Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
IN THE MATTER OF
VERSUS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .II
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.....III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.VIII
STATEMENTS OF FACTS.........IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES....X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.1
1.
II
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Paragraph Number
&
And
AIR
Anr.
DPSP
IT Act
IPC
No.
Number
Ors.
Others
RPA
p.
Page Number
pp.
Page Numbers
s.
Section
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
ss.
U/s.
Sections
Under Section
U.N
United Nations
v.
Versus
Vol.
Volume
International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
ICTR
ICCPR
UDHR
ECHR
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
S.NO
CAUSE TITLE
CITATION
12. Punjab Higher qualified teachers union v. State of (1988) 2 SCC 407
Punjab
13. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
AIR 1951 SC 41
20. Dulari Devi and others v. State of Rajasthan and AIR 2015 Raj 84
Others
21. M.Mohamed Kutty v. State of Kerela
25. Re Semayne
IV
(2005)8SCC 534
Jamat
31. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
AIR1961 C 448
BOOKS REFERRED
DE,
INTERPRETATION
&
ENFORCEMENT
OF
FUNDAMENTAL
VI
STATUTES REFERRED
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WEBSITES REFFERED
www. www.lexisnexis.co.in
www.indiakanoon.org
www.manupatra.com
www.westlawindia.com
www.heinonline.org
VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Pammu.
VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Pammu is a quasi-federal country with a rich cultural history. The Sabka Vikaas Party
in Pammu had won the general elections in 2004 and also in 2009. The next elections
were scheduled for May 2014.
2. During its tenure, SBP introduced a Bill in December 2013, which sought to bring in
an amendment in the Representation of Peoples Act in order to introduce certain
educational qualifications for being eligible to contest polls for Member of
Parliament. It was strongly opposed by all the opposition parties which resulted in the
entire session of Parliament being washed out. This stemmed in a lot of financial loss
for the government as far as the central exchequer was concerned.
3. Later, the Representation of Peoples Act (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 was
issued which laid down eligibility criteria that a candidate must have passed class 10
of the Board of Secondary Education or its equivalent for contesting in MP elections.
4. SBP won the 2014 elections and after a few months, the Telecom Ministry came out
with an Order (Telecom Order) directed to the Internet Service Providers to control
free and open access to around 900 porn sites. There was a vehement outcry in the
nation following the ban.
5. The Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 which imposed criminal
sanction on slaughtering of cows, bulls and bullocks, selling of beef and as well as
consumption of beef was also introduced by the SBP government.
6. In light of the above, Mr.Mootkar Ritwick Roshan approached the Supreme Court of
Pammu under Article 32 of the Constitution that his right to contest the elections has
been affected by the ordinance. NGO Common Cause filed two separate petitions in
the Supreme Court against the so called porn ban and the beef ban. The NGO also
intervened in the writ petition filed by Mr.Roshan.
7. After preliminary hearing on the matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to hear the
petitions. For the sake of convenience, the Supreme Court decided to club the matters
as the petitioners and the respondents were same in all the three cases.
IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER
THE
REPRESENTATION
ORDINANCE, 2014
OF
ISSUE 2
WHETHER
THE
TELECOM ORDER
ISSUE 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
THE
(THIRD
AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE
2014
IS
ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE
ELECTIONS.
It is humbly submitted that the present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution, as the fundamental rights of the petitioner is violated in this case. The logical
interpretation of the Preamble will show that a hardworking, right thinking citizen of this
Nation cannot be deprived of his right to represent the people, on the ground that he does not
possess certain educational qualification. The impugned ordinance transgresses Articles 14,
15 of the Constitution of Pammu and it clearly defies the Preamble of the Constitution.
ISSUE 2
THE
REVENGE
PORN IS
It is humbly submitted that the Telecom Order is violative of the fundamental right of privacy
guaranteed to the citizens of Pammu enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ban
on pornography is a regressive measure since the term revenge pornography does not fall
under the ambit of obscenity. The government has failed in enacting effective legislations to
curtail the proliferation of revenge porn by punishing the incriminators, instead has banned
900 porn sites.
ISSUE 3
THE GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN AND GAUSAMVARDHAN ACT OF 2015 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It is humbly submitted that the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act of 2015 is
unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 25 of the
Constitution of Pammu. This unreasonable ban affects the livelihood of people from local
butchers to leather manufacturers. It will also have a serious impact on Pammu economy. It is
clearly unconstitutional to determine the food habits of a person or a community.
XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE
(THIRD
AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE
2014
IS
ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE
ELECTIONS
The Union of Pammu has witnessed lakhs of citizens who have not even seen the footsteps
of school becoming great personalities in various fields and also having represented the
people of the Nation in the Parliament. Such being the case the present ordinance is ultra
vires to the Constitution and should be declared null and void.
1.1. There is no immediate necessity for promulgation of ordinance under Article 123 of
the Pammu Constitution
The powers of the President to promulgate ordinances are laid down clearly under Article
123.1 It states that the President shall promulgate Ordinance only if he finds necessary
circumstances are in existence and that immediate action is of the necessity. It is
imperative to note that the two words, namely, necessary circumstances and immediate
action are the key elements with regard to promulgation of an Ordinance.
In Wadhwa's case2 the Supreme Court expressed concern about the continuous misuse of
the ordinance power. On the question of the review power of the Courts on ordinances, the
Court has power to review ordinance post Bommais case,3 where it was clearly
pronounced that judicial review is permissible. Therefore the Presidents Ordinance
making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review4.
In RC Cooper v. Union of India5 the Supreme Court, held that
the Presidents decision could be challenged on the grounds that immediate action was
not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to bypass debate and
discussion in the legislature.
1
Art.123: Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament, (1) If at any time, except
when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it
necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to
him to require.
2
D.C. Wadhwa & Ors v. State Of Bihar & Ors,1987 AIR 579
S.R .Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, The Court ruled that the satisfaction of the President
while making a proclamation of Ordinance is open to challenge on the ground of mala fide or being based
wholly on extraneous and or irrelevant grounds.
4
AK Roy v. Union of India, 1982 SCR (2) 272
5
RC Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 SCR (3) 530
3
Under Article 123 when the satisfaction of the President is questioned on the ground of
mala fide, it cannot be brushed aside as a political question i.e. beyond the ken of the
Courts.6 Further, the power to promulgate an Ordinance is essentially used to meet an
extraordinary situation and it cannot be allowed to be perverted to serve political ends.7
An Ordinance8 unlike an Act is to be very carefully scrutinised by a Court if it is
challenged because an Ordinance is an unfettered, unbridled power to promulgate
provisions which have the effect of law without their going through the constitutionally
prescribed process.9
1.2. The impugned Ordinance defies the Preamble of the Constitution
The Preamble of our Constitution emphatically portrays the object and the purpose in
unequivocal terms forming the basic structure of the Constitution.10 More specifically,
equality of status and of opportunity to promote among them all, is the basic foundation
of the Constitution and the very purpose of the representative institutions in the country is
to give equal opportunity to all including those who do not have formal education in
schools.
Prescribing educational qualification is directly in violation of the Preamble of the
Constitution and at the outset has no object sought to be achieved. Contrarily it is a serious
assault on the participatory democracy which is an integral part of the basic structure of
our Constitution. The Preamble contains the ideals and aspirations11 or the object which
the Constitution makers intended to be realised12 by its enacting provisions.13
Equality before law-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
14
15
In the case on hand, the prime inequality is created on the basis of educational qualification which is totally
irrelevant and insignificant in respect of the duties and responsibilities of the members of parliament. The
personality and capability of a candidate contesting in the election will be assessed by each and every citizen at
his wisdom and he is free to elect any candidate whom he feels best to serve the particular constituency.
In Ismail v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj 96, The Honble High Court of Rajasthan has recognized such a
distinction as unreasonable and arbitrary stating that, If it were provided in the Rule that the minimum
qualification of literacy would be that the candidate should have passed the first primary class from a school,
then it would have excluded all those persons who had studied privately and not joined any school. That
provision would have worked to the detriment of more persons and it would have unreasonably excluded those
literate persons who had studied privately or in an unrecognised school and who were otherwise more literate
than the persons who had passed the first primary class.
16
17
The classic nexus test as a basis of determining constitutionality with respect to Article 14 was enunciated by
S.R. Das, J. in the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,17 thus :"In order to pass the test of permissible
classification two conditions must be fulfilled:
(i)
(ii)
that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others left out of the group,
That the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. The
differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct and what is
necessary is that there must be nexus between them."
18
rights under Article 14,23 Article 21.24Article 14 embodies guarantee against arbitrariness25
and equality cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire
limits.26
Prescription of educational qualification for contesting elections in any democratic
institution, unless there is strong nexus with the object, to be achieved, is an anti thesis to
the democratic governance of the institution in a Republic27.
The object of Article 14 is wider and is to ensure fairness and equality of
treatment.28Therefore through the impugned ordinance a candidate who does not possess
particular educational qualification cannot be denied his right to contest. It is
discrimination29 and violates the equality clause.
1.4. The
Ordinance
createsgender
inequality
and
denial
of
opportunity
to
23
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of
birth or any of them
31
32
Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children
Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, C.W.P.No. 18112 of 2015
This Ordinance also infringes the rights of socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens whose rights under Article 15(4) are denied.33 The State instead of implementing
the rights of the citizens under Article 15 are breaching into the welfare provisions enacted
for the advancement of women and underprivileged by denying them the opportunity to
contest in elections.
The poor, underprivileged and downtrodden, cannot be denied participation in a
democracy merely on the ground that they do not have educational qualification for such
inclusion.34 The impugned Ordinance, leads to denial of opportunity to rural population
and women whose literacy rates are comparatively lesser.35 This kind of selective
discrimination is obstructing the participatory democracy by denying equal representation
from all sectors of the population.
1.5. The disqualification of candidature based on educational qualification is invalid
The provisions of the Ordinance is clearly inconsistent with Article 21 of Universal
declaration of Human Rights, 195036 and Article 25 of The International Covenant for
Civil and Political Rights 1973,37 which provides right to every citizen to take part in
public affairs and contest election without any unreasonable restrictions.
The term literate was defined in the 2001 Census38 which clearly states that it is not
necessary for a person to have received any formal education or passed any minimum
33
Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes
34
Supra note 27
35
The literacy rate of Pammu in 2011 Census works out to 74.04% and corresponding figures for male and
female are 82.14% and 65.46%. The literacy rate in the Country according to census 2011 is abysmally low with
rural women's literacy much lower than the average.
36
Art 21 of UDHR, Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic
and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by
equivalent free voting procedures.
37
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2
and without unreasonable restrictions:(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely
chosen representatives;(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the
electors;(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
38
Literate is a person aged 7 years and above who can both read and write with understanding in any language
has been taken as literate. It is not necessary for a person to have received any formal education or passed any
minimum educational standard for being treated as literate. People who were blind and could read in Braille are
treated to be literates.
educational standard for being treated as literate. So a person might not have educational
qualification but can still be a literate.39
The State has failed in its obligation to provide the infrastructure to build the education
system40 and hence cannot insist by law that candidates in order to contest election ought
to have a certain minimum education. While passing legislations, the State must analyse
the social, political and economic conditions of the country and pass suitable legislations.
This particular Ordinance has been passed when the country is still suffering from
illiteracy and lack of primary schools and infrastructure and the duty of the State is to
provide education as laid down in Article 21A41 and The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009.42 But the State instead of implementing the Act
is shifting its liability to the citizens by imposing such eligibility criteria to contest in
elections.
Therefore, it is clear that this Ordinance is unconstitutional and has been passed without
due application of mind and in utter violation of constitutional principles. In addition to
this, if such ordinances are allowed to subsist or exist, the extraordinary powers given with
regard to an ordinance will be whittled down to a normal legislative alternative.
2. THE
REVENGE
PORN IS
The telecom order targeting websites promoting revenge porn is invalid as there is no
basis on which the government has banned 900 porn sites. Therefore it is arbitrary and
unreasonable, violating the right to privacy of individuals. Revenge porn is a unique act as
the intention is to cause harm by way of assault on the reputation of an individual.43
2.1.Difference between Obscenity and Pornography.
39
The impugned telecom order contravenes Right to Privacy bestowed under Article
21 of the Constitution.
The law of privacy is recognition of the individuals right to be let alone and to have his
personal space inviolate beyond the reach of Government. 47The scope of Art.21 was
enormously increased to include right to privacy as a fundamental right48 as it is an
essential ingredient of personal liberty.49
A persons house is his castle50and nothing is more deleterious to a mans physical
happiness and health than a calculated interference with his privacy.51
In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,52 it was held that right to privacy53 has acquired
constitutional status. The American and English Courts have held that it is implicit in the
44
The term pornography has been defined by the U.S Supreme Court in Miller v. California and it used the
definition of pornography made by Webster's Third New International Dictionary of 1969
45
Black's Law Dictionary followed the Millers test and defined pornography as material that taken as a whole
the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appealing to the prurient
interest.
46
State v. Thakur Prasad, 1958 All LJ 578
47
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)
48
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621
49
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, (1964) 1 SCR 332
50
Semaynes Case, (1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91; Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
51
Govind v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 SCR (3) 946
52
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994(6) SCC 632
53
Supra 51
concept of right to life and liberty. The same view was taken in Kharak Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others.54
According to William Blackstone, the law is so particular and tender a regard to the
immunity of a mans house that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated
with impunity.
2.3.Total ban on access to porn websites emasculates the fundamental rights of the citizens
There are no laws55to curb internet pornography, other than those relating to child
pornography. The agitation is not about liking or disliking porn, but about government
hijacking personal liberties of citizens.
There is no proof as to whether the websites banned are those of revenge pornography
because the SBP56 said that such websites were in bad taste, disrespected women and was
against the cultural tenets of Pammu.57Since there is no conclusive proof about the type of
websites banned, neither Section 67 of IT Act58 nor Section 292 of IPC59can be attracted.
In Shankarsan Krishnu Munda v. State of Maharashtra it was held that private viewing
of obscene film does not constitute an offence and if the obscene object is kept in a house
for private viewing and is not for sale, hire, public exhibition or circulation, the accused
cannot be charged under Section 292.
It is contended that such regressive measures portray the government as a totalitarian state.
Moral policing of State does not extend to a persons right to privacy. The concept of
culture is not denied, but, in the world of globalization, it is the prime duty of the
government to create awareness about the negative impacts of such pornographic websites
rather than taking regressive measures.
2.4.International instruments envisage right to privacy of an individual
The right to privacy is also given importance internationally by various covenants.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1963 SC 1295, Our constitution does not expressly
declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal
liberty.
55
Information Technology Act, 2008; Indian Penal Code ; Indecent Representation of women (prohibition) Act
56
SabkaVikas Party
57
Moot proposition , 3
58
Information Technology Act, 2008
59
Indian Penal Code , 1860
54
60
But, it will expose the governments proclivity to overlook the real underlying issues that
foster and perpetuate sexism, violence and exploitation against women. Denial will create
eagerness and eagerness will lead to crimes. A direct infringement on the right of citizens
by imposing a total ban is clearly untenable in the eyes of law.
The most effective way to combat revenge porn is through legislations on revenge-porn
specific laws.68 Due to the absence of effective legislations on revenge porn, the law
enforcing authorities are unable to take efficient measures to curb the revenge porn
menace. Thus specifically tailored revenge porn statutes are the best way to combat
revenge porn issues.69
The ICTR70 and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
also suggested to amend statutes to include revenge porn as a crime.71
3. THE
GAUVANSH
SANRAKSHAN
AND
GAUSAMVARDHAN
ACT
OF
2015
IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
This impugned Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g), 21
and 25(1)72 of the Constitution. Beef Consumption is a matter of personal choice and the
Act violates rules of Secularism since it is based on religious grounds. Right to life under
Article 2173 includes right to choose any kind of food. Beef is one of the most affordable74
sources of protein for poor people. Stricter anti-beef laws discriminate against tribals and
68
Mary Anne Franks, Combating Non-Consensual Pornography: A Working Paper (October 7, 2013)
Ibid
70
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
71
According to the ICTR, sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may
include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact. The ICTY held that, International
criminal law should punish not only rape, but all serious abuse of a sexual nature inflicted upon the physical
and moral integrity of a person by means of coercion, threat of force, intimidation in a way that is degrading
and humiliating for the victims dignity.
72
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
69
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.
73
Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
74
According to the Commentary on Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12,
the Right to Adequate Food (Article 11 of the Covenant), UN Document No E/C/12/1999/5, 12 May 1999,The
fundamental definition of right to food can be laid down as, the right to adequate food is realized when every
man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, have physical and economic access at all times to
adequate food or means for its procurement.
10
75
80
11
There is a distinction between the facts of the State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat81 and present case on hand. The facts of this case state that there is a ban on
selling and consumption of beef whereas in Mirzapur Moti case the Court did not dwell
on this point. Ban on selling and consumption will impair the livelihood of traders who
depend on beef related industry for their survival and this ban affects the fundamental
rights of farmers, butchers, beef exporters and every other citizen who is denied the right
to consume food of his choice. Therefore the dictum in Mirzapur case cannot be applied
here.
3.3. Impact on beef trade business
The rights of farmers, butchers, leather exporters and other middlemen involved in beef
related business stands infringed. The previously existing exemption of old and unfit cattle
for agriculture was reasonable as it created a balance between Article 48 and rights of the
butchers under Article 19(1)(g)82 but this Act imposed a blanket ban irrespective of age
and productivity.
To reconcile the rights of butchers to carry on their trade, and restrictions imposed on
killing of animals through several state laws, the Supreme Court earlier had adopted an
economic approach, viz, killing of useful animals could be prohibited but not of those
animals who have become economically useless to the society83.
Further, Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade. A provision infringing Arts 30184 may
and ordinarily will, infringe Article 19(1)(g) as well and so it can be challenged under
Article 19(1)(g).85
The prohibition imposed on the Fundamental Right to carry on trade and commerce cannot
be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in public interest, but merely to respect the
susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people.
81
82
12
86
Board of trustees of the port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandhkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545, If the right to
livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a
person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation
88
The Government must consider the livelihood of lakhs of people who are employed in meat export as they
could be rendered jobless which will also result in a substantial loss of revenue to the Government.
87
89
Livestock and poultry, World markets and Trade, Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, (October 2015), www.fas.usda.gov
90
Government of Pammu in its Directive has stressed export of meat and meat products as thrust area. Current
Foreign Trade Policy encourages export of meat. Ban has the potential to pull down Countrys annual GDP
growth rate by about 2 percent
91
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-on-top-in-exporting-beef/article7519487.ece
A complete ban on the slaughter of cattle is bound to cause overpopulation of these animals, upkeep, putting
pressure on grasslands, leading to degradation of local farm lands, and altering the local environment. Further,
there are international concerns, since cattle overpopulation contributes to higher methane production due to the
unique bovine bodily constitution and digestive process.
92
13
3.6. Right to Life embraces Right to food and health in its realm.
Pammu is a diverse country with innumerable cultural and social differences. There is
tremendous variation in food habits across the country. According to data released by
NSSO,94rural households consuming beef increased from 3.9% to 4% between 2010 and
2012 and urban households from 4.3% to 5%. As many as 80 million citizens in consume
beef, which includes buffalo meat.95Article 4796 impose an obligation on the State to raise
the level of nutrition and improve public health.
This Act is also in conflict with the National Food Security Act, 201397 which ensures
access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with
dignity. Beef is a cheap source of protein and fat for mainly those groups who already
have a high incidence of anaemia and malnutrition like women and children.98 Beef
sourced from buffalo or other bovine varieties is relatively cheap.
Thus, it is pleaded that the government cannot lay down laws as to what can be consumed
by its citizens. It is the liberty of the people to consume food of their choice and
interfering with this right is a clear violation of the Constitution.
93
For the small and marginal farmers, the burden of either burying or cremating 20 to 30 million animals per
year will be an expensive proposition.
94
97
An Act to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to
adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
98
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2002. USDA Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference, (NDB No: 13012)
14
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited above, it is
humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to
1.To issue a writ of declaration declaring The Representation of Peoples Act (Third
Amendment) Ordinance 2014 as void and unconstitutional.
2.To issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pursuant to the impugned telecom order
issued by the government and quash the same.
3.To issue a writ of Declaration declaring the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act
of 2015 as unconstitutional, null and void.
And pass any further Order or Orders in the circumstances of the present case which this
Honble court may deem fit in the light of Equity, Justice and good conscience for which the
counsel may forever pray.
xii