1

TEAM CODE: 18

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZEDELLIN

In the matter of

MR KUSTOVO KABIRIA ……..THE PETITIONER

v.

THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN ….THE RESPONDENT

te
Dispute relating to
relati
ARTICLE 21

CIVIL CASES NO.

[Under section …………………………………………..]

ON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZEDELLIN

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETTITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETTITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.......................................................................................................15

1.WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY PREVENTING THE PERSONS IN

DETENTION CENTERS FROM EARNING MONEY BY WORKING AND MAKING
USE OF THEIR SKILLS AND FACULTIES DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD.

1.1 . RULE IN BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY V. DILIPKUMAR

RAGHAVENDRANATH NANDKARNI

1.2. RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO LIVE

2. WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY DECLARING THE CHILDREN OF

KUSTAVO KAVIRIA AS FOREIGNERS AND CONFINING THEM IN THE PRISON,
DENIED THEM THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION?

2.1. Importance of Right to Education in National statutes and landmark Indian Cases

2.2. Importance of Right to Education reiterated in International Doctrines

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDALLIN HAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO
HEALTH BY NOT PROVIDING PROPER HEALTH FACILITIES TO THE
PERSONS IN DETENTION CENTRES?

3.1. THE LAW IN SHEELA BARSHEE V UNION OF INDIA

3.2. LAW IN UNIVERSAL DECLERA.1. THE LAW IN CHARLES SOBRAJ THROUGH

MARIE ANDRE’O V THE SUPRINTENDENT OF TIHAR JAIL TION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN HAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY BY BURGING INTO THE DETENTION CENTERS?

4.1. THE LAW IN CHARLES SOBRAJ THROUGH MARIE ANDRE’O V THE

SUPRINTENDENT OF TIHAR JAIL

4.2. THE LAW ON PRISONERS AND THEIR RIGHTS

PRAYER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION _______________

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Sec Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UDHR United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

Hon’ble Honorable

Ed. Edition

Ors. Others

v. Versus

WHO World Health Organisation

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

RTE Right To Education

Const. Constitution

CRC Convention on The Rights of the Child

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

EFA Education For All

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes & Legislations Referred

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Prisoners Act, 1894

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 3. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

1. U.N. General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (CEDAW), Article 10, 3rd September, 1981.
2. U.N. General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 19,20
November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577.
U.N. General Assembly,
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 217 (III) A, Article 26 (1)
( Paris, 1948).
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(4), UN, Treaty Series
999.
4. U.N. General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 16 December 1966, UN, Treaty Series, vol.993.
5. U.N. General Assembly, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ,
Article 12, 14 December, 1950

CASES REFERRED
INDIAN CASES CITATION
1. Amir Hamza v. Union of India (2003) 12 SCC 213

2. Athar Mohammad and Another v. Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1568 of 2011

State of Uttarkhand and Others
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
India & Others on 16 December
4. Chairman, Railway Board v. (2000) 2 SCC 465: AIR 2000 SC 988
Chandrima Das
5. Charles Sobraj through Marie  AIR 1975 SC 164, 1975 CriLJ 182,
Andre’o vs. The Superintendent, (1975) 1 SCC 192, 1975 (7) UJ 50 SC
Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi
6. D.B.M v state of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2092, 1975 SCR (2) 24
,Supreme Court of India
7. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries (1993) 3 SCC 259

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 8. D.Upadhay v State of Andhra 13 April, 2006, AIR 1308, 1989 SCR (2) 422
Pradesh and ors,Supreme Court of
India
9. Hariraj L. Chulani v. Bar council of (1996) 3 SCC 345 : AIR 1996 SC 1708
Maharashtra & Goa

10. Harkishan v. State of Uttarkhand and WPSS—2009/2011, Uttarkhand HC 26 Nov.

Ors 2015
11. Joel S Joy v. Bank of Baroda W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017(N) Kerala HC, 21
Novemeber 2017

12. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Writ Petition (civil) no. 494 of 2012
Of India on 26 September, 2018.

13. Kharak Singh vs The State of U. P. & 1962, AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
Others on 18 December
14. M/S KanakadasShikshanaSmiti v. Karnataka HC(23 Feb 2016)
State of Karnataka
15. Maharshi Mahesh Jogi v. State of MP Civil Appeal No.6736 of 2004, SC, 3 July 2013.
&Ors
16. Master ArkavravaBasu&Anr. V. Calcutta HC 25 Jul, 2011.
Patha Bhavan &Ors
17. MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and AIR 1997 S.C. 699
Ors
18. Menaka Gandhi v. State of India AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

19. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858

20. MRS. Rita PannalalKanojia v. The Writ Petition No. 6144 of 2016, Bombay HC 24
Principal, Lokmanya Tilak High June 2016
School and Ors
21. National Human Rights Commission (1996) 1 SCC 742: AIR 1996 SC 1234,
v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
22. Noor Mohammed v. Union of India (2003) 12 SCC 218.

23. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal AIR 1986 SC 180

Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

24. Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC 124
Raghavendranath Nandkarni

25. R. M. Malkani vs State Of (1972) 973 AIR 1571

Maharashtra on 22 September
26. R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. &Ors Writ Petition (civil) 559 of 1994, 13/04/2006
27.
Sheela Barse & Ors vs Union Of 1986, JT 1986 136, 1986 SCALE (2)230
India & Ors
28. Smt. Aparna Nautiyal v. State o Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1734 of 2014
Uttarkhand and Ors
29. Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
on 20 December
30. Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others v. State of (1993) 1 SCC 645(India)
Andhra Pradesh &  Ors.
31. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Another v. State Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1830 of 2011
of Uttarkhand and Others
32. Vincent v. union of India 1987 AIR 990, 1987 SCR (2) 468

FOREIGN CASES CITATION

Munn v. people of lllinois ,Supreme Court USA 09-1681, 09-2481 Nos. December 7 2009

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Tarunesh Kabir Tukla, has submitted the

memorandum of plaint by invoking article 32 of the Constitution of Zedellin to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Zedellin . The counsel for the petitioner contends that certain rights under the

purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of Zedellin has been violated.

All parties shall accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court and shall accept the verdict as

final and binding and implemented in good fa

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN

Zedellin is a third world country in the continent of Ghanapara which was colonized for 200
years. Xinaloa was one of the 10 fedral unitslocated in the south-east corner of Zedellin, which
was the only portion made up of plain lands accessible to neighbouring countries. Xinaloa shared
the International border with another third world country known as Tescobar.

IMMIGRATION FROM TESCOBER TO ZEDELLIN

Both Zedellin and Tescobar became independent from the same colonial forces at the same
time .Zedellin reached new heights of development, the same was not the case of Tescobar
where because of the poor quality of life and less economic opportunities people began to
migrate in the Xinaloa state of Zedellin around the year 1971.

When the Census Report of Zedellin was published in 1994,the residents of Xinaloa fearing an
existential crisis and for the firsttime protested across the state where Akhil
XinaloaBhanuaSamaj, a student organization became the centre of the immigration protests. The
state came to a standstill for 10 years due to the protests where the assembly elections were
boycotted twice.

THE EXERCISE TO DEPORT IMMIGRANTS

In the year 2004,anexercise of National Registrar of Citizens was conducted to deport the
immigrants . The compilation began in 2005 and on 31 st December 2010, the final NRC was
published by the authorities where the names of 8,03,156 persons were excluded from the
31,09,891 residents of Xinaloa. The option to appeal to the appropriate authorities was provided
to such persons which was a three-tier process.

The last related NRC appeal was heard by the SC on 4 th August 2013 and the next day, the Union
Government declared a total of 6,89,131 persons as foreigners. Such persons were to be deported

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

back to Tescobar after a bilateral process between the two countries where it was estimated to
take 3 years.

There was an apprehension among a certain section of people of Xinaloa that the immigrants
may diffuse themselves in the other states of Zedellin. The student group that led the protest,
petitioned to the Government on 12th August 2013 to see that they don’t get diffused to other
states.

SHIFTING OF IMMIGRANTS TO PRISONS

The Foreigner’s Order 2013 was passed by the Home Ministry on 16 August 2013 where all the
declared foreigners were to be shifted across the 2396 Prisons across 406 districts of Zedellin
and the members of families to be kept in separate prisons to foil attempts of escape till they
were deported which was completed by 21st October 2013 except 10,086 of them who fled the
watchful eye of the state.

CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF BASIC RIGHTS

KustavoKaviria, one of the detained foreigners lodged in the Tyrganj Jail wrote a letter to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court listing his grievances and claiming violation ofFundamental Rights
against the Government. He claims violation of Right to education for his two children aged 8
and 5 years.He further claims violation of Right too livelihood as he is not allowed to earn
money. Since not being provided basic Health facilities, he claims violation of right to health. At
last he claims violation of right to privacy against the Government of Zedellin.

Invoking its epistolary jurisdiction the SC toke cognizance of the letter and sent notice to the
Government of Zedellin to appear before it. The matter is scheduled on 10 th November 2013 for
hearing.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE   I:
WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY PREVENTING THE PERSONS IN
DETENTION CENTERS FROM EARNING MONEY BY WORKING AND MAKING
USE OF THEIR SKILLS AND FACULTIES DENIED THE RIGHT TO
LIVELIHOOD?

ISSUE   II:
WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY DECLARING THE CHILDREN OF 
KUSTAVO KAVIRIA AS FOREIGNERS AND CONFINING THEM IN THE
PRISON, DENIED THEM THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION?

ISSUE   III:
WHETHER   THE  STATE  OF  ZEDELLIN  HAS  DENIED THE  RIGHT  TO 
HEALTH  BY  NOT PROVIDING   PROPER  HEALTH  FACILITIES
TO  THE  PERSONS  IN DETENTION CENTERS?

ISSUE   IV:
WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY BY BARGING INTO THEIR DETENTION ROOMS?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE I

It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zedellin that Right to Livelihood which is
embodied in the Constitution of India as a fundamental right under article 21 has been violated
by the respondent. The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,implied
that  an equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person
can live without the means of livelihood. These rights are as much available to citizens as to non
citizens, even a foreigner can claim this right. Right to livelihood, one of the strongest pillar for
other fundamental rights to be exercised stands violated here.

ISSUE   II:

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court of Justice that the respondent has denied of
Kustavo Kaviria the Right to Education. The government violated Article 21((A) of the
Constitution which requires the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of
the age of six to fourteen years. The same is sustained in Article 3(1) of RTE Act The action of
the state is also violative of International conventions such as Article 19 of CRC. Therefore, the
counsel humbly requests this Hon’ble court to see that the children of the petitioner be awarded
their right to education by providing appropriate educational facilities as enjoyed by any other
child of the country.
ISSUE   III:
It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zedellin that Right to Health which is
embodied in the Constitution of India as a fundamental right under article 21 has been violated
by the respondent. The respondent has violated the law laid under the Indian prisons act 1894
which states that the rights of a person can’t be refrain even in a prison. The Supreme Court has
also emphasized in Vincent v. union of India that a healthy body is the very foundation of all
human activities. Right to health, one of the strong pillar for other fundamental rights to be

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

exercised stands violated here. Therefore, it’s a prayer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zedellin
to take necessary action.

ISSUE   IV:
It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zedellin that Right to Privacy as a
fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under article 21.It encompasess right to
privacy as a requisite of right to life and personal liberty in the landmark judgement given in the
case of justice K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India, stressing on the term ‘privacy’. The
Respondent has thus denied to the Petitioner, the access to the fundamental Right to Privacy
guaranteed by the Constitution of India

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY PREVENTING THE PERSONS IN

DETENTION CENTERS FROM EARNING MONEY BY WORKING AND MAKING
USE OF THEIR SKILLS AND FACULTIES DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD.

[1] It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court of Justice that the respondent, by preventing the
persons in detention centers from earning money by working and making use of their skills and
faculties indeed denied the right to livelihood. According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a
constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Similarly, Iyer, J., has
characterized Article 21 as “the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty. This right
has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in
our living constitution, the foundation of our laws. Also, Article 21 of the constitution of India
applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a
foreigner can claim this right. 

1.1 . RULE IN BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY V. DILIPKUMAR

RAGHAVENDRANATH NANDKARNI

[2] The Supreme Court in the case Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nandkarni1, came to hold that “the right to life” guaranteed by Article 21
includes “the right to livelihood”. Also, the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation2, popularly known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case” , implied that ‘right to
livelihood’ is born out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can live without the means of living,
that is, the means of Livelihood. The court, in this case, observed that: “The sweep of the right

1
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni: AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1
SCC 124

2
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: AIR 1986 SC 180

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be
extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence,
except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An
equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live
without the means of livelihood.” A similar contention has been held in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A.
Industries3 & Hariraj L. Chulani v. Bar council of Maharashtra & Goa4.

[3] By articulating the close relationship between life and livelihood, the court stated that,
leaving aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to
life and also depriving a person of his right to livelihood is similar as to deprive him of his life.
Referring to the directive principles of State policy such as Art. 39 (a), 37, 41, the court has
pointed out that if these directive principles obligate the state to secure to the citizens and
adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, “it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the
right to livelihood from the content of the right to life.

[4] Article 21, confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which
has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights. 5 These rights are as much available to
non citizens as to citizens.6 These rights have been given paramount position by our courts.7

[5] Right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and
mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.8

1.2. RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO LIVE

[6] The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not by mere
reason of their conviction deprived of all the fundamental rights that they otherwise possess.

3
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259
4
Hariraj L. Chulani v. Bar council of Maharashtra & Goa , (1996) 3 SCC 345 : AIR 1996 SC 1708
5
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597, 620
6
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742: AIR 1996 SC 1234,
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465: AIR 2000 SC 988; Amir Hamza v. Union of India,
(2003) 12 SCC 213 ; Noor Mohammed v. Union of India, (2003) 12 SCC 218.
7
Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204: AIR 1989 SC 653.
8
Ibid, (SCC) 619.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

Even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 and he shall not be
deprived of his life and personal liberty except by a procedure established by law. In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21whereby it has
interpreted Article 21 so as to have widest possible amplitude.

[7] Art. 21 do not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and for
that matter on right to livelihood. What Art. 21 insists is that such deprivation ought to be
according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore
anyone who is deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure established by
law can challenge such deprivation as being against Art. 21 and get it declared void.9

[8] Furthermore, meaning of the term “life” is also defined in Munn v. Illinois, Field, J. spoke of
the right to life in the following words: “By the term “life” as here used something more is
meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those
limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the
body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any
other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with outer world.” This article
applies to even non-citizen of India. The Supreme Court has emphasized that even those who
come to India as tourists also – “have right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity,
just as the State is under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen in this country, so also
the State is under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizen.10

9
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315
10
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 [9] According to Article 23 of the UDHR, everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment. Also, Article 25 of the UDHR, rightly postulates that everyone has the right to
a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other
lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[11] Henceforth, in the light of the aforementioned contentions it is firmly established that the
State of Zedellin has violated the Fundamental Right to livelihood to the people of Zedellin who
are detained in the detention centers, by not allowing them to earn money by working and
making use of their skills and faculties.
2. WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN, BY DECLARING THE CHILDREN OF
KUSTAVO KAVIRIA AS FOREIGNERS AND CONFINING THEM IN THE PRISON,
DENIED THEM THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION?
1. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court of Justice that the respondent, by declaring the
children of KustavoKaviria as foreigners and confining them in the prison, denied them the Right
to Education. Article 3(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009states, that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and
compulsory education in a neighborhood school till completion of elementary education 11.
Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Act states that when a child above six years of age has not been
admitted in a school or though admitted, could not complete his or her elementary school then,
he or she shall be admitted to a class appropriate to his or her age.12Article 45 of the Directive
Principles of State Policy states the provisions laid down for free and compulsory education for
children. The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the
commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they
complete the age of fourteen years.13

2.1. Importance of Right to Education in National statutes and landmark Indian Cases

11
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009,No.39,Acts of Parliament ,2009 (Zedellin)
12
ibid; article 4
13
Indian Const. Art. 45.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

2. According to Article 8(a) of chapter III of the RTE act, the appropriate government shall
provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child. 14The same was sustained in
the Joel S Joy v. Bank of Baroda case. 15In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, the SC held that
there is a constitutional right to education. The court also held that accessibility of education
should be realised for all people as education is essential to the fulfilment of fundamental rights
of dignity and life.16

3. Moreover, In Unnikrishanancase, the SC implied the right to education from the right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.17 Also, as the fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles are complementary to each other, the content and parameters of this right were
deduced in the light of Articles. 41, 45, 46. Subsequent to the decision in Unnikrishnan, the
Constitution(Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, introduced Article 21A which makes the right
to education a fundamental right. The article requires the State to provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by
law, determine.18It initiated provision that every child has a right to full time elementary
education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school satisfying certain essential
norms and standard.

4. In M.C.Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 19 where the SC held that
the right toeducation is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article21 of the Constitution and
that dignity of individuals cannot be assured unless accompanied by right to education.Other
cases where it was sustained are Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of Uttarkhand and others 20,
Harkishan v. State of Uttarkhand and others21, Smt. Aparna Nautiyal v. State of Uttarkhand and
Others22, Athar Mohammad and Another v. State of Uttarkhand and Others23, Master
ArkapravaBasu and Anr. v. Patha Bhavan and Ors 24,MRS. Rita PannalalKanojia v. The

14
Supra at 1; article 8(a)
15
Joel S Joy v. Bank of Baroda, W.P(C).No.26732 of 2017(N) Kerala HC, 21 Novemeber 2017(Zedellin)
16
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 AIR 1858
177
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh &  Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 645(India)
18
India Const. Ar. 21, cl. A.
19
MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, AIR 1997 S.C. 699( Zedellin)
20
Vijay Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of Uttarkhand and Others, Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1830 of 2011
21
Harkishan v. State of Uttarkhand and Ors, WPSS—2009/2011, Uttarkhand HC 26 Nov. 2015
22
Smt. Aparna Nautiyal v. State o Uttarkhand and Ors, Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1734 of 2014
23
Athar Mohammad and Another v. State of Uttarkhand and Others, Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1568 of 2011
24
Master ArkavravaBasu&Anr. V. Patha Bhavan &Ors, Calcutta HC 25 Jul, 2011.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

Principal, Lokmanya Tilak High School and Ors25,In the case ofM/S KanakadasShikshanaSmiti
v. State of Karnataka, it was decided by the SC that there is a fundamental right to receive
education free from fear and security.26

5. In the case of Maharshi Mahesh Jogi v. State of M.P. and Ors.the SC held that Right to life" is
the compendious expression for all those rights which the Courts must enforce because they are
basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. The right to education flows directly from right to life.
The right to life under Article21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is
accompanied by the right to education.27Under Article 15(3) of the constitution,the State
Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all
levels to its citizens.”

6. In addition to above, the National policy for children was adopted on 22nd August, 1974. This
policy, inter alia, lays down that State shall provide adequate services for children both before
and after birth, and during the growing stages for their full physical, mental and social
development, The measures suggested,include,promotion of physical education and recreational
activities, special consideration for children of weaker sections and prevention of exploitation of
children. The same was sustained in the case of R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. &Ors.28

2.2. Importance of Right to Education reiterated in International Doctrines

7. Article 19 of the Convention on The Rights of the Child(CRC) states that theStates Parties
shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent
treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s),
legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. 29Article 26 of the Universal
Declaration of the Human Rights (1948) inter alia states that ‘education shall be directed to the

25
, MRS. Rita PannalalKanojia v. The Principal, Lokmanya Tilak High School and Ors, Writ Petition No. 6144 of 2016,
Bombay HC 24 June 2016
26
M/S KanakadasShikshanaSmiti v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka HC(23 Feb 2016)
27
Maharshi Mahesh Jogi v. State of MP &Ors, Civil Appeal Appeal No.6736 of 2004, SC, 3 July 2013.
28
R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. &Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 559 of 1994, 13/04/2006

29
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 19,20 November 1989, United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 1577

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights
and fundamental freedom.Human Rights education is / has to be an integral part of the right to
education. Of late, it is recognized as a Human Right in itself.30

8. Other conventions where Educational Rights are mentioned areInternational Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)31, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR)32 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW).33 The international community reaffirmed the Right to Educationat
the World Education Forum in 2000. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) has, therefore, placed the right to education at the forefront of its
activities and the Education for All (EFA) is high on its agenda.

9. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court of justice that the petitioner has
been denied the fundamental right to education as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution.
The Home Ministry’s order dated 16 August 2013 is violative of the RTE Act 2009.The
Government has also violated International conventions of which India is a signatory such as the
CRC,ICCPR, ICESCR and CEDAW. The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner humbly
requests this Hon’ble court to see that the children of the petitioner be awarded their right to
education by providing appropriate educational facilities as enjoyed by any other child of the
country.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDALLIN HAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO

HEALTH BY NOT PROVIDING PROPER HEALTH FACILITIES TO THE
PERSONS IN DETENTION CENTRES?

[1] It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court of justice that the respondent i.e. the state of
Zedellin has indeed denied the right to health by not providing proper health facilities to the
persons in detention centre. The Supreme Court has emphasized in Vincent v. union of India that
30
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,217(III)A, Article 26(1) ( Paris,1948)
31
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(4), UN, Treaty Series 999
32
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, UN,
Treaty Series, vol.993
33
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW), Article 10

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. It observed that, “……maintenance
and improvement of public health have to rank high as these rare indispensible to the very
physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the
society of which the constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion,
therefore, is of high priority -----perhaps the one at top. 34” Article38 postulates that the state shall
strife to secure social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. Also, Article 47, a
directives principle, lays stress on improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs
injurious to health as one of primary duties of the state35.

3.1. THE LAW IN SHEELA BARSHEE V UNION OF INDIA

[2] In the landmark case of Sheela Barsee v Union of India the SC has given its verdict as
follows:-

"This Writ Petition discloses a disturbing state of affairs with regard to children below the age
of 15 years in jail. It is an elementary requirement of any civilized society and it has been so
provided in various statutes concerning children that they should not be confined in jail because
incarceration in jail has a dehumanizing effect and it is harmful to the growth and development
of children”36.

‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution does not merely connote the physical act of breathing nor
mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. The bare necessities, minimum and
basic requirements which are essential and unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the
right to life. Similarly, in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh37, the Supreme
Court had clearly quoted and held that: “By the term “life” as here used something more is
meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those
limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the
body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any
other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world”.38

34
Vincent v. union of India , 1987 AIR 990, 1987 SCR (2) 468
35
Indian Constitution; article 47
36
Sheela Barse & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 August, 1986, JT 1986 136, 1986 SCALE (2)230
37
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962, AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
38
Ibid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

[3] The same has been recognized by the court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,
reiterating with the approval, the above observations and held that the “right to life” included the
right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime
conditions39. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and
health. Another broad formulation has been widely accepted in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union
of India characterizing Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights 40. Bhagwati J. observed: “It is
the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from
exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath
from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39
and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and
strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse,
opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity
relief. “These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live
with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has
the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic
essentials.”41 He also held that “We think that the right to life includes the right to live with
human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing , and shelter facilities for reading , writing and expressing oneself
in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings”. 42
Moreover, section 14 and 19 of the Indian Prisoners Act 1894 has clearly stated that ‘prisoners
in jail still refrain his fundamental rights’.

3.2. LAW IN UNIVERSAL DECLERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

[4] Under Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, health is considered as
a crucial part as a right to an adequate standard of living43. The Right to Health was again
recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
39
Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
40
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Indian prisoners act 1894; section 19 and 14

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

Cultural Rights. The right to health is a fundamental part of our human rights and of our
understanding of a life in dignity. The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health, to give it its full name, is not new. Internationally, it was first
articulated in the 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), whose preamble
defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or infirmity. The preamble further states that the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without
distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

[5] Right to health, which is one of the most important rights for a person to live a dignified life
incorporated in the human rights, the doctrine of human right has been highly influential within
international law and global and regional institutions. They are commonly understood as
inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he
is a human being. Moreover, the Indian prisoners act 1894 under section 14 and 19 has clearly
stated that ‘prisoners in jail still refrain his fundamental rights’.44 However, Mr Jitendra Lodhi
and his government has jeopardized the life of people who are found to be illegal immigrants
from Zedellin by not availing to them the basic human right i.e. health care. Therefore, it is
humbly submitted to the Supreme Court that Mr Jitendra and his government has violated the
human rights and customary rights of the detainees by not adhering to the rules laid down.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE STATE OF ZEDELLIN HAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY BY BURGING INTO THE DETENTION CENTERS?

[1] It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court of justice that the respondent state of zedellin has
indeed denied the right to privacy by burging into the detention centers. The constitution of India
encompasses right to privacy under article 21, which is a requisite of right to life and personal
liberty, stressing on the term privacy. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India,
the honorable Supreme Court of India has upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right 45.
The nine page order signed by all the nine judges declares; “The right to privacy is protected as
an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the
44
Ibid.
45
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018, Writ Petition (civil) no. 494 of 2012.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution” 46. Everyone has the right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attacks. In R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharastha, the SC
observed that the court will not tolerate any safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be
imperiled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular method47.

4.1. THE LAW IN CHARLES SOBRAJ THROUGH MARIE ANDRE’O V THE

SUPRINTENDENT OF TIHAR JAIL

[2] In the case of famed Charles Sobraj through Marie Andre’o v. The Superintendent48, Central
Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978), Supreme Court Justice Krishna Aiyer rightly held that
imprisonment does not spell farewell to any fundamental rights. He further held that
imprisonment of a prisoner is not merely retribution or deterrence but also rehabilitation. He
observed, “Social defense is the raison d’etre of the Penal Code and bears upon judicial control
over prison administration. If a whole atmosphere of constant fear of violence, frequent torture
and denial of opportunity to improve oneself is created or if medical facilities and basic
elements of care and comfort necessary to sustain life are refused, then also the humane
jurisdiction of the Court will become operational based on Article 19. Other forms of brutal
unreasonableness and anti-rehabilitative attitude violative of constitutionality may be thought of
in a penal system but we wish to lay down only a broad guideline that where policies, with a
‘Zoological touch’, which do not serve valid penal objectives are pursued in penitentiaries so as
to inflict conditions so unreasonable as to frustrate the ability of inmates to engage in
rehabilitation, the Court is not helpless. However, a prison system may make rational
distinctions in making assignments to inmates of vocational, educational and work opportunities
available, but it is constitutionally impermissible to do so without a functional classification
system.49”

46
The Constitution of India 1949; Article 21.
47
R. M. Malkani vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 September, 1972, 973 AIR 157 1.
48
Charles Sobraj through Marie Andre’o vs. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978)  AIR 1975
SC 164, 1975 CriLJ 182, (1975) 1 SCC 192, 1975 (7) UJ 50 SC
49
Charles Sobraj through Marie Andre’o vs. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978)  AIR 1975

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

[3] Moreover, right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the 1948 universal
declarations of human rights, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation 50. Under
Article 12 of the UNDCR it has been explicitly stated that, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence or to attacks upon his honor and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
[4] The US Supreme Court in Mann v. people of lllinois 51 stated that life is not merely an animal
existence; the souls behind the bar cannot be denied the same. Therefore, its sheer fatuousness to
curtail the right to privacy, ignoring the laws laid down by the highest authority of the global law
makers and not adhering to the customary rules.

4.2. THE LAW ON PRISONERS AND THEIR RIGHTS

[5]The same has been recognized in D.B.M v state of Andhra Pradesh52 , whereby it was asserted
that the mere detention does not deprive the convicts of all the fundamentals right asserted in the
constitution. Furthermore, in D. Upadhay v State of Andhra Pradesh and ors, it had been
explicitly stated that, the right to fair treatment and right of judicial remedy are pre-requisites of
administration of prison of justice 53. In the last sentence, the right to fair treatment, extends to
granting them access to fundamental right, stated by the SC that “mere detention does not
deprive the convicts of all fundamental right asserted in the constitution” 54.[6] The rights
guaranteed by the Indian constitution under article 21 are applicable for everyone and not even
the state could deny it. Prisoners also have the rights which a free man has in some restrictions.
Just being in a jail doesn’t deprive anyone from their fundamental rights. Moreover, the SC had
declared privacy as a right which cannot be curtailed by the anyone nor the state in the following

50
Universal Decleration on Human Rights , article 12
51
Mann v. People of lllinois, Supreme Court USA, 09-1681, 09-2481 Nos. December 7 2009

52
D.B.M v state of Andhra Pradesh ,Supreme Court of India, 1974 AIR 2092, 1975 SCR (2) 24

53
D.Upadhay v State of Andhra Pradesh and ors, Supreme Court of India , 13 April, 2006, AIR 1308, 1989 SCR (2)
422

54
Ibid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

cases: Gokal Prasas v Radho55, Sunkara Satyanarayan v Union of India56, R.Rajagopal v State of
Tamil Nadu57, Rohit shekar v Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Ans 58, Khushwant Singh and Anr v
Maneka Gandhi59.

[7]The word prisoner means any person who is kept under custody in jail or prison as he/she has
violated the law of the land. Despite the fact that they are prisoners there is a greater fact than
that they too are humans, prisoners has basic legal rights which cannot be taken away from them
as the US Supreme Court had rightly stated that “life is not merely animal existence . The souls
behind the bar cannot be denied the same”60 .This basic legal; rights include; right to food, right
to have an attorney, protection against harassment, protection from torture etc.

[8] However, in the present scenario, the respondent state has jeopardized the life of people who
are found to be illegal immigrants from Zedellin by not availing to them the right to privacy,
which is the basic human right irrespective on any grounds. Therefore, it is humbly submitted to
the Hon’ble court that the respondent has thus has violated the human rights and customary
rights of the detainees by not adhering to the rules laid down.

55
Gokal Prasad vs Radho on 1 June, 1888, ILR 10 All 358
56
Sunkara Satyanarayana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Home on 15 October, 1999,  (1) ALD Cri 117, 1999 (6)
ALT 249, 2000 CriLJ 1297
57
R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N on 7 October, 1994,  AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
58
Rohit Shekhar vs Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr on 27 April, 2012,
59
Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi on 18 September, 2001, AIR 2002 Delhi 58

60
Mann v. people of lllinois, Supreme Court USA, 09-1681, 09-2481 Nos. December 7 2009

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited
the counsel for the petitioner most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble
Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1.      The State of Zedellin, by preventing the persons in detention centers from earning
money by working and making use of their skills and faculties denied the right to
livelihood.
 
2.      The State of Zedellin, by declaring the children of Kustavo Kaviria as foreigners and
confining them in the prison, denied them the right to education.
 
3.      The State of Zedellin has denied the right to health by not providing proper health
facilities to the persons in detention centers.
 
4.      The State of Zedellin has violated the right to privacy by barging into their detention
rooms.
 
The Respondent State additionally prays that the Court make any such order as it
may deem fit, just, and proper in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And
for this act of benevolence the Respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
 

                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

(Counsel for Petitioner)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER