IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______OF 2016

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

FRON

(PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF INDIA

(RESPONDENTS)

WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING IMMEDIATE AND NECESSARY RELIEF.

TO,

THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI
Group Members :

Devansh Bhargava

Devdatt Sukhadev

Harsh Sharma

Kartikey Sharma

From the side of appelant

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..3

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION. 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS... 5-6

ISSUES RAISED. 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8-9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..... 10-13

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

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

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

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

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

LEGAL DATABASES

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

BOOKS

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

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

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

LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Disaster Management Act, 2005
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

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

enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

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

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

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

conferred by this Part

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

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

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

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

provided for by this Constitution

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

the country. Most of the people in the country are below poverty line. The state is

economically backward as its economy is based on agriculture.

2. Although the state is economically backward as its economy is based on agriculture,

its people have earned the dubious distinction of constituently electing to power in

the state a particular political party which has always been the main opposition

party at the Centre.

3. It is alleged by the Government of state of Nidhistan that it has received a step-

motherly treatment at the hands of the Central Government which has affected all its

development efforts. This has resulted in the all-round under development of the

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

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

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

which have virtually pushed the people of the state into the jaws of starvation and

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

deaths have occurred due to starvation.

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

the Central Government to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet

the basic need of its people have met with little success.
7. The Fron an NGO, seeks to filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of India against the

Union of India with regard to intervention of this Honble Court for providing

necessary relief and compensation to citizens suffering from the harsh effects of

third consecutive drought year, which is snowballing and resulting in severe

livelihood crisis, severe malnutrition, starvation deaths etc.

1.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

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

ISSUE II:

IS THERE ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE

STATE OF NIDHISTAN?

ISSUE III:

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

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

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF
STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

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

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

ISSUE II

WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

TOWARDS THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN

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

ISSUE III

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

NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN VIOLATED

According to article 14 of Indian Constitution The state shall not deny to any person equality before
law and equal protection of law within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on the
ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

There has been a clear violation of article 14 as the central government has not provided fund to the
state government so the central government is not treating the state government equally.
ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS
OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

In a welfare state the primary duty of the state government is to secure the welfare of the people.
Article 21 imposes an obligation on the state to safeguard the right to life of every person.
Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance.

The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation in that regard on account of financial constraint
because the Respondent has failed in discharging their responsibility by not utilizing the resource
available for the purpose of drought relief, prevention of starvation and alleviation of misery.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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

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

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

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

It is submitted that the basic issues raised and reliefs claimed relate to right of an accused to have a
fair trial and not to be prejudiced by opinions and emotions generated by the press, a prayer for
cancellation of license of a newspaper and TV channel persistently violating above rights &working
to the prejudice of a fair administration of justice as laws & machinery on the subject are
inadequate and ineffective, prayer for guidelines on an issue having a direct bearing on fair and
impartial administration of justice and right of privacy. All these rights are granted by constitutional
provisions of Art.14, 21, 22 and 32; they would also determine the scope of Art. 19(1) (a) and of Art.
19(2), inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Art.129, 142 and 144. The petitioner is seeking
enforcement of fundamental rights, imposition of restrictions and laying down guidelines on
fundamental rights and invokes jurisdiction of the Supreme Court vested in it under Art. 32 and
other provisions of the constitution. The Writs are thus maintainable.
WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THESTATE OF NIDHISTAN?
Facts of the case clearly states that there has been discriminatory attitude from the central
government towards state government violate of fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the
residents of state of Nidhistan. As stated above the state government is receiving step-motherly
behavior at the hand of state government which has affected all its developmental efforts. clearly
mentions since the state ruling party and central ruling party have political differences due to which
sufficient funds has not been provided by the central government at the time of need.

Definition of Discrimination:-

Unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and
state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion,
educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or
sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or enforce one's rights to equal treatment are
provided in various federal and state laws, which allow for private lawsuits with the right to damages. There
are also federal and state commissions to investigate and enforce equal rights.

In the case

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

It was stated the fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of law guaranteed
by Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines in itself the persons right to be adjudged by a forum
which exercises judicial power in an impartial and independent manner consistent with the
recognized principles of adjudication.

Hence, here the respondent is being partial because of the political difference. Civil rights are being
violated; perhaps discrimination is evident in the facts above mentioned.

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

NIDHISTAN IN GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN VIOLATED

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

As Stated in the facts the state has to face three consecutive drought years which have virtually
pushed the people of the state into the jaws of starvation and death. It is alleged that the states
efforts to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have
meet with little success.

It is also stated Ranjnivas a tribal belt in the state is one of the worst affected areas where several
starvation deaths have occurred.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that, The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

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

Article 14 does not forbid:-

(i) reasonable and intelligible differentia and

(ii) Such differentia must be on a rational basis
(iii) It must have nexus to the object of the Act

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

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE

RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN HAS BEEN VIOLATED
As already stated in the facts it is already alleged by the state government that for the reason which
is more political in nature it has received a step-motherly treatment at the hands of the Central
Government which has affected all its developmental efforts. This has resulted in the all-round
under development of the state, putting its people to the great hardship in matter of the basic needs
such as food, shelter, pure drinking water and health facilities etc. It is also alleged that the states
efforts to get the adequate help from the Central Government to tide over the scarcity conditions in
the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have meet with little success.

The Respondents have abdicated their constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India which makes it mandatory for the Respondents to ensure the right to life of the citizens
which includes the right to live includes basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, pure drinking
water and health facilities and putting developmental efforts for the sake of the citizens.

The Respondents have failed to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013 whose very
purpose is to provide food security means and make available sufficient food-grains to meet the
domestic at affordable prices especially in drought affected areas.

Because the Respondents have failed in discharging their responsibilities by not utilizing the
resources available for the purposes of drought relief, prevention of starvation and alleviation of
misery; in a welfare State primary duty of the government is to secure the welfare of the people.
Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right of life of every person.
Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The State cannot avoid its
constitutional obligation in that regard on account of financial constraints.

Because the abdication of duties by the Respondents is in total violation and abject disregard of the
principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity and
others vs. State of West Bengal reported 1996(4) SCC 37.

Because the Respondents have ignored the principles let down by this Honble Court in Chameli
Singh vs. State of UP reported in 1996(2)SCC State 549 wherein it was held that .... In any organized
society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is
secured only when a man is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions
which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to life
guaranteed of any civilized society implies the right to food, water, shelter, education, medical care
and a decent environment. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. The civil,
political, social, and cultural rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and
convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human
rights....

Because the Respondents have ignored the fact that the right to life includes the right to live with
human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessaries of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing
oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human
beings as held by the this honorable Court in FarcisCoralie Mullin versus Union of territory of Delhi
reported in 1981(1) SCC, 608.

Because the respondents have adopted an un-scientific method of tackling the predicted situation of
drought and not taking appropriate steps to fight the human suffering, which amounts to abdication
of their constitutional duty and therefore, this Honble Court may compel them to take suitable
measures on a war-footing.
PRAYERS

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

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

states and provide immediate essential relief and compensation to their people to tackle the

present natural calamity.

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

compensation for crop loss and input subsidy for the next crop to the farmers affected by drought.

c) Issue any writ or direction, directing the Respondents to immediately make available food-grains

as specified under National Food Security Act, 2013 to all the rural people in drought affected areas

of state of Nidhistan.

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

to all the children covered by Mid-Day Meal Scheme or Integrated Child Development Scheme to

rural people in drought affected areas.

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

animals in the drought affected areas.

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

state of Nidhistan so as to prepare for any future drought.

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

circumstances.
FROM THE RESPONDENTS SIDE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY FRON, AN NGO ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE.

ISSUE II:

THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE STATE OF

NIDHISTAN.

ISSUE III:

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN IN

GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

ISSUE IV

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF

NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

ISSUE V

THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ALLEGING FALSELY THAT IT IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN AND

OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY The FRON an NGO ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE.

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

ISSUE II

THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE STATE OF

NIDHISTAN

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the facts of the case merely state that It is
alleged by the Government of State of Nidhistan that for reasons which are more political in nature
it has received a step-motherly behavior at the hand of state government.

There has been no discrimination on account of the Central Government and it is only alleged that
central government has inflicted a step-motherly behavior towards the state government for
reasons which are more political in nature.

ISSUE III

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN IN

GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

According to article 14 of Indian Constitution the state shall not deny to any person equality before
law and equal protection of law within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on the
ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

There has been a no violation of article 14 as the central government has provided help, though
allegedly1 not adequate, according to the state government as clearly mentioned in the facts it is
alleged that the States efforts to get adequate help from the Central Government to tide over the
scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have met with little
success.

1 Alleged- an allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defense.
Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions.
ISSUE IV

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE
OF NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

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

ISSUE V

THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ALLEGING FALSELY THAT IT
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN
AND OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT

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

THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY AN NGO FRON ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights
can be questioned on the ground of laches, where disputed questions of facts are involved or
enforcement of private or contractual rights is sought to be enforced but the facts involved are
disputed and allegations, until proven, are merely assertions .

Writ petition filed by the FRON on behalf of State of Nidhistan are therefore unreasonable and
henceforth not maintainable since the central government performed their duties, though not
adequate in the eyes of the state government. Right to equality, Right to life and Personal Liberty
has therefore not been infringed since the central govt. has done its part and the state government
has made wild assertions based on no factual evidences.

Facts of the case clearly state that there has been alleged discriminatory attitude from the central
government towards state government and has not been proven that any violation related to the
fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the residents of state of Nidhistan has occurred.

As stated above it is alleged that the States efforts to get adequate help from the Central
Government to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its
people have met with little success, clearly mentions since the state ruling party and central ruling
party have political differences due to which sufficient funds have not been provided by the central
government at the time of need.

As already stated in the facts it is alleged by the state government that for reasons which are more
political in nature it has received a step-motherly treatment at the hands of the Central Government
which has affected all its developmental efforts and that this has directly or indirectly resulted in
the all-round under development of the state, putting its people to the great hardship in matter of
the basic needs such as food, shelter, pure drinking water and health facilities etc.

These allegations by the state government are mostly politically in nature, in order to tarnish the
reputation of the central government.

It is also alleged that the states efforts to seek adequate help from the Central Government to tide
over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have meet with
little success.

As the appellant claims that the central government has abdicated its legal obligations to secure the
rights of its citizen has no supporting evidence and is based completely on the allegations made by
the state government, Hence this suit should not be maintainable.
THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION FROM THE SIDE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE
STATE OF NIDHISTAN

Facts of the case states that there has been alleged discriminatory attitude from the central
government towards state government violate of fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the
residents of state of Nidhistan. But it is not the truth as the state government has never asked for
the help in this issue and then also the Central Government has provided funds for the betterment
of citizen of state of nidhistan like all other draught prone states and hence there has not been a
presence of discrimination.

Definition of Discrimination:

Unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability.
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay,
right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race,
nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or
enforce one's rights to equal treatment are provided in various federal and state laws, which allow
for private lawsuits with the right to damages. There are also federal and state commissions to
investigate and enforce equal rights.

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

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE OF NIDHISTAN IN

GENERAL AND OF RANJNIVAS IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

The state government has baselessly alleged that the central government has been highly negligent
in performing their obligations which has caused enormous damage to the lives of the people,
though it is not the case.

The situation has been showcased as such for an agenda which is more political in nature as clearly
stated in the facts, It is alleged by the Government of State of Nidhistan that for reasons which are
more political in nature it has received a step-motherly behavior at the hand of state government.

The state government has misrepresented the situation on the ground without appropriate
research or being backed by any factual data or evidence to suggest otherwise. This only goes to
show that the PIL filed by the appellant is baseless and has a political agenda to it.

Not to mention the condition of economic backwardness of the state which existed even before the
consecutive drought for the third year, which reflects on the state governments inadequacy to
better improve the states economy when there was a chance to make an impact as stated in the
facts, Although the state is economically backward as its economy is based on agriculture, its
people have earned the dubious distinction of constituently electing to power in the state a
particular political party which has always been the main opposition party at the Centre.

As stated in the facts the state had to face three consecutive drought years which have virtually
pushed the people of the state into the jaws of starvation and death. It is alleged that the states
efforts to tide over the scarcity conditions in the state and to meet the basic needs of its people have
meet with little success.
The state government has shown a lack of interest in raising awareness to further prepare the
people for a drought even after the first year of the three consecutive droughts. Many agriculture
dependent states2 have prospered in India, by adopting scientific and reliable approaches to
agriculture.

The state government has neither implemented better approaches nor pushed to advance in the
field of agriculture whilst knowing that the state is highly dependent on agriculture and is facing the
consequences at the time being. In order to avoid the burden of their failure they have accused the
central government of ignorance.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF STATE
OF NIDHISTAN HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED

The facts of the case state that it is alleged by the state government that for the reason which is
more political in nature it has received a step-motherly treatment at the hands of the Central
Government which has affected all its developmental efforts; the allegation in itself is based on
reasons which are political in nature to tarnish the reputation of the Central Government.

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

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

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

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

2States such as Haryana and Punjab which are mostly dependent on agriculture have shown a positive
approach and managed to reap the benefits of modern day advancements in the field of agriculture. With
growing emphasis on agricultural education and the need to understand a better approach towards irrigation
and modern techniques these states have managed to overcome and prosper, whilst contributing massively to
the countrys GDP. The highest contribution to the GDP from the agriculture sector (5217.45 crores) is in par
with the manufacturing sector (5407.38 crores).
Act, and thereby relieving the Central Government of all allegations made by the State Government
of Nidhistan

Because the appellant has failed to understand the implementation of the Act whilst upholding the
State Governments allegation which was aimed at defaming the Central Government of heinous
crimes such as forcing starvation on the people of the state of Nidhistan and also shrugging off their
responsibility and liability3 on the Central Government instead of accepting its failure in managing
the states welfare and responsibilities for reasons which are political in nature.

THE NGO FRON HAS DEFAMED THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ALLEGING FALSELY THAT IT
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NIDHISTAN
AND OF RANJNIVAS TRIBAL BELT

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

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

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

Definition of Defamation

3 Liability: n. one of the most significant words in the field of law, liability means legal responsibility for one's
acts or omissions. Failure of a person or entity to meet that responsibility leaves him/her/it open to a lawsuit
for any resulting damages or a court order to perform (as in a breach of contract or violation of statute). In
order to win a lawsuit the suing party (plaintiff) must prove the legal liability of the defendant if the plaintiff's
allegations are shown to be true. This requires evidence of the duty to act, the failure to fulfill that duty and
the connection (proximate cause) of that failure to some injury or harm to the plaintiff.
4 Madan B. Lokur, J. In judgment of the case, Swaraj Abhiyan V. Union of India & Ors.
Defamation is defined under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code as, Whoever, by words either spoken
or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person.

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

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

1. Dismiss the writ petition.

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

of Nidhistan and of tribal belt Ranjnivas.

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

citizens of State of Nidhistan and of tribal belt Ranjnivas.

Or

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