The Honourable Supreme Court of Alasea has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
8|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
Alasea is a developing country in the continent of Gondwana with a high growth rate. Alasea is an ancient land of wealth. Its history can be traced back to many years of different human communities migrating and settling here and making the population culturally and ethnically diverse.
II.
Currently Alasea is under the democratic rule of its 18 th governmentsince independence from its colonial rulersand is divided into 15 states. The largest and most populated of them is Sindiana with more than 53% of them belonging to the endangered tribe of “Naigas”.
III.
On 1 st January 2013, the Central government to discuss the condition of its economy and ways to pace up the development of the country. Soon after the Prime Minister of Alasea gave out a press clip which explained all matters of concern discussed at the meeting. He spoke about the problem of an ever increasing population that is hampering the economic development and the government’s plans to launch a compulsory sterilization programme to restrict families to two children each to curb this problem.
IV.
The statements of the Prime Minister became a huge controversy and many human rights activists criticised this as an attempt to deny the women of Alasea their reproductive rights. Coming under international pressure the government reiterated this statement the next day and said that the words of the Prime Minister were misconstrued.
V.
In November 2013, the government launched the “Four a Family” campaign which was described as an educational programme to raise awareness about birth control among the citizens of Alasea, especially those in the rural areas, and conduct medical camps where women and men could avail the option to get sterilized with full informed consent.
9|Page
VI.
In December 2013, a magazine called “The Voice” published an article on these medical campswherein it was alleged that this was just a facade for a compulsory sterilization programme and the doctors were given targets of the number of sterilizations they must perform in a month, default of which could cost them their jobs. This article did not get much readership.
VII.
Alasea witnessed one of its worst tragedies in the following month when 19 women died at a medical camp after undergoing tubectomy. This including 7 women belonging to the Naiga tribe.
VIII.
The media reported that the condition in the camp was terrible with inadequate beds, equipments and personnel. It showed the families of the victims complaining of how the doctor arrived only in the evening at 3:00pm and left by 5:00pm after conducting 83 surgeries.
IX.
The Council approaches the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India.. Hence this writ petition.
10 | P a g e
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the instant petition maintainable?
2. Whether there is violation of Article 21 ?
Is the Setting up of Compulsory Sterilisation camps are Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution?
Is the Condition of the Sterilisation Camp is violative of Article 21
3. Whether there violation of religious and minority rights?
Is Article 25 of the Constitution violated?
Is Article 29 of the Constitution violated?
11 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND THE PETITIONER HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PETITION
Article 32 of the Indian constitution is a fundamental right under which a person can approach the Supreme Court when the fundamental rights are violated. In the instant case the fundamental rights guaranteed through Article, 21 are infringed. Public interest litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. According to Article 32(1), the Fundamental Right to be enforced need not belong to the person moving the Court. The Court can take cognizance of the matter and proceed on a petition of any public-spirited individual or body. B. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Setting up of Compulsory Sterilisation camps are Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
The setting up of Compulsory Sterilisation camps are Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution because it takes away the reproductive rights of the citizen
The Condition of the Sterilisation Camp is violative of Article 21
The condition of the sterilisation camp is terrible and it is violative of Article 21 of the constitution which guarantees its citizens the right to adequate medical facilities C. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS AND MINORITY RIGHTS
THERE IS VIOLATION OF RELIIGIOUS RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 25
Article 25 provides for the right to practise and profess any religion. This right include the following the faiths and rituals taught by the religion. The act of the government for compulsory sterilization is violative of article 25 as religions advocate procreation and are against permanent sterility.
12 | P a g e
THERE IS VIOLATION OF MINORITY RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 29
Compulsory sterilization undertaken by the state results in affecting the identity and life of the tribes and also affects their right to procreate freely and thus violates article 29.
13 | P a g e
BODY OF ARGUMENTS
A. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED AGAINST THE STATE IS MAINTAINABLE Article 32 of the Indian constitution is a fundamental right under which a person can approach the Supreme Court when the fundamental rights are violated. In the instant case the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 21 is infringed. The petitioner has the locus standi to file the petition as public interest litigation can be filed under Article 321 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This Hon’ble Court has previously ruled that to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 32, it is not necessary that the affected person should personally approach the Court. 2 According to Article 32(1), the Fundamental Right to be enforced need not belong to the person moving the Court. The Court can take cognizance of the matter and proceed on a petition of any public-spirited individual or body. 3 The socio – economic demands of a changing society, groaning under the strains of rapid industrial development adversely impacting the natural riches, warrant a different kind of jurisprudence- dynamic, vibrant and resilient to address people’s problems. PIL is one such tool to help the poor, under-privileged, and downtrodden and exploited millions. It is essentially a cooperative or collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the state or public authority and the court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to provide social justice to them. 4Thus, it is hereby humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has the locus standi to file this petition. In the instant case, the petitioner, Shakthi, an NGO has filed the PIL on behalf of those citizens whose Fundamental Rights have been infringed upon by the Government activities. The actions of the Government have resulted in grave injustice towards the victims. 1
Art 32 lays down the “ Remedies for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.”
2
BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802
3
Bodhisattwav.SubbraChakroborty, AIR 1996 SC 722; Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000
SC 988 4
People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473
14 | P a g e
The right to reproduce is an indispensible aspect of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. 5 And it is this right that has been violated by the activities of the government6. The unhygienic and inadequateconditions at the medical camps that were organised cost the lives of 19 women in the state. 7 These camps were conducted with the motive of sterilizing the citizens as per the “Four a Family” campaign that was launched. The extent to which the participants in the camp were informed is to be gauged keeping in mind the fact that Alasea is a developing country and most of the participants were uneducated and belonging to endangered tribe of Naiga.Further, the protection of the indigenous endangered tribe,Naiga,has been violated on account of arbitrary action of the s tate. Thus, taking into consideration all the above mentioned facts, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable against the state.
B.
WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION B.1. The Setting up of Compulsory Sterilisation camps are Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
The counsel humbly submits that the setting up of Compulsory Sterilisation camps is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 talks about Protection of life and personal liberty. It states that, ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’. The courts through their invaluable decisions have held that the Right to Reproduction is also included under article 21. In the case of Suchita Srivastava and Anr.Vs.Chandigarh Administration 8 it is stated by the Supreme Court that ‘There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of `personal liberty' as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no
5
LaxmiMandal v NCT Delhi & Ors W.P. (c) 8853/2008
6
SandeshBansal v. Union of India (PIL) W.P. 9061/2008
7
DevikaBiswas vs. Union of India and Ors. ( W.P. (C) 81 of 2012)
8
AIR2010 SC 235
15 | P a g e
restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth-control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures.’ This case was reaffirmed in Delhi High Court in X vs. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors 9which claimed that the reproductive right of humans should be treated as a basic right. Also, in B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh10, the High Court upheld “the right of reproductive autonomy” of an individual as a facet of his “right to privacy” Also, Justice Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Jaitun v Maternity Home, MCD, Jangpura& Ors. 11referred the right to health and in particular the reproductive rights of the mother as two inalienable survival rights that form part of the right to life. So, by setting up these compulsory sterilisation camps, the government has clearly taken away the reproductive rights of its citizens which are a guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. B.2. The Condition of the Sterilisation Camp is violative of Article 21
The counsel hereby submits that the Condition of the Sterilisation Camp is violative of Article 21 of the constitution as well as the 2006 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare guidelines titled ‘Standards for Female and Male Sterilization Services’. Article 21 casts an obligation on the state to safeguard right to life of every person, preservation of human life being of paramount importance. The Apex court has held in Parmanand Katra vs. Union of India
12
that whether the patient be an innocent person or be a
criminal liable to punishment under law, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Paschim Banga Khet mazdoor Samiti & ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & ors. 13the Supreme Court said that in a Welfare State the primary duty of the government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the government in a welfare state. The government 9
2013(2) JCC 1068 1999 (5) ALT 715 11 W.P. No. 10700/2009 12 AIR 1989 SC 2039 13 1996) 4 SCC 37 10
16 | P a g e
discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. The Government hospitals run by the state and medical officers engaged therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of the injured victim’s right to life guaranteed by article 21. It is clearly stated in the facts that in December 2013 a magazine call ed ‘The Voice’ had published in an article that the doctors and medical staff at the Sterilisation camp were given targets on the number of sterilisations they must perform in a month defaulting in which they could even lose their job. Also when the cases of death during tubectomy happened the media reporting from the ground reported that the condition in the camp was terrible with inadequate beds, equipment and personnel and showed the families of victims complaining that the doctors performed 83 surgeries in a span of just 2 hours which is less than 1 and a half minutes per procedure and shows the rash and unscientific procedure implemented in the surgeries. So, it is clear that the government was not ready to deal with an emergency situation nor was it able to provide adequate medical facilities to its citizens at the camp. They in turn were more concerned about completion of the procedure and treated the citizens like animals thereby violating their right to receive adequate medical facility guaranteed under article 21. Also, a set of guidelines for sterilization were issued in 2006 by the Health and Family Welfare ministry of the Central government, it was titled ‘Standards for Female and Male Sterilization Services’, which laid down different sets of guidelines for conducting sterilization regarding eligibility, physical requirements, clinical processes, Post-operative Care, Safe Work Practices, Processing of Equipment etc. It can be made out from the reading together the facts and the guidelines that there has been a gross violation of these guidelines in the medical camp. So the medical sterilisation camps and their inhuman conditions are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
17 | P a g e
C. THERE
IS
NO
VIOLATION
OF
THE
FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY THIS CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLES 25 AND 29 C.1 Freedom to Practice, Profess and Propagate any religion guaranteed under Article 25 is violated.
Article 25 of the Constitution of Alasea 14 deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. The protection guaranteEd under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or integral part of religion 15. Subject to the restrictions which this Article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under the Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgement or conscience but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such over acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of others16. The religious practise which forms an essential and integral part of religion is protected17. The right to perform a religious practise may be acquired also by custom18. When so acquired, it would have the protection of Art. 25, with respect to all the religious rites, practises, observances, ceremonies and functions which are being customarily performed by
14
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly 15
AIR 2004 SC 2984 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 17 Javed v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057 16
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta ,
18 | P a g e
the members of the petitioner community and not according and not according to the version of the person who opposes 19. In Govindlalji Maharaj, Tilkayat Shri v. State of Rajasthan 20 , AIR 1963 SC 1638(1660), the Apex Court held that in deciding the question as to whether a given religious practise is an integral part of a religion or not, the test always would be whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not. However it has to be adduced by the court as to the conscience of the community and tenets of the religion. All the Abrahamic religions propound the idea of procreation and oppose the concept of birth control causing permanent sterility. Christianity and Islam encourage procreation. So the compulsory sterilization program undertaken by the state is intruding into the rights of the people to follow what they have been taught by their religions. Thus the act of the government is violative of the fundamental right conferred by the constitution to the citizen for practising and professing their religion. Religion includes worship, faith and extends even to religion 21. There are certain cornerstone of essential parts or practises that the superstructure of a religion is built. There cannot be any additions or subtractions to this as they form an essence of the religion. What constitutes an essential or integral part of the religion has to be determined with reference to the doctrines, practices, tenets, historical background, etc of the given religion22. Under the concepts and ideas of Islam and Christianity, the followed are urged to marry and procreate. They consider permanent sterility as a sin. Thus act of the government would clearly an encroachment upon the faith and belief of the followers of these religions. Each person, whatever be his religion, must get an assurance from the State that he has the protection of law freely to profess, practise and propagate his religion and freedom of the conscience. Otherwise, the rule of law will become replaced by individual perception of one’s own presumptions of good social order 23. We humbly request the honourable court to declare that the compulsory sterilization done without the concept of people under “four a family” campaign is violative of article 25.
18 19 20 21 22 23
Gulam Abbas v. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 2198 Ibid AIR 1963 SC 1638(1660)
S P Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta ,
AIR 2004 SC 2984 State Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, 691-92
19 | P a g e
C.2 Protection of Interests of minorities guaranteed under Article 29 is violated .
Clause (1) of Article 29 gives the right to every section of citizens, which have a distinct language, script or culture, to conserve the same. If such sections of citizens desire to preserve their own language, script or culture, the State would not stand in their way. 24 The expression “minority” means a group comprising less than half of the population and differing from others, especially the predominant section, in race, religion, traditions and culture, language25, .Thus tribal people who are different from the mainstream population in their culture and tradition comes under the expression “minority” Indigenous people and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.26 This is an absolute right 27. The provision extend to ‘any section of citiz ens’ whether they belong to the minority or majority community, the only condition being that such secti on must have a distinct language, script 28 or culture of its own. The common thread that runs through Art.29(1) is language script or culture, and not religion 29. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities 1992 enjoins the states to protect the existence and identity of minorities within their respective territories and encourage conditions for promotion of that identity; ensure that persons belonging to minorities fully and effectively exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms with full equality and without any discrimination; create favourable conditions to enable minorities to express their characteristics and develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs; plan and implement national policy and programmes with due regard to the legitimate interests of
24
MahendraP.Singh, V.N Shukla’s Constitution of India, 11 th edition, Eastern Book Company, p 257 25 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE MINORITIES, communalism Combat April 2010 26 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article8: “Indigenous people and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. The State shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for (a) any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values of ethnic identities; (b) any action which has the aim or effect or dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c) any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d) any form of forced assimilation or integration; (e) any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them 27 V R V Rama Rao v. TDP , AIR 1983 AP 6 28 T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355 29 Ibid
20 | P a g e
minorities; etc30Under the International Labour Organisation Convention (No.169 of 1989) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries recognizes The aspirations of these peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live. 31 ILO 169 acknowledges the collective right of indigenous and tribal peoples to preserve and develop their cultural identity32 Here the government’s action to sterilize the community is to be censured as it deprives the tribal’s of these basic rights enshrined under our constitution .It is clearly stated in the facts that the condition of the medical camp is highly lamentable that it resulted in deaths. The policy thus adopted by the concerned authorities prevents the tribal people to establish their own identity and to protect their existence. In State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan 33the Court held that it is necessary to protects the language, script or culture of a section of the citizens, . Similarly tribal people in a particular place are vested with the same rights. Reducing the birth rate of the tribal people in no way can be justified as it will be a travesty of justice. So it can be clearly stated from the facts that all the course of actions adopted by the government is not for the benefit of the community but for their decimation and this will adversely affect their indigenous culture and tradition
.
Any invasion into the right to protect the script, language and culture of a minority group will be ultra vires. ‘ Naigas’ are group endangered tribal groups. It those groups are subjected to compulsory sterilization, there are chances of permanent extinction of these groups. Permanent sterility affects their procreation and since the existing tribal people have poor living conditions, their life and inheritance are in great danger. Thus the governmental act is encroaching upon their right and we humbly request the Court to declare it violative of Article 29.
30
The UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE MINORITIES Chapter 2COMMUNALISM COMBAT APRIL 2010 7 31 Fifth recital, Preamble, ILO 169, 27 June 1989, in force 5 September 1991 32 e Arts.2(2)(b) and (c), 4, 5, 7, 23, 26-31, ILO 169 33 1951 AIR 226
21 | P a g e
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited this Honorable Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Petition is maintainable and issue appropriate writ. 2. The facts of the present case do convey that there has been a violation of the rights under Article 21 3. Right to reproduce is a fundamental right under Article 21 4. There is violation of the Rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 29 of t he Constitution. And pass any other order in favor of the petitioner that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.
Place: Union of Alasea
S/d_________________
Date:
(Counsel for Respondent)
